This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I too would love to jump in on this false accusation of vandelism as I too have been falsley accused of this for simply adding exact laws and regulation numbers and referrence number as to where to find said laws,every bit of what I wrote was 100 percent verifiable and factual,yet I believe in order to censore those fact they deemed them as vandelism,thus not allowing the public to view factual.accuuract,up to date knowlage,I truly believe there was a complete abuse of editing power in order to censore the truth,,the article is coca and coca tea,paita
WilliamJE removed a large number of references in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine articles. The references were to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVD set but they included a link to the Wikipedia article about the DVD set, which apparently caused him to believe they were circular references to Wikipedia. My attempts at engaging WilliamJE in discussion about the issue have been met with hostility.
[2] See also our respective edit histories and
[3] for more background.
What I am hoping for as an outcome here is that WilliamJE will engage in respectful discussion with me and show some willingness to collaborate. Dlabtot ( talk) 00:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I am a volunteer clerk/mediator with the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Above, WilliamJE claims "A wikipedia dispute resolution ruled on this" but provides no links to WP:DRN or any other noticeboard. Furthermore, DRN does not "rule" on anything. As it clearly states at the top pf WP:DRN: "This page helps determine consensus and reach compromises. It is not a formal process, so no binding decisions are issued here." (emphasis in original). WilliamJE, please refrain from making false claims about the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Also note that anyone can participate on DRN, and that some participants go to articles and fix obvious problems. This is normal and perfectly acceptable editor behavior, not a "ruling" by DRN. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Repetitious harassment by other user that contributes nothing to the conversation except to annoy and discredit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwan#Admins.27_closing_comments
Throughout the talk page, HiLo48 repeats the same thing again and again without actually contributing to the conversation.
Hilo48 disagrees with me on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495659581&oldid=495659219
Instead of discussing the issue with me, HiLo48 has chosen to harass me by repeating again and again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495718356&oldid=495718281 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495718904&oldid=495718356 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495719040&oldid=495718904
I ask HiLo48 to stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495936709&oldid=495935875
My second request to HiLo48 to please stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495937839&oldid=495937584
Improper use of language here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495967396&oldid=495962095
He contributes but with continued harassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496049127&oldid=496035141
No contribution, just harassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496049358&oldid=496049127
My third request to HiLo48 to please stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496056630&oldid=496049358
I inform HiLo48 that I think what he/she is doing is harassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496056992&oldid=496056771
Continued repetitious harassment while contributing nothing to the conversation: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496057566&oldid=496057072 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496061465&oldid=496060216 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496061649&oldid=496061465
Buster7's undo of my comments makes me think: "Buster7, Wikipedia says that we *should* sign our posts, not that we have to. I asked HiLo48 to stop, he/she did not."
It is normal social practice to wipe yourself after you deficate. You don't have to but it's a good idea. If you choose not to wipe, you run the assurred risk of being ostracized. FWIW...in RL, no one will wipe for you (unless your old and decrepid)...in WikiWorld there is a bot that will sometimes sign for you. You don't have any special powers or magnitism that allows fellow editors to know that you are the one "speaking". Signing helps us all. it helps this project. Your refusal to sign doesn't make sense. ``` Buster Seven Talk 13:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This editor came to my talk page [6] last weekend with a request I put edit summaries into articles he has on watchlist. I replied back. [7]
From the start he irked me because of his writing 'most of which appear to be insertions of notable residents.' My work he was talking about was TOTALLY the insertion of only notable people into Nebraska town articles. If this editor had checked my edit history at the time, he would have have seen two of my previous edits included my taking nonnotable people out of town articles.
He didn't like my reply, and responded here. In it he wrote 'This, I think is why we have WP:FIES; and why we have Template:Uw-editsummary' Which irked me more because he's threatening to put he later described [8] as an 'embarrassing template' on my page. I told him to 'Put up one instance of me putting one non notable into an article or get off my back.' He responded with the embarrassing template bit and no instance of what I told him to produce. So I replied at his talk page. [9] Saying- One more post to my talk page and I will report you to the proper wikipedia authorities for WP:Harassment. If you're so worried about wasting your time, you wouldn't be bothering me who has repeatedly asked you to prove one time I put something wrong into one of your watchlist articles.
He's posted to my talk page since then
I am being harassed and threatened and ask this editor to be warned to not ever post to my talk page again. ...William 18:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
All of you are forgetting something. I came here to get Ammodramus to stop posting to my talk page. Nobody has addressed that request. Let me ask all of you this- Would you be unhappy with an editor who keeps posting to your own page even though you asked him not to? ...William 22:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I've made the same request from this board too. Where is it required to put an edit summary in? Where have I made a bad edit on the pages he is so concerned about? Silence is the only response with the exception of people here trying to turn the crime victim into the bad guy. ...William
Even if this editor stops posting to your T/P, it is likely that others will stop by and ask you to add edit summaries. Why not add them? It will get this editor off your back, make it look like you are working cooperatively and prevent other editor's leaving you requests/warnings about not leaving edit summaries. This isn't about him and it's not about you, it's about everyone who edits here. Leaky Caldron 12:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
@William - You've made a reasonable request, and it appears to me that Ammodramus has as well. Could we just agree that these are both reasonable and say that each of you is willing to consider the other's request? In both cases, we have a situation where compliance is optional and so neither of you is required by policy to do what the other one is asking, but things would be much smoother if each of you could just acknowledge the reasonableness and make efforts to comply.
@Several of the editors here at Wikiquette assistance - I'd like to remind you that "Wikiquette assistance" is a voluntary process, and the goal is to help end conflict, not talk about "boomerang" consequences or being overly critical of the requester. While I might agree that William ought to just add edit summaries, he is not required to do so, nor is Ammodramus required to stop posting on-topic requests. The matter is entirely optional for each of them, and while I feel that Ammodramus has good intentions, there's no point in continuing to press William on this issue if he isn't going to listen. His failure to add edit summaries doesn't quite cross a line into breaching Civility, but it is an annoyance. Lots of things can be annoying on Wikipedia, and sometimes we just deal with them. I hope William takes another look at this, but it might have to be after several other editors pester him also before he decides that its just simpler to write a brief summary. Either way, I think this discussion has been fully debated, and it is probably getting near the point of needing to be closed. -- Avanu ( talk) 16:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There are several in-accurrate cooments and blatenly -un true knowledsge that has been deleted from both these items.Coca tea drug test do not test for cocaine,yet the writer ,bondea states this.Furthermore there were several laws and where to find these laws in the article,these have all been taken out.The person who put these laws in,did not make the laws.The united States Of america did,yet they are continually taking the referrences out.How do we get the truth out to the public when this ,'editore is constabntly editing the the laws out,thus the truth surrounding this item?...paita
deeming factual referrences as vandilism
I realy do not understand how factual referrences are deemed vandilism?paita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona ( talk • contribs)
I'm at a loss with regard to Armbrust's behavior in the AfD. He is taking a somewhat belligerent stance, refuses to acknowledge arguments and imho displays overall pointy behavior. First he dismissed most !votes he doesn't agree with out of hand as going against some AADD section (even after having been explicitly explained that this doesn't apply to reasoned !votes). Then, after he was repeatedly asked to stop this, he has now taken to SPA-tagging of IP comments he doesn't agree with. I'm sure he means well, but he is less than communicative nor insightful as to the appearance of his behavior. And his block log reflects a pertinent history. -- 213.168.108.25 ( talk) 16:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
This editor, Hypesmasher, has chosen to pick up userboxes from my user page and use them here as an attempt to discredit me. I have no idea whether the editor is homophobic, but it appears very much to be a homophobic attack. In such things the perception of the victim is of substantial importance. To pre-empt any criticism of my strong prior suggestion that he had had his fun, I accept that they perhaps should have been different in tone. Nonetheless that is no excuse for what I perceive as a homophobic attack.
I have read WP:COAL and am adhering to it. I judged that any attempt by me to seek to solve this by civil talk page messages would be unproductive, so I have no intention of interacting with this editor again, save to post the alerting template in their talk page. I rarely edit the article in question, and then usually simply to patrol it to delete uncited new 'facts'. I have not contributed to further discussions or edits in either location since this incident, and have chosen to wait until the matter was archived at DRN in order to allow time for any passions to cool. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 07:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Quoted from the archived DRN:
Lastly, editor Fiddle Faddle (who has suggested this change of venue) lists (among other things) on his Userpage...
This user is proudly out of the closet and gay. This user is a supporter of the LGBT community. This user supports equal rights for LGBT people.
These disclosures make me suspicious of Fiddle Faddle's true motives for interfering here and suggesting this disruptive venue change. I suggest that Fiddle Faddle perhaps has a conflict of interest which should disallow him or her from even nominating the AfD for this specific article at this specific point in time.--Hypesmasher (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, and for responding with it :) Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 16:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
It strikes me that the behaviour I perceive as homophobic could still do with being directly addressed with Hypesmasher. I'm grateful for the other actions. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 07:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Mostly at Talk:DOS/Archive 2#DOS_is_not_a_multitasking_OS
This is a highly technical content dispute (What defines a "multitasking" operating system?), but beyond that there are a couple of behavioural issues that have arisen and that are making any real discussion unpleasant, if not impossible.
I've tried to defuse some of this via article talk, but later comments led to a Canned message at User_talk:Asmpgmr
This is a highly technical issue. Worse than that, it's a subjective matter of opinion. No-one is really disagreeing with Asmpgmr on any technical detail, merely whether whatever it was that DOS did warrants one label or another. Yet within this toxic environment, it's impossible to work towards achieving any of that.
Secondly, we see lots of edits in the history that all boil down to "I disagree with one point in this section, so I'm blanking all of it". That's not the way we're supposed to work here (and usually don't), but in this case it's impossible to do anything about it. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I haven't attacked anyone, I used no foul language and called no one any names. I have stated fact not opinion time and time again and provided links supporting this. That you and the other user choose to reject it is the problem. Yes this is a matter of a lack of technical understanding of DOS, BIOS and multitasking.
As I said on the talk page if you want to make the ludicrous argument that DOS is multitasking operating system then prove it:
DOS is not a multitasking OS, this is a matter of fact not opinion. Also I would say the worst thing here is putting incorrect information on Wikipedia. All I'm doing is making an article which I happen to know a lot about a better article by correcting inaccuracies. Asmpgmr ( talk) 16:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I have contributed to that article, and an other user:Jmh649 deleted my contributions, without discussion, without asking for refs, and without giving time to provide refs, and without stating statements that are not according to rules, and without allowing time to correct them.
I have reverted the deletions, and received a threat that I am edit warring, and that I will be banned.
Upon questioning, the user has deceived me by claiming, that primary sources can't be used at all in medical articles. ("All of the refs supporting this text are primary research papers", "The issue with your additions had to do with the references. The references where simply not appropriate", "The same thing as with all the content in question. It was not supported by proper references.", "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss.", and "For important medical information we use ideal sources." the last in reply to me saying "It does not state that non ideal sources can't be used".)
The user:Jmh649 does not have professional understanding in the area of the contribution, which he deleted, and after deleting them, he has contributed an error instead (mSv=mGy). This error is contradicted by the sources that are still used in the document. This prove that he have not read and understood the sources. Yet, he allowed himself to delete, without asking questions.
I think, that many of the sources, that back up the deleted contributions were adequate, but the contributions weren't edited in order to remove just inadequate parts, they were deleted in their entirety.
The content is currently being discussed at the article's talk page, and at the DRN, and I was referred here by the DRN, in order to discuss my complaint of unfair conduct.
I think that it is worth mentioning, that in his user profile page, user:jmh649 has stated that he is an ER doctor. An ER's income may be affected by the deletions that user:jmh649 has performed.
My reply was that I was told by jmh649 on the article's talk page - "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss." and that is pretty much saying you can't use primary sources period. I am surprised, that after that reply to you, you are bringing up the same straw man accusation again. Why did you bring it up again here?
Moreover, you Guy have replied to me "Primary sources can be used, but not the way you are trying to use them. They are to be used for things that are uncontroversial, uncontested, directly stated in the source (no interpretation or other use of your own knowledge or expertise allowed) and they have to be reliable sources.". This clearly indicate that jmh649 statement - "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss." is false. Clearly it is possible to use primary sources, and there is what to discuss - how they are to be used.
You said "On both pages our actual policy on Primary/Secondary sources have been explained in detail. Given these facts, I find the above accusation to be rather puzzling."
I have made many accusations, so you will have to be more specific, with regard to the primary sources my reply is that, if user:649 insist on deleting my contributions, just because he is not willing to accept primary sources at all, this goes against the policy.
As for the "ER" comment, I didn't assume anything, and I didn't write anything that is not true.
I have opened this section because you (Guy) have told me "As for the behavior you describe, DRN only deals with article content, not user conduct. WP:WQA deals with user conduct.", I seem to have read on that, that you want me to report the described behavior of jmh649 here, and hence I did. I am new to Wikipedia, I don't know what these Wikiquette and DRN are about, thus I follow the suggestions of more experienced users, like you. In hind site, it seems like you didn't really want me to open a report here, did you? Is this going to affect your neutrality as our mediator at the DRN? Anyway, I welcome you to this debate, you are the first responder, btw, how did you learn of it? I have only sent a message about it to jmh649.
79.182.215.205 ( talk) 05:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I think, that the major disagreement between us, is if Doc James categorically denied my use of primary sources. I think he did. I really don't understand why you think different. Maybe me and you speak a different kind of English. He eventually said "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss.". How do you interpret that?
79.182.215.205 ( talk) 08:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
79.182.215.205 ( talk) 19:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Let it be noted, that jmh649 did not participate yet in this discussion regarding his conduct, nor did he participate yet in the discussion at the DRN regarding content he removed.
79.182.215.205 ( talk) 23:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
79.182.215.205 ( talk) 01:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Other things you removed because you didn't understand them. Why do you edit what you don't understand?
79.182.215.205 ( talk) 06:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been offended by the inexcusable conduct of a wikipedia account holder. This wikipedia account holder's word choice on talk pages and edit summaries and methods of handling and creating conflicts is clearly in violation of wikipedia policies and essays on WP:DR and described best as bullying.
Specifically, this wikipedia account holder has a self acknowledged habit of using profanity and sarcasm to negative effect on wikipedia. This behavior seems to contribute to conflicts with other wikipedia account holders(Note: i do not want to be accused of mass canvassing in the process of trying to determine if others feel the same. That is why I have only tagged one wikipedia account holder) and I am personally offended by the rudeness and cannot take this lack of respect towards myself and other wikipedia account holders lightly any longer. The wikipedia account holder in question's pattern of conduct is creating a poor environment to accomplish the goals of improving the encyclopedia on wikipedia.
I first became concerned reading comments on a talk page diff: [21] After reading this, I decided to politely ask this wikipedia account holder to refrain from using profanity. Instead, he reverted by new section and used more profanity in the edit summary.
More Diffs displaying usage of profanity in edits and edit summary:
More Diffs displaying violation of Staying cool:
I Highly suggest wikipedia account holder to take a wikibreak and return with a peaceful and constructive attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.35.69 ( talk • contribs)
I claimed that this editor (and others) were pushing a nationalist agenda. I reverted the wholesale removal of an entire section that made a host country in the tournament look back as vandalism. Editor responded that it was a personal attack when reverting. I commented on the editor's page that the action did not constitute a personal attack to which I tagged the editor responded with a direct personal attack and profanity. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
05:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 79.182.215.205 ( talk)
Accusing someone of a nationalist POV is not a personal attack. When someone is a vandal, accusing them of vandalism is appropriate as well. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking at a map at History of the Jews in the Land of Israel, I noted that the legend, reading
The Iron Age kingdom of Israel (blue) and kingdom of Judah (tan), with their neighbours (8th century BCE).
The map is not a representation of facts as the legend implies, but an imaginative reconstruction of the kingdoms. The nature and extent of the two is a matter of strong dispute between archeological minimalists (and maximalists. So I added that the map has been drawn ‘according to the Bible’, which happens to be, as everyone knows, virtually our only source for these reconstructions.
Til Eulenspiegel reverted it with the edit summary ‘doubt it's the Bible, which indicates Ammon and Moab were conquered by Israelites even before the west of the Jordan.’
So far so good, despite the loose grammar. I asked for clarification on his page, politely. And got this reply, which, incomprehensibly (to me) started a rant about ‘enemies of Israel’.
The evolving discussion confirmed to me that the editor, despite evasiveness, meant precisely what I took his original reply to mean, that he reverted me as an ‘enemy of Israel’, and took my edit to be characteristic of the behaviour of antisemites. That an extremely obnoxious charge and no comment in an exchange should even intimate it unless there are very strong grounds for saying so. Nishidani ( talk) 08:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what to do about this, but it's clearly not going to resolve itself.
I came to this article in response to two RFCs started by Media-Hound. (One of them still ongoing.) However, reading the talk page it quickly become apparent that the source of the problem is Media-Hound's tendency to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with him or her with bias, pov, and other insinuations. I tried to offer my opinion on this recent RFC, and all I got for my trouble was a 18,179 character screed accusing me and another editor of bias and insinuating that we're trying to sabotage the article out of some sort of systemic bias.
I'm not sure if Media Hound has explained what sort of bias he or she thinks we have. Which brings up the other issue. MediaHound's long posts are difficult to read and often not entirely coherent. But if someone asks for clarification they just get more abuse, and when the offending posts are simply ignored, he takes that as WP:SILENCE that gives him license to make changes to the article that people have previously argued against.
I know it's bad form to open something like this while the RFC is still open. But his reaction to the RFC is part of the problem. So I'd appreciate other eyes on the issue. Thanks. APL ( talk) 21:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm DEEPLY troubled by the statement that "Facebook groups controversy included only the US and the UK"
Do I need to explain why it is so wrong and so troubling, or can the systemic bias just be thrown under the bus once and for all?
List of countries by English-speaking population - I hope that this source is not too original!
You point to WP:RS which says; "Context makes a difference
"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context."
That is the standard I have been working to. It does seem odd that a source being cited repeatedly under "Origins" only "suggests" the origins are one thing, and yet reality shows otherwise from WP:V sources.
"Why did you link those three articles? WP:DGAF urges editors to be more mellow, and not let anything bother them. WP:IAR, urges editors to not get bogged down by rules lawyering, and WP:TTRLT urges editors to find unconventional solutions to problems. What were you trying to communicate by directing those at Kaldari? To me, they seem to have no relevance to anything else that's been posted here. APL (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
What are you trying to communicate here? Why are you asking questions about the person, and not addressing the subject and the issues of systemic bias that have been raised? The section to address those is Here(Link To Rfc)! WP:DGAF - WP:IAR - WP:TTRLT Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Be careful. If you spout nonsense and then refuse to explain it you probably eventually be blocked for uncivil editing. APL (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems like you're eager to use this wikipedia page to prove a point. It's not the point of Wikipedia to "build a case" to prove that something is real, or that something happens in all regions of the world. Wikipedia's goal is only to repeat that "case" that others have made. This is related to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth APL (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Well APL I see that yet again you are making comment about the person and not the subject- Maybe if you addressed the points made and left out your alleged views as to others it may be more productive. You did ask about the "RFC" at other places on this page. Again if you wish to pass comment the section for that is Here(Link To RFC) !
That's kind of a rambling word-salad, with a lot of unrelated pop-culture references. It's very difficult to determine what you're trying to say and even harder to take you seriously when you write like that.
You don't have to write with colorful, exaggerated prose. You're not in a chat room. If there's a problem with the article, why not simply say so clearly?
In any case, I've removed your inclusion of a screenshot from an unrelated television program, (Screen shot from Twilight Zone) as there is clearly no fair-use justification for this talk page. APL (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
APL again you make comment about writing style and the person and don't address the issues. You have had this pointed out before Ref the Rfc which you kept being directed to. I do find it odd that each time I have raided this issue of Calims being made to orogin you turn up and make comments about me, writing style and when directed even at your request to such matters as an Rfc ... you don't address the issues.
I think that covers it. (This worked out well. I watch-listed this page last time it was RFCed, and now I finally understand what's going on here well enough to comment.) APL (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
APL - Your comments do not address the concerns that there seems to be some Artful dodging of editing around issues.
What's next? An Rfc on Colon usage, or a request for Copy editor input?
You state I have an Ulterior motive - and yet you do not explain why you believe that is. That is Uncivil.
You keep making comment about me and not about page content - I have even had to provide you links to Rfcs when you kept seeming to get lost on this page. You never did find the place for comment to be made on the actual subject and about page content. If you believe that I have some form of Ulterior Motive kindly have it addressed in the correct manner, don't make loaded comment as a hit and run. Maybe the term Ad hominem should be used? Once is an accident - twice a coincidence - three times....?
If you have substantive concerns as to WP:COI do please act upon them in the correct manner.
If you believe me to be gaming the system - please act immediately and have the matter correctly addressed. I will welcome it, rather than being repeatedly made comment about rather than clear concerns as to page content addressed - and then maybe page content can be improved and less time and effort wasted.
It seems like you're eager to use this wikipedia page to prove a point. It's not the point of Wikipedia to "build a case" to prove that something is real, or that something happens in all regions of the world. Wikipedia's goal is only to repeat that "case" that others have made. This is related to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth APL (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I have done some more reading and see that Media-Hound is causing a serious amount of disruption—just a glance at User talk:Pi.1415926535 shows that some form of topic ban may be necessary. Of course a topic ban is outside the jurisdiction of WQA, but I am mentioning it in an attempt to alert MH that their behavior will change—either by learning how to collaborate, or by community sanction. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Please see Rfc
Talk:Rape_culture#RFC_-_Multiple_Factors, which addresses Synonymic Usage, Quotations, Sources. Thank you.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (
talk) 20:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if it warrants a posting here (or if it even goes here), but I was mildly shocked by the conversation found here. -- Toccata quarta ( talk) 07:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The issue started with a content dispute about volume numbers on the List of The Punisher comics article. Specific changes were reverted by me and a couple IP editors, but were constantly re-reverted. When I left messages on the editor's talk page about edit warring [31], the editor continued to disregard my attempts at coming to a consensus, and continued to revert the page to their POV.
Because of this edit warring, the page was protected, in order to force a discussion on the talk page of that article. I admit that I am not without fault, but my attempts to get Snakebyte42 to calm down and stop taking things personally, only served to anger him further. Therefore, the talk page discussion quickly led to a request for dispute resolution, because of incivility and personal attacks.
Guy Macon volunteered to moderate the DRN, and was eventually able to get us to focus on the content dispute at hand. After understanding Snakebyte42's intentions, I eventually made some changes to The Punisher: Purgatory article, which were in line with what he had intended on the List of The Punisher comics. However, after these changes were made, Snakebyte42 returned to the discussion at Talk:List of The Punisher comics and reacted negatively to comments that I made BEFORE we had our discussion at DRN. [32] I realize that this may be after the point, and I should probably just let it go, but I do not feel that I did anything to deserve being called an "absolute fucking twat", and I think that Snakebyte42 still needs a lesson in civility. Fortdj33 ( talk) 21:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Sleddog116: Before this escalates too far, I would like to weigh in on the discussion. I am a regular volunteer on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and I had been watching the case in question (though I have remained uninvolved in the dispute since User:Guy Macon had been the primary clerk). First, I would like to point out that I'm not a regular watcher of this page, so if I make any missteps here, please forgive me (and correct me). I'm commenting here because Snakebyte asked for my assistance. He has only been active on the project for about a week, so he's still learning the ropes, and I'm trying to (informally) help him learn his way around so that we don't scare off a potentially valuable contributor. To Snakebyte42: You read what I posted on your talk page. I got the impression from your post on my page that you wanted "tough love" if necessary, so I'll give it: calling someone an "absolute fucking twat" is never acceptable, regardless of whether you think the other editor deserves it or not. That sort of personal attack is enough to get you blocked very quickly (I'm not an admin, but I've been around WP long enough to know that). If something escalates to the point where you feel like you need to say something like that, you need to recuse yourself from the case, at least temporarily. As I have told you before, it takes two to fight. Whether the other guy is legitimately causing problems or not is no excuse for that kind of incivility. Wikipedia is not the place to have a battleground mentality, and no article - whether about a comic book series or a major world religion - is worth becoming enraged. To Fortdj33: While it's true that Snakebyte had absolutely no excuse to speak to you in that manner, you are complaining about the issue going to DRN. Our dispute resolution processes exist for this exact reason. He was trying to correct what he sees as a problem with the article, and it is clear that you and he hold different opinions that could not be resolved through normal talk page discussion. DRN exists for exactly such situations. Even though Snakebyte's conduct was, indeed, out of line, that is no reason to dismiss him out of hand. I would like to suggest that the two of you return to DRN and avoid escalating this issue here - I think we can work through this personality conflict, but not if both of you don't assume good faith. Since Guy Macon has stated he will be busy, I have no problem taking the case, and I will enlist the help of experienced DRN volunteers if necessary. What do you say, guys? I think we can work this out without having to go through with all of this, don't you? Sleddog116 ( talk) 23:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'd hate to see you leave over this, but as I've been telling you, it isn't worth getting frustrated over. I'd strongly echo what Taroaldo said on your talk page. I'd even go a step further and suggest that you take a look at the Comics Project Page - I saw you editing the Spidey stuff, and I think if you take a look at that page, you'll find a lot of articles that aren't getting enough attention. You'd probably be quite valuable to the project. I don't see your proposal as not being acceptable, but I don't speak for consensus. Sleddog116 ( talk) 00:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Editor 202.128.18.230 left a personal attack on my talk page. I warned him, and he removed my warning and reverted one of my edits apparently out of sheer spite:
Thanks for your help. — 70.105.24.9 ( talk) 21:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
To Eraserhead, I agree to follow by the rules of Wikipedia. The first thing this user did was make a condescending or childish comment when editing what I had edited on the Eric Delko article. The tiny thing was, it was because of a difference between a "but" and "however". It was tiny. And s/he had the nerve to make a condescending reason as to my edit being "terrible" when s/he admitted that his/her editing was not as good as mine.
This is not about who made the better editing. I know that I wrote it accurately, so I do not want to waste time being insulted by anyone, stating that my editing or grammar was terrible or poorly written in a childish manner, even before the user admitted to not having a good editing. If there is a possible way for this user to stop harrassing me, please let me know so I can edit without him/her resorting to idle threats against me any further. I erased his/her comment on my talk page because it IS MY talk page, as s/he also has the right to delete MY comment from HIS/HER talk page if what I said bothers this user so much. While I am mature enough to admit that my comment on that user's talk page was an attack, I choose not to further fuel the flames for this individual's personal feelings.
I edit an article mainly if something new about that article needs to be written while I try to provide reliable sources to back up the updates to that article, to correct grammar (maturely), or if an important information needed to be written within that article. That's it. I hardly care about grammar or punctuations, but that's just me. If this user wants to make a big deal about whatever I put on MY talk page, then there are certainly some problems this user has beyond any notion(s) that I am out to insult him/her, which I have NOT done for days, nor do I have anymore intentions to. I have a life, a busy one. I have a good family, a good home. I am not gonna waste time caring about whatever personal problems this user, or any user, has just because I deleted his/her comment on MY talk page, or because I reverted to what is accurate writing. I reverted it like I am sure any editor would revert any editing when that editing has a condescending or childish reason.
I would like to take this important matter to the appropriate place for I feel stalked and harrassed by this individual, who apparently has difficulty steering away from MY talk page, MY contributions, or anything remotely having to do with ME. I would like to use Wikipedia with no more worries about my time here by one individual out to get me just because I commented on his/her talk page. I have absolutely NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in further communicating with this person from here on in. If there is a way to block said individual from communicating with me, I will be happy to follow the instructions. Thanks. ( 202.128.18.230 ( talk) 12:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC))
Spadaro's last statement in the referenced subsection is defamatory and unjustified. I feel compelled to respond to it in order to prevent defamation from standing unchallenged. But I haven't responded yet because my review of Spadaro's Wikipedia history indicates that, in the past, responses have led to escalation of conflict until the whole thing got out of hand. I really, really want to avoid being compelled to respond to him but don't see how I can. I consulted with more experienced editors and was referred to dispute resolution. I went to a noticeboard and opened a dispute but it was closed because that particular noticeboard is only for article content disputes. So here I am. So far not a single blessed soul has bothered even to glance at the material I've referenced; if you don't, at least please provide a reason why you believe it isn't necessary. Guyovski ( talk) 03:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Considering Vecrumba's recent contributions have been involving a dispute with me, I am pretty sure that this was a gross personal attack aiming at either me or User:Paul Siebert. While I understand that our dispute at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states got hot at times due to a flood of personal attacks by our opponents, they usually stayed borderline civil (although I would appreciate your input on this as well). Calling me or Paul "racist trolls" was well over the line. ( Igny ( talk) 09:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC))
Exceedingly hurtful incivility (check: set 01 and set 02). The editor has gone into edit warring, name calling, and overall bad attitude taken to near extreme. Please, run a little check if you need. I strongly believe this editor needs a bit of explanation about the need of civility in a collaborative environment. I'm hurt. But, I think I can live with it. But, bad attitude like this isn't too good for the Wikipedia. Aditya( talk • contribs) 11:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Situation
I expect that the above editors will follow the spirit of civility and remove the names to other editor (and messages to other editor)from their barnstars [33]. -- DBig Xray 14:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I've remarked this NWQA after this reversion. Note I have 996 WQA edits, so I think I qualify as a "regular." Nobody Ent 18:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
hi. i wasn't using wikipedia for very long and didn't do much editing as you can see from my contribs. when i made a change to cleavage (breasts), this user reverted this change. george ho told me it was because i shouldn't remove material even if i can't find something to support it in the references, so this was my fault. because of this change, it seems ken thinks i am this user bouket. he then undid many of my other changes and refuses to explain it. he also told me to stay off of his talk page. here is the change to cleavage that he undid [34]. here is one where i found that the melon band page lists percy jones but didn't have a link. i linked the two, does this usually need a reference? is that why it was removed? [35]. in this edit [36] he reinstated a death date for this person that is in the future. he claims it is a mistake, i guess maybe it was? anyway, george ho told me i shouldn't edit any of these pages anymore, even though i was editing them first and ken followed me to them. i feel like i can't edit anywhere now. should i just leave, since this is too much trouble and i started on a bad foot? thanks for any advice. george also advised maybe i could ask here about what i did wrong since i still don't understand it exactly. if i did something wrong, i would like it explained. hopefully i filled this out ok. JohnJeanBartiste ( talk) 08:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
On my own talk page, I further commented to George Ho:@George: Please do not encourage this person. If you take the time to read User talk:Bouket, you'd realize that JJB is undoubtedly the same person. I've chosen not to file an SPI for other reasons, but that does not change the facts on the ground. JJB's behavior is precisely the same as Bouket's was, his writing uses exactly the same style, the stance he takes of confused innocence matches Bouket's stance, and his habit of running to the Help desk, and to every editor he has had any positive interaction with, to "innocently" complain about "Ken" mirrors to a tee Bouket's behavior. They're the same person. If you have difficulty seeing this, perhaps you might want to ask one of your mentors to assist you in evaluating the evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
George Ho rather unhelpfully suggested that JJB come here, so here we are. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)George, it's my sincere impression that's he's not here to help the project and improve the encyclopedia, he's here merely to troll and cause trouble for people. He's very low-key about it, but that's what I get from his comments and contributions. I, personally, wouldn't waste a minute's time on trying to reform him, but YMMV, and I could be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Poster has been reverted several times at the above article, posts rude "warnings" on others' talk pages (
example), called user
LauraHale a
"Troll-Stalker" and told her
"Don't follow me around, Laura, or it'll get ugly",
removes warnings from his talk page, and even
shouts in edit summaries. His edits have been
criticised for lacking sources. --
Toccata quarta (
talk) 22:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
As I have already brought to attention issues regarding the article on Sōka Gakkai to the Administrators' noticeboard--- some editors have responded in support, also take into consideration the history of the talk. Nevertheless the somewhat derogative and insulting style of writing by user:Naveen Reddy is just not on. Maybe an editor could clarify some issues on etiquette. Thanks.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 17:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Fifelfoo has been exremely agressive, made threats and personal attacks by by twisting my words, making false accusations and insulting my character. I need some one to help so that he will leave me alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korentop ( talk • contribs)
I don't see any sign of Korentop quietly discussing the issue with Fifelfoo on the talk page. I suggest Korentop looks here: Wikipedia:CIVIL#Dealing_with_incivility for the first steps on how to respond to perceived incivility. I don't think the editor has tried to remedy the situation by discussing it (but diffs are welcome). IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Please understand, the issue here is not the differences of opinion. I went to the third opinion board, and while they ruled against me, I understand their reasoning. The reason I posted here, was Fifelfoo's reaction. Even now, on the talk page, you will see a tremendous difference in what Fifelfoo said and how the other users explained their reasoning. Granted, Fifelfoo did not say anything directly, but it does not take a genius to see he was repeatedly insulting both my intelligence and my integrity. I can handle both of this issues. The reason I posted here was 1) Fifelfoo deleted one of my comments on the talk page and 2) Fifelfoo's last comment a) grossly misrepresented my actions and b) implied I was in danger of some sort of consequences. I hope that clears things up a little. I apologize for any confusion I caused. I did not post on his talk page before posting here. I tried addressing the issue on the article's talk page. If this section needs to be removed, I understand and will go to the user's talk page first in the future. Korentop ( talk) 03:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I come seeking advice with unclean hands. I first acknoledge that my actions have been less than civil, however given the general level of discourse on the page, they are nearly saintly in their demeanor.
Today we had yet annother MMA SPA post a disparaging attack on myself. As this is par for the course I elected to speedily vanish the thread as per the header at the top of the page Civility is expected at all times by all contributors. New sections that do not conform to basic tennants of civility will be quickly archived.. In steps Agent00f, who enthusiastically will jump into any thread to shovel some dirt on me if the thread supports his way of thinking. I responded explaining why some threads disappear from the page quickly and use some moderately uncivil language suggesting that they should leave. A completely uninvolved editor HATs the conversation with the suggestion that it not continue.
Agent00f decides not to let it go and posts annother diatribe about how evil standars are and that MMA articles shouldn't have to follow them. I undo the posting and make the suggestion in edit summary, that the post didn't belong.
Into this jumps Sunny Sunday Smile with a personal attack on several editors. Finally Agent00f makes yet annother complaint without understanding what was suggested to him in the edit summary.
I ask the regulars here how to resolve this and impart unto these types of editors that their disruptive "complaining and moaning" is not going going to be tollerated any more? I for the most part will keep my hands simply to adding the ArchiveNows for obviously unconstructive talk page threads. Hasteur ( talk) 00:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The moment anyone on Wikipedia says "I can't step away because....." it is a sure sign that they should step away. If I stepped away from this discussion, another editor would come in and say something similar to what I would have said. Wikipedia would go on. Wikipedia articles are developed through the community, not through any one person (or through any particular group). Right now this article is languishing because of a disagreement over civility. That will get us nowhere. Can we instead focus on what edits need to be made to improve 2012 in UFC events? Thanks -- Taroaldo ( talk) 09:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Hasteur, talking of depraved holes isn't constructive, is it? I would compare your behaviour to that of a child who pushes other children in a playground, gets questioned about it or heaven forbid, pushed back, then runs to the teachers. 'These types of editors.' I'm a person. So are you. I suggest you stop being insulting towards others if you want and expect the same for yourself. Or continue being bratty. Either way, I have no further interest in dialogue with you or your sort.
Also, question: Is saying someone has hilariously abysmal spelling, a personal attack? It's not an insult. Just an observation and a 'Thanks for giving me a good chuckle.' This question does not relate to anyone specifically. Sunny Sundae Smile ( talk) 01:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: all contributors to this discussion are asked to remain civil. It would also be helpful to avoid quoting prior uncivil comments in your text. If the remark is relevant, simply include a diff. Thanks. Taroaldo ( talk) 01:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Hasteurs actions in using the phrase depraved hole and in refactoring other's talk page comments are not nearly saintly, they are stupid. They provide a focal point for attack that distracts from the larger, more important issues at hand, namely the continued attempts by spa accounts to insert non-encyclopedic content into Wikipedia. When an editor makes a stupid comment, unless it is an obvious troll, it is better to let it stand because it is explicitly self-documenting. While I appreciate Hasteur's persistence in maintaining content quality I encourage them to be scrupulously proper when posting statements to avoid future distraction. Nobody Ent 14:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I take the point Taroaldo makes about not pointing out spelling mistakes. I haven't done it yet, and am sold that I shouldn't do it.
I have another issue with Hasteur. He has a tendency to demand compliance. E.g. I made a point about an incorrect sockpuppet allegation (negligent or fraudulent, it isn't easy to tell), and suggested that I would link a discussion if anyone wanted the specifics. He then DEMANDED I produce evidence or retract my statement. I provided the page, and REQUESTED that he acknowledge I had done so. He failed to do so. To me, making demands of other users and not acceding to equivalent requests is a gross violation of good manners. Certainly not a saintly act, wouldn't you say?
This is a factual account of what occurred and my opinion on what transpired. If anyone chooses to misinterpret this as an attack, I have nothing to say to them. I'm just looking for equal treatment. When more experienced users continually insult newcomers to the site, they are displaying a bully mentality, and do a disservice to the site. Sunny Sundae Smile ( talk) 23:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This user is being aggressive with almost every response to me. here are just some of the comments:
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45].
IRWolfie- (
talk) 19:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I've already asked him to stop making things personal: [46], noted here that he is making everything personal: [47]. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It's high time this user was banned from Wikipedia. He has been given free reign to promote pseudoscience and create walled gardens around this place. 24.215.188.24 ( talk) 03:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I too would love to jump in on this false accusation of vandelism as I too have been falsley accused of this for simply adding exact laws and regulation numbers and referrence number as to where to find said laws,every bit of what I wrote was 100 percent verifiable and factual,yet I believe in order to censore those fact they deemed them as vandelism,thus not allowing the public to view factual.accuuract,up to date knowlage,I truly believe there was a complete abuse of editing power in order to censore the truth,,the article is coca and coca tea,paita
WilliamJE removed a large number of references in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine articles. The references were to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVD set but they included a link to the Wikipedia article about the DVD set, which apparently caused him to believe they were circular references to Wikipedia. My attempts at engaging WilliamJE in discussion about the issue have been met with hostility.
[2] See also our respective edit histories and
[3] for more background.
What I am hoping for as an outcome here is that WilliamJE will engage in respectful discussion with me and show some willingness to collaborate. Dlabtot ( talk) 00:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I am a volunteer clerk/mediator with the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Above, WilliamJE claims "A wikipedia dispute resolution ruled on this" but provides no links to WP:DRN or any other noticeboard. Furthermore, DRN does not "rule" on anything. As it clearly states at the top pf WP:DRN: "This page helps determine consensus and reach compromises. It is not a formal process, so no binding decisions are issued here." (emphasis in original). WilliamJE, please refrain from making false claims about the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Also note that anyone can participate on DRN, and that some participants go to articles and fix obvious problems. This is normal and perfectly acceptable editor behavior, not a "ruling" by DRN. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Repetitious harassment by other user that contributes nothing to the conversation except to annoy and discredit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwan#Admins.27_closing_comments
Throughout the talk page, HiLo48 repeats the same thing again and again without actually contributing to the conversation.
Hilo48 disagrees with me on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495659581&oldid=495659219
Instead of discussing the issue with me, HiLo48 has chosen to harass me by repeating again and again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495718356&oldid=495718281 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495718904&oldid=495718356 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495719040&oldid=495718904
I ask HiLo48 to stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495936709&oldid=495935875
My second request to HiLo48 to please stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495937839&oldid=495937584
Improper use of language here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495967396&oldid=495962095
He contributes but with continued harassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496049127&oldid=496035141
No contribution, just harassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496049358&oldid=496049127
My third request to HiLo48 to please stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496056630&oldid=496049358
I inform HiLo48 that I think what he/she is doing is harassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496056992&oldid=496056771
Continued repetitious harassment while contributing nothing to the conversation: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496057566&oldid=496057072 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496061465&oldid=496060216 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496061649&oldid=496061465
Buster7's undo of my comments makes me think: "Buster7, Wikipedia says that we *should* sign our posts, not that we have to. I asked HiLo48 to stop, he/she did not."
It is normal social practice to wipe yourself after you deficate. You don't have to but it's a good idea. If you choose not to wipe, you run the assurred risk of being ostracized. FWIW...in RL, no one will wipe for you (unless your old and decrepid)...in WikiWorld there is a bot that will sometimes sign for you. You don't have any special powers or magnitism that allows fellow editors to know that you are the one "speaking". Signing helps us all. it helps this project. Your refusal to sign doesn't make sense. ``` Buster Seven Talk 13:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This editor came to my talk page [6] last weekend with a request I put edit summaries into articles he has on watchlist. I replied back. [7]
From the start he irked me because of his writing 'most of which appear to be insertions of notable residents.' My work he was talking about was TOTALLY the insertion of only notable people into Nebraska town articles. If this editor had checked my edit history at the time, he would have have seen two of my previous edits included my taking nonnotable people out of town articles.
He didn't like my reply, and responded here. In it he wrote 'This, I think is why we have WP:FIES; and why we have Template:Uw-editsummary' Which irked me more because he's threatening to put he later described [8] as an 'embarrassing template' on my page. I told him to 'Put up one instance of me putting one non notable into an article or get off my back.' He responded with the embarrassing template bit and no instance of what I told him to produce. So I replied at his talk page. [9] Saying- One more post to my talk page and I will report you to the proper wikipedia authorities for WP:Harassment. If you're so worried about wasting your time, you wouldn't be bothering me who has repeatedly asked you to prove one time I put something wrong into one of your watchlist articles.
He's posted to my talk page since then
I am being harassed and threatened and ask this editor to be warned to not ever post to my talk page again. ...William 18:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
All of you are forgetting something. I came here to get Ammodramus to stop posting to my talk page. Nobody has addressed that request. Let me ask all of you this- Would you be unhappy with an editor who keeps posting to your own page even though you asked him not to? ...William 22:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I've made the same request from this board too. Where is it required to put an edit summary in? Where have I made a bad edit on the pages he is so concerned about? Silence is the only response with the exception of people here trying to turn the crime victim into the bad guy. ...William
Even if this editor stops posting to your T/P, it is likely that others will stop by and ask you to add edit summaries. Why not add them? It will get this editor off your back, make it look like you are working cooperatively and prevent other editor's leaving you requests/warnings about not leaving edit summaries. This isn't about him and it's not about you, it's about everyone who edits here. Leaky Caldron 12:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
@William - You've made a reasonable request, and it appears to me that Ammodramus has as well. Could we just agree that these are both reasonable and say that each of you is willing to consider the other's request? In both cases, we have a situation where compliance is optional and so neither of you is required by policy to do what the other one is asking, but things would be much smoother if each of you could just acknowledge the reasonableness and make efforts to comply.
@Several of the editors here at Wikiquette assistance - I'd like to remind you that "Wikiquette assistance" is a voluntary process, and the goal is to help end conflict, not talk about "boomerang" consequences or being overly critical of the requester. While I might agree that William ought to just add edit summaries, he is not required to do so, nor is Ammodramus required to stop posting on-topic requests. The matter is entirely optional for each of them, and while I feel that Ammodramus has good intentions, there's no point in continuing to press William on this issue if he isn't going to listen. His failure to add edit summaries doesn't quite cross a line into breaching Civility, but it is an annoyance. Lots of things can be annoying on Wikipedia, and sometimes we just deal with them. I hope William takes another look at this, but it might have to be after several other editors pester him also before he decides that its just simpler to write a brief summary. Either way, I think this discussion has been fully debated, and it is probably getting near the point of needing to be closed. -- Avanu ( talk) 16:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There are several in-accurrate cooments and blatenly -un true knowledsge that has been deleted from both these items.Coca tea drug test do not test for cocaine,yet the writer ,bondea states this.Furthermore there were several laws and where to find these laws in the article,these have all been taken out.The person who put these laws in,did not make the laws.The united States Of america did,yet they are continually taking the referrences out.How do we get the truth out to the public when this ,'editore is constabntly editing the the laws out,thus the truth surrounding this item?...paita
deeming factual referrences as vandilism
I realy do not understand how factual referrences are deemed vandilism?paita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona ( talk • contribs)
I'm at a loss with regard to Armbrust's behavior in the AfD. He is taking a somewhat belligerent stance, refuses to acknowledge arguments and imho displays overall pointy behavior. First he dismissed most !votes he doesn't agree with out of hand as going against some AADD section (even after having been explicitly explained that this doesn't apply to reasoned !votes). Then, after he was repeatedly asked to stop this, he has now taken to SPA-tagging of IP comments he doesn't agree with. I'm sure he means well, but he is less than communicative nor insightful as to the appearance of his behavior. And his block log reflects a pertinent history. -- 213.168.108.25 ( talk) 16:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
This editor, Hypesmasher, has chosen to pick up userboxes from my user page and use them here as an attempt to discredit me. I have no idea whether the editor is homophobic, but it appears very much to be a homophobic attack. In such things the perception of the victim is of substantial importance. To pre-empt any criticism of my strong prior suggestion that he had had his fun, I accept that they perhaps should have been different in tone. Nonetheless that is no excuse for what I perceive as a homophobic attack.
I have read WP:COAL and am adhering to it. I judged that any attempt by me to seek to solve this by civil talk page messages would be unproductive, so I have no intention of interacting with this editor again, save to post the alerting template in their talk page. I rarely edit the article in question, and then usually simply to patrol it to delete uncited new 'facts'. I have not contributed to further discussions or edits in either location since this incident, and have chosen to wait until the matter was archived at DRN in order to allow time for any passions to cool. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 07:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Quoted from the archived DRN:
Lastly, editor Fiddle Faddle (who has suggested this change of venue) lists (among other things) on his Userpage...
This user is proudly out of the closet and gay. This user is a supporter of the LGBT community. This user supports equal rights for LGBT people.
These disclosures make me suspicious of Fiddle Faddle's true motives for interfering here and suggesting this disruptive venue change. I suggest that Fiddle Faddle perhaps has a conflict of interest which should disallow him or her from even nominating the AfD for this specific article at this specific point in time.--Hypesmasher (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, and for responding with it :) Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 16:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
It strikes me that the behaviour I perceive as homophobic could still do with being directly addressed with Hypesmasher. I'm grateful for the other actions. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 07:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Mostly at Talk:DOS/Archive 2#DOS_is_not_a_multitasking_OS
This is a highly technical content dispute (What defines a "multitasking" operating system?), but beyond that there are a couple of behavioural issues that have arisen and that are making any real discussion unpleasant, if not impossible.
I've tried to defuse some of this via article talk, but later comments led to a Canned message at User_talk:Asmpgmr
This is a highly technical issue. Worse than that, it's a subjective matter of opinion. No-one is really disagreeing with Asmpgmr on any technical detail, merely whether whatever it was that DOS did warrants one label or another. Yet within this toxic environment, it's impossible to work towards achieving any of that.
Secondly, we see lots of edits in the history that all boil down to "I disagree with one point in this section, so I'm blanking all of it". That's not the way we're supposed to work here (and usually don't), but in this case it's impossible to do anything about it. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I haven't attacked anyone, I used no foul language and called no one any names. I have stated fact not opinion time and time again and provided links supporting this. That you and the other user choose to reject it is the problem. Yes this is a matter of a lack of technical understanding of DOS, BIOS and multitasking.
As I said on the talk page if you want to make the ludicrous argument that DOS is multitasking operating system then prove it:
DOS is not a multitasking OS, this is a matter of fact not opinion. Also I would say the worst thing here is putting incorrect information on Wikipedia. All I'm doing is making an article which I happen to know a lot about a better article by correcting inaccuracies. Asmpgmr ( talk) 16:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I have contributed to that article, and an other user:Jmh649 deleted my contributions, without discussion, without asking for refs, and without giving time to provide refs, and without stating statements that are not according to rules, and without allowing time to correct them.
I have reverted the deletions, and received a threat that I am edit warring, and that I will be banned.
Upon questioning, the user has deceived me by claiming, that primary sources can't be used at all in medical articles. ("All of the refs supporting this text are primary research papers", "The issue with your additions had to do with the references. The references where simply not appropriate", "The same thing as with all the content in question. It was not supported by proper references.", "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss.", and "For important medical information we use ideal sources." the last in reply to me saying "It does not state that non ideal sources can't be used".)
The user:Jmh649 does not have professional understanding in the area of the contribution, which he deleted, and after deleting them, he has contributed an error instead (mSv=mGy). This error is contradicted by the sources that are still used in the document. This prove that he have not read and understood the sources. Yet, he allowed himself to delete, without asking questions.
I think, that many of the sources, that back up the deleted contributions were adequate, but the contributions weren't edited in order to remove just inadequate parts, they were deleted in their entirety.
The content is currently being discussed at the article's talk page, and at the DRN, and I was referred here by the DRN, in order to discuss my complaint of unfair conduct.
I think that it is worth mentioning, that in his user profile page, user:jmh649 has stated that he is an ER doctor. An ER's income may be affected by the deletions that user:jmh649 has performed.
My reply was that I was told by jmh649 on the article's talk page - "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss." and that is pretty much saying you can't use primary sources period. I am surprised, that after that reply to you, you are bringing up the same straw man accusation again. Why did you bring it up again here?
Moreover, you Guy have replied to me "Primary sources can be used, but not the way you are trying to use them. They are to be used for things that are uncontroversial, uncontested, directly stated in the source (no interpretation or other use of your own knowledge or expertise allowed) and they have to be reliable sources.". This clearly indicate that jmh649 statement - "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss." is false. Clearly it is possible to use primary sources, and there is what to discuss - how they are to be used.
You said "On both pages our actual policy on Primary/Secondary sources have been explained in detail. Given these facts, I find the above accusation to be rather puzzling."
I have made many accusations, so you will have to be more specific, with regard to the primary sources my reply is that, if user:649 insist on deleting my contributions, just because he is not willing to accept primary sources at all, this goes against the policy.
As for the "ER" comment, I didn't assume anything, and I didn't write anything that is not true.
I have opened this section because you (Guy) have told me "As for the behavior you describe, DRN only deals with article content, not user conduct. WP:WQA deals with user conduct.", I seem to have read on that, that you want me to report the described behavior of jmh649 here, and hence I did. I am new to Wikipedia, I don't know what these Wikiquette and DRN are about, thus I follow the suggestions of more experienced users, like you. In hind site, it seems like you didn't really want me to open a report here, did you? Is this going to affect your neutrality as our mediator at the DRN? Anyway, I welcome you to this debate, you are the first responder, btw, how did you learn of it? I have only sent a message about it to jmh649.
79.182.215.205 ( talk) 05:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I think, that the major disagreement between us, is if Doc James categorically denied my use of primary sources. I think he did. I really don't understand why you think different. Maybe me and you speak a different kind of English. He eventually said "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss.". How do you interpret that?
79.182.215.205 ( talk) 08:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
79.182.215.205 ( talk) 19:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Let it be noted, that jmh649 did not participate yet in this discussion regarding his conduct, nor did he participate yet in the discussion at the DRN regarding content he removed.
79.182.215.205 ( talk) 23:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
79.182.215.205 ( talk) 01:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Other things you removed because you didn't understand them. Why do you edit what you don't understand?
79.182.215.205 ( talk) 06:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been offended by the inexcusable conduct of a wikipedia account holder. This wikipedia account holder's word choice on talk pages and edit summaries and methods of handling and creating conflicts is clearly in violation of wikipedia policies and essays on WP:DR and described best as bullying.
Specifically, this wikipedia account holder has a self acknowledged habit of using profanity and sarcasm to negative effect on wikipedia. This behavior seems to contribute to conflicts with other wikipedia account holders(Note: i do not want to be accused of mass canvassing in the process of trying to determine if others feel the same. That is why I have only tagged one wikipedia account holder) and I am personally offended by the rudeness and cannot take this lack of respect towards myself and other wikipedia account holders lightly any longer. The wikipedia account holder in question's pattern of conduct is creating a poor environment to accomplish the goals of improving the encyclopedia on wikipedia.
I first became concerned reading comments on a talk page diff: [21] After reading this, I decided to politely ask this wikipedia account holder to refrain from using profanity. Instead, he reverted by new section and used more profanity in the edit summary.
More Diffs displaying usage of profanity in edits and edit summary:
More Diffs displaying violation of Staying cool:
I Highly suggest wikipedia account holder to take a wikibreak and return with a peaceful and constructive attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.35.69 ( talk • contribs)
I claimed that this editor (and others) were pushing a nationalist agenda. I reverted the wholesale removal of an entire section that made a host country in the tournament look back as vandalism. Editor responded that it was a personal attack when reverting. I commented on the editor's page that the action did not constitute a personal attack to which I tagged the editor responded with a direct personal attack and profanity. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
05:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 79.182.215.205 ( talk)
Accusing someone of a nationalist POV is not a personal attack. When someone is a vandal, accusing them of vandalism is appropriate as well. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking at a map at History of the Jews in the Land of Israel, I noted that the legend, reading
The Iron Age kingdom of Israel (blue) and kingdom of Judah (tan), with their neighbours (8th century BCE).
The map is not a representation of facts as the legend implies, but an imaginative reconstruction of the kingdoms. The nature and extent of the two is a matter of strong dispute between archeological minimalists (and maximalists. So I added that the map has been drawn ‘according to the Bible’, which happens to be, as everyone knows, virtually our only source for these reconstructions.
Til Eulenspiegel reverted it with the edit summary ‘doubt it's the Bible, which indicates Ammon and Moab were conquered by Israelites even before the west of the Jordan.’
So far so good, despite the loose grammar. I asked for clarification on his page, politely. And got this reply, which, incomprehensibly (to me) started a rant about ‘enemies of Israel’.
The evolving discussion confirmed to me that the editor, despite evasiveness, meant precisely what I took his original reply to mean, that he reverted me as an ‘enemy of Israel’, and took my edit to be characteristic of the behaviour of antisemites. That an extremely obnoxious charge and no comment in an exchange should even intimate it unless there are very strong grounds for saying so. Nishidani ( talk) 08:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what to do about this, but it's clearly not going to resolve itself.
I came to this article in response to two RFCs started by Media-Hound. (One of them still ongoing.) However, reading the talk page it quickly become apparent that the source of the problem is Media-Hound's tendency to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with him or her with bias, pov, and other insinuations. I tried to offer my opinion on this recent RFC, and all I got for my trouble was a 18,179 character screed accusing me and another editor of bias and insinuating that we're trying to sabotage the article out of some sort of systemic bias.
I'm not sure if Media Hound has explained what sort of bias he or she thinks we have. Which brings up the other issue. MediaHound's long posts are difficult to read and often not entirely coherent. But if someone asks for clarification they just get more abuse, and when the offending posts are simply ignored, he takes that as WP:SILENCE that gives him license to make changes to the article that people have previously argued against.
I know it's bad form to open something like this while the RFC is still open. But his reaction to the RFC is part of the problem. So I'd appreciate other eyes on the issue. Thanks. APL ( talk) 21:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm DEEPLY troubled by the statement that "Facebook groups controversy included only the US and the UK"
Do I need to explain why it is so wrong and so troubling, or can the systemic bias just be thrown under the bus once and for all?
List of countries by English-speaking population - I hope that this source is not too original!
You point to WP:RS which says; "Context makes a difference
"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context."
That is the standard I have been working to. It does seem odd that a source being cited repeatedly under "Origins" only "suggests" the origins are one thing, and yet reality shows otherwise from WP:V sources.
"Why did you link those three articles? WP:DGAF urges editors to be more mellow, and not let anything bother them. WP:IAR, urges editors to not get bogged down by rules lawyering, and WP:TTRLT urges editors to find unconventional solutions to problems. What were you trying to communicate by directing those at Kaldari? To me, they seem to have no relevance to anything else that's been posted here. APL (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
What are you trying to communicate here? Why are you asking questions about the person, and not addressing the subject and the issues of systemic bias that have been raised? The section to address those is Here(Link To Rfc)! WP:DGAF - WP:IAR - WP:TTRLT Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Be careful. If you spout nonsense and then refuse to explain it you probably eventually be blocked for uncivil editing. APL (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems like you're eager to use this wikipedia page to prove a point. It's not the point of Wikipedia to "build a case" to prove that something is real, or that something happens in all regions of the world. Wikipedia's goal is only to repeat that "case" that others have made. This is related to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth APL (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Well APL I see that yet again you are making comment about the person and not the subject- Maybe if you addressed the points made and left out your alleged views as to others it may be more productive. You did ask about the "RFC" at other places on this page. Again if you wish to pass comment the section for that is Here(Link To RFC) !
That's kind of a rambling word-salad, with a lot of unrelated pop-culture references. It's very difficult to determine what you're trying to say and even harder to take you seriously when you write like that.
You don't have to write with colorful, exaggerated prose. You're not in a chat room. If there's a problem with the article, why not simply say so clearly?
In any case, I've removed your inclusion of a screenshot from an unrelated television program, (Screen shot from Twilight Zone) as there is clearly no fair-use justification for this talk page. APL (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
APL again you make comment about writing style and the person and don't address the issues. You have had this pointed out before Ref the Rfc which you kept being directed to. I do find it odd that each time I have raided this issue of Calims being made to orogin you turn up and make comments about me, writing style and when directed even at your request to such matters as an Rfc ... you don't address the issues.
I think that covers it. (This worked out well. I watch-listed this page last time it was RFCed, and now I finally understand what's going on here well enough to comment.) APL (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
APL - Your comments do not address the concerns that there seems to be some Artful dodging of editing around issues.
What's next? An Rfc on Colon usage, or a request for Copy editor input?
You state I have an Ulterior motive - and yet you do not explain why you believe that is. That is Uncivil.
You keep making comment about me and not about page content - I have even had to provide you links to Rfcs when you kept seeming to get lost on this page. You never did find the place for comment to be made on the actual subject and about page content. If you believe that I have some form of Ulterior Motive kindly have it addressed in the correct manner, don't make loaded comment as a hit and run. Maybe the term Ad hominem should be used? Once is an accident - twice a coincidence - three times....?
If you have substantive concerns as to WP:COI do please act upon them in the correct manner.
If you believe me to be gaming the system - please act immediately and have the matter correctly addressed. I will welcome it, rather than being repeatedly made comment about rather than clear concerns as to page content addressed - and then maybe page content can be improved and less time and effort wasted.
It seems like you're eager to use this wikipedia page to prove a point. It's not the point of Wikipedia to "build a case" to prove that something is real, or that something happens in all regions of the world. Wikipedia's goal is only to repeat that "case" that others have made. This is related to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth APL (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I have done some more reading and see that Media-Hound is causing a serious amount of disruption—just a glance at User talk:Pi.1415926535 shows that some form of topic ban may be necessary. Of course a topic ban is outside the jurisdiction of WQA, but I am mentioning it in an attempt to alert MH that their behavior will change—either by learning how to collaborate, or by community sanction. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Please see Rfc
Talk:Rape_culture#RFC_-_Multiple_Factors, which addresses Synonymic Usage, Quotations, Sources. Thank you.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (
talk) 20:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if it warrants a posting here (or if it even goes here), but I was mildly shocked by the conversation found here. -- Toccata quarta ( talk) 07:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The issue started with a content dispute about volume numbers on the List of The Punisher comics article. Specific changes were reverted by me and a couple IP editors, but were constantly re-reverted. When I left messages on the editor's talk page about edit warring [31], the editor continued to disregard my attempts at coming to a consensus, and continued to revert the page to their POV.
Because of this edit warring, the page was protected, in order to force a discussion on the talk page of that article. I admit that I am not without fault, but my attempts to get Snakebyte42 to calm down and stop taking things personally, only served to anger him further. Therefore, the talk page discussion quickly led to a request for dispute resolution, because of incivility and personal attacks.
Guy Macon volunteered to moderate the DRN, and was eventually able to get us to focus on the content dispute at hand. After understanding Snakebyte42's intentions, I eventually made some changes to The Punisher: Purgatory article, which were in line with what he had intended on the List of The Punisher comics. However, after these changes were made, Snakebyte42 returned to the discussion at Talk:List of The Punisher comics and reacted negatively to comments that I made BEFORE we had our discussion at DRN. [32] I realize that this may be after the point, and I should probably just let it go, but I do not feel that I did anything to deserve being called an "absolute fucking twat", and I think that Snakebyte42 still needs a lesson in civility. Fortdj33 ( talk) 21:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Sleddog116: Before this escalates too far, I would like to weigh in on the discussion. I am a regular volunteer on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and I had been watching the case in question (though I have remained uninvolved in the dispute since User:Guy Macon had been the primary clerk). First, I would like to point out that I'm not a regular watcher of this page, so if I make any missteps here, please forgive me (and correct me). I'm commenting here because Snakebyte asked for my assistance. He has only been active on the project for about a week, so he's still learning the ropes, and I'm trying to (informally) help him learn his way around so that we don't scare off a potentially valuable contributor. To Snakebyte42: You read what I posted on your talk page. I got the impression from your post on my page that you wanted "tough love" if necessary, so I'll give it: calling someone an "absolute fucking twat" is never acceptable, regardless of whether you think the other editor deserves it or not. That sort of personal attack is enough to get you blocked very quickly (I'm not an admin, but I've been around WP long enough to know that). If something escalates to the point where you feel like you need to say something like that, you need to recuse yourself from the case, at least temporarily. As I have told you before, it takes two to fight. Whether the other guy is legitimately causing problems or not is no excuse for that kind of incivility. Wikipedia is not the place to have a battleground mentality, and no article - whether about a comic book series or a major world religion - is worth becoming enraged. To Fortdj33: While it's true that Snakebyte had absolutely no excuse to speak to you in that manner, you are complaining about the issue going to DRN. Our dispute resolution processes exist for this exact reason. He was trying to correct what he sees as a problem with the article, and it is clear that you and he hold different opinions that could not be resolved through normal talk page discussion. DRN exists for exactly such situations. Even though Snakebyte's conduct was, indeed, out of line, that is no reason to dismiss him out of hand. I would like to suggest that the two of you return to DRN and avoid escalating this issue here - I think we can work through this personality conflict, but not if both of you don't assume good faith. Since Guy Macon has stated he will be busy, I have no problem taking the case, and I will enlist the help of experienced DRN volunteers if necessary. What do you say, guys? I think we can work this out without having to go through with all of this, don't you? Sleddog116 ( talk) 23:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'd hate to see you leave over this, but as I've been telling you, it isn't worth getting frustrated over. I'd strongly echo what Taroaldo said on your talk page. I'd even go a step further and suggest that you take a look at the Comics Project Page - I saw you editing the Spidey stuff, and I think if you take a look at that page, you'll find a lot of articles that aren't getting enough attention. You'd probably be quite valuable to the project. I don't see your proposal as not being acceptable, but I don't speak for consensus. Sleddog116 ( talk) 00:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Editor 202.128.18.230 left a personal attack on my talk page. I warned him, and he removed my warning and reverted one of my edits apparently out of sheer spite:
Thanks for your help. — 70.105.24.9 ( talk) 21:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
To Eraserhead, I agree to follow by the rules of Wikipedia. The first thing this user did was make a condescending or childish comment when editing what I had edited on the Eric Delko article. The tiny thing was, it was because of a difference between a "but" and "however". It was tiny. And s/he had the nerve to make a condescending reason as to my edit being "terrible" when s/he admitted that his/her editing was not as good as mine.
This is not about who made the better editing. I know that I wrote it accurately, so I do not want to waste time being insulted by anyone, stating that my editing or grammar was terrible or poorly written in a childish manner, even before the user admitted to not having a good editing. If there is a possible way for this user to stop harrassing me, please let me know so I can edit without him/her resorting to idle threats against me any further. I erased his/her comment on my talk page because it IS MY talk page, as s/he also has the right to delete MY comment from HIS/HER talk page if what I said bothers this user so much. While I am mature enough to admit that my comment on that user's talk page was an attack, I choose not to further fuel the flames for this individual's personal feelings.
I edit an article mainly if something new about that article needs to be written while I try to provide reliable sources to back up the updates to that article, to correct grammar (maturely), or if an important information needed to be written within that article. That's it. I hardly care about grammar or punctuations, but that's just me. If this user wants to make a big deal about whatever I put on MY talk page, then there are certainly some problems this user has beyond any notion(s) that I am out to insult him/her, which I have NOT done for days, nor do I have anymore intentions to. I have a life, a busy one. I have a good family, a good home. I am not gonna waste time caring about whatever personal problems this user, or any user, has just because I deleted his/her comment on MY talk page, or because I reverted to what is accurate writing. I reverted it like I am sure any editor would revert any editing when that editing has a condescending or childish reason.
I would like to take this important matter to the appropriate place for I feel stalked and harrassed by this individual, who apparently has difficulty steering away from MY talk page, MY contributions, or anything remotely having to do with ME. I would like to use Wikipedia with no more worries about my time here by one individual out to get me just because I commented on his/her talk page. I have absolutely NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in further communicating with this person from here on in. If there is a way to block said individual from communicating with me, I will be happy to follow the instructions. Thanks. ( 202.128.18.230 ( talk) 12:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC))
Spadaro's last statement in the referenced subsection is defamatory and unjustified. I feel compelled to respond to it in order to prevent defamation from standing unchallenged. But I haven't responded yet because my review of Spadaro's Wikipedia history indicates that, in the past, responses have led to escalation of conflict until the whole thing got out of hand. I really, really want to avoid being compelled to respond to him but don't see how I can. I consulted with more experienced editors and was referred to dispute resolution. I went to a noticeboard and opened a dispute but it was closed because that particular noticeboard is only for article content disputes. So here I am. So far not a single blessed soul has bothered even to glance at the material I've referenced; if you don't, at least please provide a reason why you believe it isn't necessary. Guyovski ( talk) 03:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Considering Vecrumba's recent contributions have been involving a dispute with me, I am pretty sure that this was a gross personal attack aiming at either me or User:Paul Siebert. While I understand that our dispute at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states got hot at times due to a flood of personal attacks by our opponents, they usually stayed borderline civil (although I would appreciate your input on this as well). Calling me or Paul "racist trolls" was well over the line. ( Igny ( talk) 09:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC))
Exceedingly hurtful incivility (check: set 01 and set 02). The editor has gone into edit warring, name calling, and overall bad attitude taken to near extreme. Please, run a little check if you need. I strongly believe this editor needs a bit of explanation about the need of civility in a collaborative environment. I'm hurt. But, I think I can live with it. But, bad attitude like this isn't too good for the Wikipedia. Aditya( talk • contribs) 11:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Situation
I expect that the above editors will follow the spirit of civility and remove the names to other editor (and messages to other editor)from their barnstars [33]. -- DBig Xray 14:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I've remarked this NWQA after this reversion. Note I have 996 WQA edits, so I think I qualify as a "regular." Nobody Ent 18:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
hi. i wasn't using wikipedia for very long and didn't do much editing as you can see from my contribs. when i made a change to cleavage (breasts), this user reverted this change. george ho told me it was because i shouldn't remove material even if i can't find something to support it in the references, so this was my fault. because of this change, it seems ken thinks i am this user bouket. he then undid many of my other changes and refuses to explain it. he also told me to stay off of his talk page. here is the change to cleavage that he undid [34]. here is one where i found that the melon band page lists percy jones but didn't have a link. i linked the two, does this usually need a reference? is that why it was removed? [35]. in this edit [36] he reinstated a death date for this person that is in the future. he claims it is a mistake, i guess maybe it was? anyway, george ho told me i shouldn't edit any of these pages anymore, even though i was editing them first and ken followed me to them. i feel like i can't edit anywhere now. should i just leave, since this is too much trouble and i started on a bad foot? thanks for any advice. george also advised maybe i could ask here about what i did wrong since i still don't understand it exactly. if i did something wrong, i would like it explained. hopefully i filled this out ok. JohnJeanBartiste ( talk) 08:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
On my own talk page, I further commented to George Ho:@George: Please do not encourage this person. If you take the time to read User talk:Bouket, you'd realize that JJB is undoubtedly the same person. I've chosen not to file an SPI for other reasons, but that does not change the facts on the ground. JJB's behavior is precisely the same as Bouket's was, his writing uses exactly the same style, the stance he takes of confused innocence matches Bouket's stance, and his habit of running to the Help desk, and to every editor he has had any positive interaction with, to "innocently" complain about "Ken" mirrors to a tee Bouket's behavior. They're the same person. If you have difficulty seeing this, perhaps you might want to ask one of your mentors to assist you in evaluating the evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
George Ho rather unhelpfully suggested that JJB come here, so here we are. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)George, it's my sincere impression that's he's not here to help the project and improve the encyclopedia, he's here merely to troll and cause trouble for people. He's very low-key about it, but that's what I get from his comments and contributions. I, personally, wouldn't waste a minute's time on trying to reform him, but YMMV, and I could be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Poster has been reverted several times at the above article, posts rude "warnings" on others' talk pages (
example), called user
LauraHale a
"Troll-Stalker" and told her
"Don't follow me around, Laura, or it'll get ugly",
removes warnings from his talk page, and even
shouts in edit summaries. His edits have been
criticised for lacking sources. --
Toccata quarta (
talk) 22:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
As I have already brought to attention issues regarding the article on Sōka Gakkai to the Administrators' noticeboard--- some editors have responded in support, also take into consideration the history of the talk. Nevertheless the somewhat derogative and insulting style of writing by user:Naveen Reddy is just not on. Maybe an editor could clarify some issues on etiquette. Thanks.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 17:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Fifelfoo has been exremely agressive, made threats and personal attacks by by twisting my words, making false accusations and insulting my character. I need some one to help so that he will leave me alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korentop ( talk • contribs)
I don't see any sign of Korentop quietly discussing the issue with Fifelfoo on the talk page. I suggest Korentop looks here: Wikipedia:CIVIL#Dealing_with_incivility for the first steps on how to respond to perceived incivility. I don't think the editor has tried to remedy the situation by discussing it (but diffs are welcome). IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Please understand, the issue here is not the differences of opinion. I went to the third opinion board, and while they ruled against me, I understand their reasoning. The reason I posted here, was Fifelfoo's reaction. Even now, on the talk page, you will see a tremendous difference in what Fifelfoo said and how the other users explained their reasoning. Granted, Fifelfoo did not say anything directly, but it does not take a genius to see he was repeatedly insulting both my intelligence and my integrity. I can handle both of this issues. The reason I posted here was 1) Fifelfoo deleted one of my comments on the talk page and 2) Fifelfoo's last comment a) grossly misrepresented my actions and b) implied I was in danger of some sort of consequences. I hope that clears things up a little. I apologize for any confusion I caused. I did not post on his talk page before posting here. I tried addressing the issue on the article's talk page. If this section needs to be removed, I understand and will go to the user's talk page first in the future. Korentop ( talk) 03:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I come seeking advice with unclean hands. I first acknoledge that my actions have been less than civil, however given the general level of discourse on the page, they are nearly saintly in their demeanor.
Today we had yet annother MMA SPA post a disparaging attack on myself. As this is par for the course I elected to speedily vanish the thread as per the header at the top of the page Civility is expected at all times by all contributors. New sections that do not conform to basic tennants of civility will be quickly archived.. In steps Agent00f, who enthusiastically will jump into any thread to shovel some dirt on me if the thread supports his way of thinking. I responded explaining why some threads disappear from the page quickly and use some moderately uncivil language suggesting that they should leave. A completely uninvolved editor HATs the conversation with the suggestion that it not continue.
Agent00f decides not to let it go and posts annother diatribe about how evil standars are and that MMA articles shouldn't have to follow them. I undo the posting and make the suggestion in edit summary, that the post didn't belong.
Into this jumps Sunny Sunday Smile with a personal attack on several editors. Finally Agent00f makes yet annother complaint without understanding what was suggested to him in the edit summary.
I ask the regulars here how to resolve this and impart unto these types of editors that their disruptive "complaining and moaning" is not going going to be tollerated any more? I for the most part will keep my hands simply to adding the ArchiveNows for obviously unconstructive talk page threads. Hasteur ( talk) 00:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The moment anyone on Wikipedia says "I can't step away because....." it is a sure sign that they should step away. If I stepped away from this discussion, another editor would come in and say something similar to what I would have said. Wikipedia would go on. Wikipedia articles are developed through the community, not through any one person (or through any particular group). Right now this article is languishing because of a disagreement over civility. That will get us nowhere. Can we instead focus on what edits need to be made to improve 2012 in UFC events? Thanks -- Taroaldo ( talk) 09:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Hasteur, talking of depraved holes isn't constructive, is it? I would compare your behaviour to that of a child who pushes other children in a playground, gets questioned about it or heaven forbid, pushed back, then runs to the teachers. 'These types of editors.' I'm a person. So are you. I suggest you stop being insulting towards others if you want and expect the same for yourself. Or continue being bratty. Either way, I have no further interest in dialogue with you or your sort.
Also, question: Is saying someone has hilariously abysmal spelling, a personal attack? It's not an insult. Just an observation and a 'Thanks for giving me a good chuckle.' This question does not relate to anyone specifically. Sunny Sundae Smile ( talk) 01:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: all contributors to this discussion are asked to remain civil. It would also be helpful to avoid quoting prior uncivil comments in your text. If the remark is relevant, simply include a diff. Thanks. Taroaldo ( talk) 01:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Hasteurs actions in using the phrase depraved hole and in refactoring other's talk page comments are not nearly saintly, they are stupid. They provide a focal point for attack that distracts from the larger, more important issues at hand, namely the continued attempts by spa accounts to insert non-encyclopedic content into Wikipedia. When an editor makes a stupid comment, unless it is an obvious troll, it is better to let it stand because it is explicitly self-documenting. While I appreciate Hasteur's persistence in maintaining content quality I encourage them to be scrupulously proper when posting statements to avoid future distraction. Nobody Ent 14:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I take the point Taroaldo makes about not pointing out spelling mistakes. I haven't done it yet, and am sold that I shouldn't do it.
I have another issue with Hasteur. He has a tendency to demand compliance. E.g. I made a point about an incorrect sockpuppet allegation (negligent or fraudulent, it isn't easy to tell), and suggested that I would link a discussion if anyone wanted the specifics. He then DEMANDED I produce evidence or retract my statement. I provided the page, and REQUESTED that he acknowledge I had done so. He failed to do so. To me, making demands of other users and not acceding to equivalent requests is a gross violation of good manners. Certainly not a saintly act, wouldn't you say?
This is a factual account of what occurred and my opinion on what transpired. If anyone chooses to misinterpret this as an attack, I have nothing to say to them. I'm just looking for equal treatment. When more experienced users continually insult newcomers to the site, they are displaying a bully mentality, and do a disservice to the site. Sunny Sundae Smile ( talk) 23:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This user is being aggressive with almost every response to me. here are just some of the comments:
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45].
IRWolfie- (
talk) 19:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I've already asked him to stop making things personal: [46], noted here that he is making everything personal: [47]. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It's high time this user was banned from Wikipedia. He has been given free reign to promote pseudoscience and create walled gardens around this place. 24.215.188.24 ( talk) 03:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)