User talk:Wizardry Dragon/Disputes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Active Discussion

Contents 1 Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit discussion 2 Informal Assistance 3 Please desist from unsubstantiated accusations 4 Invitation 5 RFM 6 You Misused the Mediation Request Page 7 Thanks 8 Vandalism of User talk:Kilz 9 VP2 10 Car dealer auctions

Archived Discussion - This Sub-Page

None yet.

Archived Discussion - Main Talk Namespace

Archive of October 28, 2006 Archive of October 30, 2006

If you are looking for Wizardry Dragon's user talk page, you can find it here.

Editing Disputes Lately there have been a few editing disputes I have tried to mediate. I remind people that are involved in such disputes to be civil, remember internet etiquette, and please, please assume good faith when posting arguments, explanations, or grievances here. If you want comment or explanation of a comment, please post a edit "diff" with the appropriate comment. If you want clarification of an edit you disagree with, please post in the talk page of the article. Thank you. If you want to bring a dispute to my attention, or have comments, suggestions, or grievances related to a dispute I am currently involved in, either mediation-wise, or simply a party to, please post a new section on this page with a description of your request. I will reply to it as soon as possible. Post a new message.

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit discussion

Greetings.

Thank you for pointing out that I stepped over the line with respect to WP:CIVIL. I agree that my remark was uncalled for (on that particular forum, at least), though this note may give you some explanation as to what triggered it.

I see that you readily accepted Zeraeph's assurance that he didn't mean to impute wrongdoing on my part. I think that anyone who hasn't had dealings with him would have done the same under the principle of assuming good faith. I did so myself in my initial communications with him.

My more recent dealings with this user, however, lead me to believe that he is being disingenuous. That is, I believe that he often makes implications or accusations and then either claims that he didn't mean it or refuses to elaborate. When one sees this behaviour repeated again and again (which in the past resulted in WP:RfMs and blocks against him), it is reasonable to have suspicions about his good faith. (Indeed, WP:AGF "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.")

Despite this evidence, I am hesitant to bring any administrative action against this user at the moment because I am currently the target of a WP:MfD he has filed and don't want to seem as though I'm retaliating.

I just wanted you to know, then, that it's not necessary to remind me, as you did, about the WP:AGF policy. I believe I've assumed good faith far longer than most editors would have in my situation. I remain grateful for your reminder that dealing with an editor acting (either allegedly or actually) in bad faith doesn't give one a license to be incivil. —Psychonaut 02:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Psychonaut. I can understand how we can come to feel things and then believe things of the person. I want you to know that I can assure you, from long knowledge, that if Zeraeph is anything, it is being up front and direct. And what happened this summer was an abberation based on particular circumstances and the persons involved. Wouldn't expect the same convergence of the planets to recure. Certainly not with you and certainly not in this manner. I assure you that I would testify about this person's character and never be convicted of perjury - that is how certain I am. Please accept my apologies for my, perhaps, over-zealous defense of Zeraeph. Zeraeph even asked me earlier today to lay off you. Said I didn't know the whole story. On my talk page, I think. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, if you want to reach Psychnaut, perhaps you should use his talk page? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to diffuse something from hurting more than the person it should. As I spoke to that user, their remarks were also clearly out of line, but on the same token, you don't want to do the same thing, or then, if that user is ever subject to administrative action, you may be too. Obviously, that's not what any of us want here.

If it makes for any consolation I'll keep an eye out and try to reign them in if they step over the line again (yourself also, though I don't really think you did anything anyone else wouldn't've - my reminder was a friendly one). That way we at least have a neutral, or as neutral as we can have, third party to offer opinions should either of you ever be subject to administrative action or arbitration. Just remember to assume good faith, be civil and be bold! :) -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informal Assistance

Heh. This is what I get for not doing more research before I post. I see now that you've been involved in informally mediating between these 3, which I hadn't been aware of when I posted. I too had noticed the difficulties they were having, and I had hoped to help cool things off without it escalating into a DR situation. Hence, my post to you. I hope I didn't sound like a total ass :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you were quite helpful, in a way. I fear that it's going to spiral out of control though. ASs you may have noticed, Psychonaut has been repetinent here on my talk page, and has tried to conduct himself better, but Zareaph is getting considerably more advesarial the further it goes on. It's getting a little hard to assume good faith when they're continually elevating the situation despite my attempts to diffuse it. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please desist from unsubstantiated accusations

I insist that you produce clear evidence to support your allegations or retract and desist from them, as there are no grounds for them in fact that I am aware of. I also refer you to WP:CIVIL, WP:WQ and WP:AGF on this.

I will also state that, in the course of this debate, I have, at all times, acted in scrupulously good faith to the extent of even refraining from speculating upon the reactions, motives and good faith of other editors involved.

I will also state that I have never used any sockpuppet on Wikipedia and never will. If you feel otherwise I suggest that you follow proper proceedure and request a sock check. --Zeraeph 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

These accusations are not unsubstantiated. They have been explained quite fully. If you have difficulty understanding them, then please ask for clarification. I find it ironic that you cite WP:WQ since your comment "Reply on talk page where it rightly belongs" is almost exactly what WP:WQ and WP:CIVIL warn you to avoid. If you are going to improve, then do so. if not, then you may be subject to a block or more binding arbitration to curb these clearly diruptive activities. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

These accusations are not unsubstantiated. They have been explained quite fully. If you have difficulty understanding them, then please ask for clarification.

I challenge you on this statement. And I also challenge you on your claimd that you (or anyone esel) have already explained, quite fully. DETAILS, man, I want DETAILS. The actual QUOTES. PROOF if what I want. As to your suspicions about my identity, if you knew anything about my history at all, you would apologize promptly.

Zeraeph has been so unfailingly polite the past two days, so non-confrontive, never a glimmer of any snide or otherwise undesirable undercurrent, that I'm about ready to nominate Zeraeph for saint hood. I, on the other hand, have been defending her at every turn, as I continued to ask the same questions, answer questions. Are you sure that you aren't talking about me? Go back and look, carefully. VERY carefully. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to be a little more aware of your own personal biases. Bias is a bad thing - it's divisive and furthermore, in an encyclopedia environment, such personal biases are very close to poisoning the well. In any event, please read this User:Psychonaut/User_watchlist#Thoughts -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My lord, man - get off that horse before you take a tumble. I have disagreed with Zeraeph on every last contentious point possible for the past 3 months since we bumped into one another on Wiki. Even on the NPA theory page and the "articles for deletion" Psychonaut ran on Friday, I took the complete opposite point thatn Zeraeph's. Yesterday and today are unique - and they are unique because I am Damas Quixote and ride a great steed into battle in defense of others, I am the Lone Rangerette of Silver horse and White hat. So, have you started that list of quotes? I await enlightenment. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 00:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Darn it all - I so wish Jimbo had figured out to give us a few emoticons. I'm scarcely in a negative frame of mind - indeed, I have been laughing uproariously about the mistaken identity thing ever since you got the two of us mixed up.  :o)) Can't you tell that from my making so much fun of myself in my last post? Come on - "Damas Quixote"? ... "The Lone Rangerette"? didn't that make you giggle or snicker just a little? ENDORPHINS - indulge. It's a cheap legal druggy high.  ;o)) -A green Kiwi in learning mode 00:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's quite enough. This is my talk page. If you want to experiment or play around a bit, please use the sandbox. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

I'm inviting you and the other editors I've been talking with recently to visit this Talkpage which I've just created. While I'm hoping it will help, I'm also open to the possibility that I'm just an obnoxious busybody :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, I would point out it's neutral not nuetral. :) Thanks for the invite, if the other users decide to such a forum I may peruse it, although at this point I'm considering disengaging for the sake of my sanity. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are finally beginning to understand how taxing this can be. :) —Psychonaut 00:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My spelling is very consistent; it's consistently bad. I'd certainly understand the disengage, but I appreciate what you've tried to do so far. Happy editing :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciating my effort. You might be the only one, and are the only one to express it. It means a lot, so thanks :) -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll await the full story on why Zeraeph was blocked from the administrator who blocked her before I make any judgement calls. Psychonaut, you mentioned they had been subject to a request for Mediation. Can you please either find me the appropriate links, or retract that statement? Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The actual mediation case is at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-23 User:Zeraeph, and the decision to block Zeraeph is posted at User talk:Zeraeph/Archive1#Blocked. (An appeal and the decision to decline the appeal is at the same place.) The exact reasons given for the latest two blocks were "repeated personal attacks" and "continuation of gross personal abuse" (see block log). User talk:Zeraeph/Archive1 also contains other warnings from users regarding argumentativeness, incivility, etc. for the same and also for unrelated incidents. —Psychonaut 00:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychonaut, if you read far enough and long enough, into the past, you will see I was marginally involved. And I can assure you that you and this are so far out of that league.. (sigh). Well, believe what you like - just know that you are mistaken. And I honestly feel bad about that. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 01:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm mistaken about what? All I did was provide links to the pages where Zeraeph was warned, mediated, and ultimately blocked. I did this in response to a request for information on the mediation. —Psychonaut 01:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I had meant (and if I was wrong, consider this a full and total apolgy for my leaping to unfouned conclusions) meant that if you are attempting to find parallels in what happened then with what happened this weekend, they simply do not exist. Period. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 01:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The user's conduct speaks for itself. If what I believe is correct (which will be proven or disproven by the admins response) they have a history of it, too. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to say anything else regarding the mediation case until I get a reply from the administrator to explain the rationale for the block (I've already petitioned them for some assistance in the matter). Thank you for providing the links, Psychonaut. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well personally I have not petitioned anybody for anything, and I will not. It is precisely because of that block that I have gone to great lengths to adhere scrupulously to policy in all respects. If you feel I have failed in this endeavour I would ask you to please show me the relevant diffs. --Zeraeph 02:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for the block are here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive58#User:Zeraeph. --ajn (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. This unsigned comment was submitted by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]] • count • logs • page moves • block log • [[Special:Emailuser/{{{2}}}|email]]) on Zeraeph

[edit] You Misused the Mediation Request Page

I have removed your "testimony" and your invalid signature from the RFM brought by Zeraeph (and myself). There is no option for "recusing" oneself. You either accept or refuse. And you are not allowed to offer up testimony when you are not in mediation and refuse to be in mediation. I have requested that your comments be deleted from page history memory. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 04:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not your place, but rather the place of the presiding mediator. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There IS no presiding mediator until AFTER all parties have agreed to mediation and mediation has begun. Your insistance on inserting your TESTIMONY into the records tells everyone who will view it a great deal about your character and your motivations. Striking over a supposed previous signature (which of course it is not) and then adding a link to your shameful actions should be beneath you. It is certainly beneath most adults I know. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Enough with the pointed language and personal attacks. I've written it off in the past as humour or misunderstanding in the past, but it's getting obvious at this point. Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I'm glad that you reconsidered Mediation. I think that your willingness to participate speaks well of you. While I wsn't thrilled to be named into it at first, I do think this is an important process and we should do what we can. I really look forward to working with you :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm willing to do it with reservations... I've stressed enough about this dispute, especially considering I was doing this out of good faith to try to mediate two hostile parties, and since, I've been slandered, yelled at, and heckled. It's not been a pleasant experience. I may not be able to actively particpate, though. I have to have surgery on next Thursday, and may (and probably will) be out indefinitely after that. If Mediation will bring it to a positive resolution then I'm open to it, but if it starts degenerating into the heated incivility that has occured before, I'm just going to disengage for the sake of my sanity. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ack! I'm sorry to hear about surgery, hope it isn't serious and that you'll get better quick. As for participation...The request page indicates it might be 2 - 4 weeks for the Request to be accepted or rejected by MedComm, plus more time before a Mediator actually gets involved. With luck you'll be fully recovered before it comes up :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, Doc Tropics. I hope so too. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello WD. I too am glad you have signed up for mediation. Recognize tho that mediation will occur only if Psychonaut agrees. Otherwise, nothing will happen. And there is no rush for mediation to begin. What is desired by Z, myself and, obviously, you, is for THE STRESS TO END. I have a moderately severe immune deficiency syndrome secondary to repeated bouts of post traumatic stress disorder. I cannot handle any degree of stress whatsover as it makes me physically ill literally overnight. There is no cure. Absence of stress and great huge doses of mental tranquility are the only palliative treatments. Letting go all the truly unimportant things and seeing the lighter side of life are the best two prescriptions I have.

I have been reading your archived disputes page and see that you like to go in to situations -on purpose- in order to "mediate". Well, I don't know about how happily your other "clients" have all turned out in terms of loving one another, but believe me, your input does not follow the principles of trained mediators which is possibly why it is not effective in calming tensions, but rather highly inflammatory, even explosive.

Don't worry about your taking time to be ready til after you are recovered. I see no need to hurry things as long as people can let go of the issues addressed by the two AfDs that will soon be ending. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 02:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I do it because the only way to become good in something, is to try it. And mediation is something I want to do, so I've been attempting it. Though some other exchanges have been heated, but they've never gone quite so wrong as this one, and the outcomes have ultimately been positive.

By the way, has Pyshconaut been informed of the mediation? I haven't heard from or of him lately. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 18:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

WD, it seems you and I have some similar interests, specifically Mediation and conflict resolution. My personal preference is to address issues at the lowest level possible. Like you, this is the first time a situation I'm involved in has escalated into "official" process. In fact, I feel like I had a pretty good track record for helping editors resolve their differences and resume productive work. Clearly that's no longer a possibility in this case, so I'm interested in seeing how it progresses. On an unrelated note, it seems that we don't have enough Admins to cover all the backlogs right now and there is a drive to "promote" some qualified editors ASAP in order to assist. There are currently a couple of very strong candidates and I think your input at the RfA page would be valuable. Happy editing :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've endorsed Saxifrage's RfA already - the others I don't know enough to support, really. Of similar interest is the Election for the Arbitration Committee which will be occurring in December. Cheers, -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of User talk:Kilz

Kilz has blanked/archived [1] and also moved comment elsewhere . I'm finding it difficult to locate one of my comments. This is subsequent to your warning yesterday. Widefox 14:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you follow his contribs carefully, you should be able to find it. I think he just has the mistaken impression that he can do whatever he wants on his talk page, which clearly isn't the case. I'll warn him again, and we'll see if something positive happens. -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I find that Widefox expects me to know every rule. Being a new editor that isnt always the case. When things are brought to my attention I fix them. But on the other hand I find that while he dose know the rules. I have found things that cause me to question his actions.

• All things removed from my talk page are archived. There is a clear, plain link on my talk page(though I know of no rule requiring a plain link). This Blanking is a fasle accusation by Widefox. Following the Archive link on my page leads to the sections removed from my talk. In fact all areas pointed out to me by Widefox exist on my Archive page.
• User Widefox is using this false accusations of blanking as examples that I have done wrong. Stating here that you have warned me for blanking. The blanking is a falsehood. I repeat all things removed by me from my talk page have been archived.
• According to Cherry Blossom Tree, user Widefox agreed that I shouldnt have been blocked on the sockpupet talk page.Knowing it was a loged out edit. But used that block as a reason for mediation.
• The Archive page was created on the 28th, Widefox claims things were blanked on the 30th that were in place the 28th.
• Widefox has removed comments posted by me to the Swiftfox page and placed them on my talk page. The comment signed by me at 12:32 was never on my talk page. This is Blanking. Kilz 01:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Give me a bit to look into this. If what you say is true then there may be reason for some action here. Bringing a RfM in bad faith is something that, at the least, looked down upon. -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 15:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, But I would also like to point out that user Widefox has removed a comment of mineand yours from my talk page today, below line 35 and above line 21. This wasn't a merge, the merge happened in the previous edit. This is intentional blanking of another users comments by. This is showing a pattern of repeated removal of my comments. This isn't just one line but multiple lines in different sections

He is also copying in sections from the Swiftfox page, with duplicate charges. IMHO trying to make it look like there is more than there is. I have archived the section because it contains old information.Kilz 17:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him on his talk page. He gets one more warning, if he does it a third time, he'll may be subjhect to a block -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 16:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This was an error of mine. It would make no sense to do that intentionally. My edit was just bad (included all that intro stuff), and removed things I agree with. Please fix it for me, so I do not have to edit that page. Widefox 18:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

heads-up - MedCab is active now User:Addhoc. I have informed him/her of you being active. Widefox 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VP2

Since you're using VP2, it doesn't hurt to actually look into the substance of the edits before reverting them and posting the silly "stop adding nonsense" warning on one's talk page. You may want to ponder whether you should continue to use the tool. Beit Or 17:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting templates from a page before the issue has been dealt with is considered vandalism. The template in question was a NPOV one. Relevant DIFF: [2]. If you want to establish that the article adheres to NPOV you can always request a comment at WP:RFC and gain consensus. As to the warning vandalproof gave you, it was inappropriate as it was not even the one I told it to give you. All I can do in that regard is edit it and report the bug to AmiDaniel who develops the tool. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 17:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A glance at some other reverts that you've made, such as this or this, strongly suggests that your continuing usage of the tool may not be worth the disruption caused. Beit Or 17:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What disruption, exactly, is caused by adherence to WP:NPOV? The first was a blatantly POV edit. -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 17:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that the problem is worse than I initially thought. Removing a disputed tag is not vandalism, still less if it's combined with substantial overhaul and adding sources to the article; if someone thinks that the article is still disputed, they will restore the tag. I have no opinion on the POV or NPOV nature of the edit to Kargil War, but you may want to familiarize yourself with the difference between vandalism and POV editing. In the latter case, instead of claiming vandalism, you should explain the reasons why you think the edit was in violation of NPOV on the talk page and revert it with an accurate edit summary. From what I can see, you're using VP2 to automate reverts of perfectly legitimate edits, which is a clear case of tool misuse. Beit Or 17:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how POV edits are legitimate, but for the sake of keeping process integrity, I can restrain my use of Vandalproof to blatant vandalism if you wish. -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 17:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't POV edits in Kargil War. If anything I was adding more sources for an line tagged as "citation needed". All the sources are from reliable multiple sources from Indian and Pakistani authors. You should atleast take the time to read them before gunning them down arbitrarily. VP is only for vandalism, not for anything. Tx. Idleguy 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You are aware of the parties involved in the Kargil War, correct? Information from an involved party is bound to be inherently biased. -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 22:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is one complaint I have with VP2 that really contributes to the problem with both of these edits, as opposed to VP 1.3 - it pigeon-holes you into just reading the diff in question, and you can't rollback just one edit of a user, you have to rollback all of them. For that reason, I'm back to using 1.3 until those issues are resolved. Thanks for the input guys, it may not have been positive but it still helps, and I appreciate the time you took out to point out such problems. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 22:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Car dealer auctions

Dear Wizardry Dragon,
I'm writing to you, because you first noticed when User:Carlits tried to sneak in a link in the references of the "Car dealer auctions" article and reverted his edit. The article he referenced was not supporting the content of "Car dealer auctions" in any way and I as its author have not used any part of Carlits's article when writing "Car dealer auctions." He then reverted your edit and started messing with the other sources, which I've been fighting several times since then. He now does it without logging on, but I know that User:Carlits and 68.44.68.84 is one and the same - I'm sure you can see this, too. I wouldn't mind if he were to contribute constructively to the article and then add a reference, but he seems to be just acting sour now. Can you help, please? I'll keep reverting Carlits's changes in the mean time.
Yours,
Chris Herbert --cfherbert 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)