Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

Archive index

Contents

Alleged Incivility from Scorpion0422

Resolved.

I've noticed a disturbing pattern with this user and animation articles. This user feels that it is their duty to delete anything that doesn't meet his or her "standards." I tried to edit the synopsis of the Lisa's Wedding article and it was immediately reverted, with the user in question claiming it was an "unneeded detail." [1] Now granted, my response to him/her wasn't civil, but I apologized for it [2] and asked the user why it was reverted. The user then responded that my edit was "unnecessary" although the user conceded that it did clarify the context of the paragraph somewhat. I then told the user that it was not up to one person to decide editing standards on Wikipedia, and that perhaps their contributions (while good) might be better served at a site where their work is not mercilessly edited. Even after my apology, this user still had the gall to tell me to start my own website where "I could add as much crap as I like." This user needs to take their anger elsewhere.--Folksong 03:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: I had struck out the word crap, so that shouldn't count. As well, this seems to be more of a content dispute than anything as the user talks more about that one line than my alleged incivility. -- Scorpion0422 03:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's see how well that defence holds up about striking out the word "crap". It's not so much about a content dispute, but the fact that you escalate disputes with many users that you disagree with. This doesn't seem to be an isolated incident, but a pattern over time. Why don't we point out some of your greatest hits such as the classic "you're a retard", "not a real Simpsons fan" and the recent you don't understand how wrestling works!--Folksong 03:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I have already been reprimanded for two of those three comments and the third is taken completely out of context. I was explaining to the user in question that a user was opposing something in an FLC and they had admitted that they didn't know much about the WWE. At least use the correct quotes. And lets not forget that you have been FAR more uncivil in this dispute than I have, even if you did apologize. -- Scorpion0422 03:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Now, I'm not your enemy here, in fact I'm your friend. But there's a trend going on here, and I'll leave the final decision up to the good people who manage this section.--Folksong 03:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are both willing to talk. In the scheme of things that's doesn't seem big but you've each been editing Wikipedia for a while so you know that's actually huge. I don't see any discussion of the edits on the talk page and it sounds like you're both in agreement that a civil and open discussion would be the right way to move forward. Is that something you could both explicitly agree to? Gruber76 04:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I started a discussion with this user on their talk page as referred to earlier. Apparently, he did a drive-by on my talk page taking some culpability for the situation, but still implying that this entire situation is my creation. If this individual feels so strongly about the article, it's theirs, but this guy/girl insists on having everything their way and looking at Scorp's talk page, seems to be making new enemies each day.--Folksong 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Also there must be a discussion somewhere that covers what level of detail is good for episodes of the Simpsons or other similar series - perhaps asking at a wikiproject or other regular editors of similar pages, sbandrews (t) 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Plots of TV episodes should be brief, since a detailed plot would be a copyright violation. --Maitch 10:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Alleged Incivility from User:Assault11

Stuck. for further discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Assault11

I find this user's attitude disturbing at Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China. He reverts articles to the way he wants to without consensus.

Assault11's first [edit] clearly shows his biased attitude towards the article and its related articles.

Currently, the article is under dispute whether to include a sentence about Goguryeo's tributary status with China. The editors are trying to work towards a consensus and have taken several measures including an RfC and a request for a third opinion. User:Arcayne has commented, yet he feels that he has been treated rudely by Assault.

Assault has been making the work toward consensus extremely difficult. He will not respond to any questions as to what he wants and will ignore everything. He simply wants his own way. Assault11 is hardly listening to anybody, including admins. He also deletes warning tags from his talk page.

I am requesting that an editor or administrator talk to him. Good friend100 23:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I merely reverted the article back to the status quo. You, on the other hand, never gained consensus to add in your points - which have been proved to be factually incorrect (see talk page).
Secondly, what does the List of tributaries of Imperial China got to do with the Koguryo dispute? Nothing. I have apologized for my behavior regarding my first edit (see Tariqabjotu's talk page). And there was never a RfC conducted for List of tributaries of Imperial China. Regarding Arcayne, I reserve the right to cease further discussions and to protect my own user/talk page if I felt that I was being subject to personal ad hominem attacks [3].
Do not act all innocent Good friend100, it is you who constantly ignored pleas to change your POV. Just a brief look at the Koguryo, List of tributaries of Imperial China and your talk page reveals a large number of editors who've disagreed with your false reasonings. Even Korean editors like Wangkon936 (see Koguryo talk) requested that you familiarize with the Chinese tributary system before making outlandish claims. Assault11 00:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
In fact, there is a request on RfC [4]. Be more attentive before claiming all sorts of things. Anyways, I'm not here to bring the argument to this page. I am requesting that Assault be checked on his civility.
You seem to have an issue when somebody posts warnings or demands on your talk page. Its not vandalism, as you put it. I am not acting innocent. I DID change the biased sentence on the article, yet you don't even care. Again, you are making the consensus process extremely difficult because of your stubborness and your biased approach to the subject.
Perhaps you forgot to read the instructions for filing a formal RfC [5].
I am allowed to remove warnings as I deem inappropriate - particularly the ones from you, where one warning was 2 days old. Biased according to you - and you only. You even had your dates wrong regarding the ending of tributary relations. Of those involved in the discussion, none of the parties supports your view. Assault11 00:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:XLR8TION at Sammy Davis, Jr. article

Stale.

I've had a lot of issues with User:XLR8TION and at this point trying to properly reason with him would be out of the question. The issue in question deals with the ancestry of Sammy Davis, Jr.'s mother. Although Davis publicly stated during his lifetime that she was Puerto Rican, biographers now agree that she was in fact Cuban and that Davis lied about this to protect his career due to the unpopular sentiments at the time towards communist Cuba. This fact is stated in several books including The Life of Sammy Davis, Jr. by Gary Fishgall[6] and In Black and White: The Life of Sammy Davis, Jr. By Wil Haygoods [7]. The latter which is an award-winning book[8] that will even form the basis for the screenplay of Davis' biopic to be produced by Denzel Washington.[9] The problem is any time I try and edit the article he swoops right in and reverts it labeling me disgruntled. The fact is she wasn't Puerto Rican, she was Cuban (more proof:[10]and a TIME magazine article for good measure, [11]). WP:VERIFY states that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, I think I have met that threshold with the links I have provided. What I would like is to edit the article stating his Cuban ancestry as fact with a mention as why he choose to say he was Puerto Rican due to the political sensitivities of the time, and without being reverted. So hopefully a neutral party can come in and take a look at this with a fresh eye. Thank you. 74.225.36.136 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

One approach. which would adhere to WP:NPOV would be to say, "While Davis claimed _____, other researchers/sources claim ____."
The :) "fact of the matter" is he said ____ and others said _____. Just state those facts and let the readers decide. If the sources are as strong as you are presnting them to be, without saying "THIS IS THE TRUTH!" it should be pretty obvious what is the truth! :)
You can't mention "why he chose that." What you can say, if it is contained in the sources you've mentioned, is other people's theories as to why he did it. If Sethie has the time and inclination, he'll pop over and take a look. Sethie 06:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunds ASK (2nd nomination)

Resolved.

I'm just wondering if my comments here were uncivil or attacks in any ways. I'd appreciate a comment to my talk page, or here, rather than involvement in the discussion there. It's close enough to getting off track as it is. I can see how my comments might have been taken as irritating, or possibly condescending, but I don't think I made any actual attack. FrozenPurpleCube 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think you made an attack - when user nabla said 'attack me' s/he realy should have said 'attack my argument' which is what you did. His/her point being that s/he showed you the weakness of his/her argument and you then attacked that weakness - a below the belt attack? :) I don't consider you have been uncivil on the page, regards sbandrews (t) 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur with sbandrews; no problem with civility or personal attacks in your comments at that discussion at this time. --Parzival418 Hello 10:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Alleged incivility from User:216.201.33.24 at Talk:Feminists for Life

Resolved.

Most recent exchange:

216.201.33.24: "... I DO NOT want to hear anymore whining from anyone about the fact that their webiste is a source."

Me: "Please do not refer to what others are saying as "whining". It is uncivil and inappropriate."

216.201.33.24: "Joie it is perfectly appropriate and civil, now do you have something to contribute that is useful to the article or are you going to continue complaining about the fact that other editors on here are out of patience with your antics? I assure you I am running out of patience with you, if you want me to be civil then cut the victim act and contribute and I will be nicer to you."

Bear in mind while no one has chastised me or expressed any impatience with me, several users have rebuked 216.201.33.24:

In response to a 3O that I requested, Anomie said:

"216.255.40.133, you really should check WP:CIVIL. Also, comments such as "Therefoe I must conclude that you can not handle the truth" do come close to violating WP:NPA."

MaryKDerr commented; for some reason, MaryKDerr thought that I might have thought that she and the anon user were the same person:

"I am *not* the user who is personally attacking you here, ad hominem attacks just make my heart sink..."

The 3O that I requested referred to 216.201.33.24 as having a "major pro-POV" and noted my efforts to maintain NPOV. Several users agree that the article needs work. 216.201.33.24 has openly acknowledged that they wrote one of the paragraphs that another user found to be POV (search page for phrase "I wrote".) This user is resistant to proposed changes, and has recently become rude and threatening.

216.201.33.24 has begun to demand that I make my concerns clear; accusing me of "trolling" because I refuse to engage with them (amid their insults). I believe their view is inaccurate, as I was the person who began the discussion, with the hopes of doing exactly what they were talking about - discussing content. I became less willing to discuss content after their insults and threats came in greater number and strength. I was hoping they would calm down so we could get back to the content, but it has only gotten worse. Joie de Vivre 00:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User 216.201.33.24 is clearly in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. That IP has never edited the article or any other page than the talk page you mentioned. I recommend ignoring all comments from that editor and just replying with a statement that the incivil personal attacks are not acceptable and that no dialog about the article is possible until the communications become polite and respectful. Then leave it at that. If the editor starts making changes to the article (which he/she has not done yet, then you would have to respond to those changes, by accepting, reverting or discussing for consensus (see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle).
But even in that situation, until the offending IP editor is willing to enter comments that are civil and do not contain insults, avoid direct two-way conversation. Just state your disapproval of the incivil behaviors and then address your comments to the other editors on the article. To attain consensus you don't have to convince a dissenting editor to change their mind, you just need a general agreement among the editors in the discussion, and support for your edits with solid references. Bottom line, if somone acts anti-social like that the best thing to do is to disengage. Don't take it personally or let them get you down, just brush it off and stay positive. --Parzival418 Hello 05:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:MichaelMaison ignoring WP:NPOV and other Wiki guidelines

Resolved.

Unfortunately, a user named Marty Goldberg has made a career out of modifying any revisions to the Wikipedia page "William Cheung". He cites POV and non-references, however he revises my contributions with just that. In particular, he was very resistent to the historically documented fact that Cheung was an instructor of Bruce Lee, despite the plethora of available evidence. Further, he appears to delight in a firm insistance that GM Cheung and Emin Bozetepe were involved in a "fight", and this individual has a thusfar unmitigating need to express his POV and interpretations as to the conclusiveness of this sorry, fleeting, and embarrasing incident. I have cited numerous sources to support my contention that the need to display: "My fighter beat up your fighter" is unsubstantiated by any evidence, uncorroborated by witnesses, and pure, unadulterated beans. Nevertheless, Marty Goldberg has edited, deleted, and re-corrupted this page no less than 25 times today 6/11/07. I will bring in others who will lend their rational thought to this, however this individual is detremental, slanderous, and is propagating untruths, as I have aforementioned.

As the protocol appears to be involving a third party, I suspect Mr. Goldberg might enlist those with a similar mindset such as his and merely perpetuate this juvenile war of words. As I could also dispatch individuals to disabuse this person of his penchant for slander and historical revisionism, I would rather seek administrative relief before I involve other parties. I would like a resolution to this please.

Most Sincerely,

Michael Kenneth Maison (KM)


Very specifically, this user has been told multiple times by multiple editors over the past month that his attempted contributions to William Cheung and Leung Ting and Emin Boztepe violate NPOV, lack actual references (he has actually provided none except to copy advertisements from Cheung's website word for word as entry material), and do not follow an encyclopedic format. This is not a place for political minded editing and bickering in leau of actual encyclopedic material contributions. Every effort has been made by the major contributors of that article and the Wikipedia Martial Arts Project to explain the situation to him. I (today), as well as another editor (last week) have even tried to rewrite his material in a NPOV manner so it could be included (see William Cheung talk page), and this was still not good enough. He has simply responded with accusations, derogatory comments (see the page history), and continued re-addition of the same material. Now he's threatening to "dispatch individuals" in person and to use in edit war here? --Marty Goldberg 04:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


This user is quite simply purporting falsehoods, categorically false statements. My citations are numerous, from many sources, and very few from Websites of William Cheung. That is the first deceptive comment. He provides a version of a version of video, that laymen can agree is edited, reveals very little, and has been deemed inconclusive by most rational individuals. Yet, this "video" is presented as a "challenge fight", with the fundamental objective as declaring a "victor", in a most sophmoric attempt at "one upsmanship." This is substantially been disregarded, although this user continues to tout it's "superiority" in false, misleading manner. This is not in the spirit of journalism, martial arts, or plain human decorum. There have been two individuals who have refuted these comments; most people don't care; yet he states that a multitude of Wikipedia intelligencia "have attempted to explain the situation to me." His emotional pandering refers to one other individual besides him. POV, poor sources, or other principles axiomatic to responsible journalism cannot be selectively enforced nor violated, a common-sense principle that Mr. Goldberg evidently does not endorse. My derogatory comments are nothing more than having referenced material vanish with some arbitrary and close-minded categorical editing of my posts. It's selective rule-enforcement,and it's plain wrong.

Finally, the gentleman appears paranoid. As the protocol for conflict dictates, individuals should obtain a 3rd party mediator. I happen to know many people familiar with this issue, some of who have direct knowledge. It is those individuals whose input I sought to "dispatch", never anyone "in person" as the continued emotional pandering of this "martial artist" would like you to believe. It's almost like he believes he has a "literary license" to accuse those who disagree with HIS points of view, to emotionally pander in order to get his way, and most objectionably, to continue to promulgate falsehoods in the spirit of journalistic integrity. Who in the name of goodness does he think he is?

P.S. I think we should keep the "whine" in Sonoma Valley.


M K Maison

Once again, this editor's inability to behave rationally (WP:Civility) is demonstrated here with more derogatory and personal attacks. It is also easily seen in the history of the edit pages, my talk page (in which another editor removed a derogatory comment of his), and the previous pages listed. Multiple editors have talked to him, which is also easily verified by those page's history pages, talk pages, and his own talk page. Any attempt to enforce NPOV has been met with accusations and claims of "literary license", biasness and, and further derogatory statements about what people are supposedly thinking or feeling. Likewise, he can't seem to grasp the idea of a controversy and approaching it from a position of neutrality, instead seeking to edit in one position's comments over the other when a balance is to be maintained per NPOV. --Marty Goldberg 05:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment from third party. Even in the above report, User:MichaelMaison shows lack of good faith, lack of civility, and a makes several personal attack comments. Related article and user talk pages show this is an ongoing pattern. This diff shows a purely uncivil attack comment posted by User:MichaelMaison on the talk page of Marty Goldberg. The comment was appropriately removed by a third party, User:A Link to the Past. That diff shows an even higher temperature of emnity and more direct personal attack than the comments MichaelMaison wrote on this page where he expected the community to read them.

So, what to do? I suggest simply ignoring his complicated arguments and uncivil comments, and focusing completely on the content of the articles. Since the articles are about martial arts, a good analogy would be the art of Aikido. Change the direction of the discussion away from personal confrontation, into the process of consensus. There appear to be other interested editors; they will be needed to create consensus and prevent ongoing insertions of POV material by reverting when needed and allowing the tendentious editor to grapple with WP:3RR. When he posts an uncivil comment, simply reply by stating that it is uncivil and ask him to remove or strike out any personal attacks. Then ignore it, don't take it personally, don't reply in detail or try to convince him that he is wrong. If he edits the article inappropriately, revert it, and provide supporting references if you can find them. If he reverts again, follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, but don't address him personally in your discussion. Most importantly, invite other editors (from related article talk pages if necessary) to contribute so that you don't get into a one-on-one reversion war. If there are multiple editors involved, the consensus can be clear. MichaelMaison says that he has others who will support his edits, but on the pages you linked I did not see anyone agree with him. That means if multiple editors have consensus and he is opposing the consensus, he will not be able to insert unreferenced POV information into the articles. He also says he has "numerous" citations from third party sources, but he has not added them to the article so we don't know if they exist. It would be best if you could continue to find additional reliable sources to support your edits. As they are now, those articles have very few references, and especially since they are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, the issue of third party sources is even more crucial. (I recommend reading that policy page in detail).

Further, I suggest suspending all communication between the two of you on your talk pages. Don't post anything on his talk page. If he posts on yours, if his comment is civil and in regards to the article, just thank him and tell him you'll reply on the article talk page, then do so if you wish. If his post on your page is not civil, you can remove it, or another option is to use <s> ... </s> to strike out his words, then reply simply by stating that his comments are uncivil and you will not reply unless you are addressed respectfully. This method has the advantage of keeping visible the uncivil comments and your calm response.

Avoid direct confrontation and ignore the attacks, other than to point out they are violations of policy and community and that you will not converse without mutual respect. That way, it's no fun to attack you. And your edits to the articles, when they are referenced and have consensus from other editors, also cannot be attacked. --Parzival418 Hello 07:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Pre-emptive disambiguation of Dungeons & Dragons articles

Resolved. Pak21 10:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Dm2ortiz has recently moved a large number of Dungeons & Dragons articles from being at "<name>" to "<name> (module)", even though almost most these titles are never likely to need disambiguation (eg Mystery of the Snow Pearls). I thought this was unnecessary, and brought the subject up at WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (as the original moves were tagged as "WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons"). Four editors there (including myself) agreed that the disambiguation was not necessary, so I reverted the moves (as well as other articles created by Dm2ortiz). However, Dm2ortiz has now moved many of these articles back again, with an edit summary referencing exactly the same discussion. I am unsure what to do next, and would appreciate any advice. --Pak21 07:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me you have a pretty clear consensus at the Wikiproject to remove the word module from the page names, since it's not needed at this time. There's also discussion that if disambiguation were needed later, there might be different methods that would better suit the aims of the project. So it seems to me that editors from the project are justified to revert the changes again. In the edit summary state that this is being done by consensus and link to a section on the project talk page for further discussion. It would be best if the same editor does not do the reverting each time so it's clear that it's not an edit war between two individuals, in other words, you could mention in the project discussion you believe there is a consensus to revert again, but that you don't want an edit war, so you are not going to do it right now but that you support the next reversion if someone else wants to do it. If he continues to revert contrary to the consensus, that could be considered Wikipedia:Disruptive editing or he might violate WP:3RR. The point is I guess, if he is a loner going against consensus, then he is not entitled to impose his will on the community of editors working on the project. If there is not consensus yet though, for example if there were a few editors also agreeing with his perspective, then further discussion would be needed before reverting the page moves. That's not an official statement, just my personal understanding of how the policies apply to the situation. --Parzival418 Hello 08:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Dm2ortiz brought the subject up again at WP:D&D where other editors have come down strongly on the side of no pre-emptive disambiguation. I'll wait Dm2ortiz's suggested week and then move the articles back unless there is any significant support for his position. Cheers --Pak21 10:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Haukurth and Icelandic language

Stale.

User:S.Örvarr.S and myself have come to the conclusion that User:Haukurth is persistently—and purposely—being pedantic to frustrate other users. For example, on the Icelandic language talk page he has made several derogatory comments, and indeed was involved in an edit war over a single simple greeting. To quote but a few examples:

  • I have never in my life heard anyone say "Góða daginn". — using this as justification that the greeting "góða daginn" does not exist.
  • Calling S.Örvarr.S a kjánaprik (“silly stick”).

And in a separate debate:

  • Well, your Icelandic is certainly a lot better but your English is rather worse. For example you have pre-aspiration in the word 'apple'. I personally don't see any point in reading the English cognates at all.

Obviously to see this in context, you need to see the whole debate. I don’t know how to go about addressed the user without causing further dispute or personal attacks. Advice would be appreciated. Max Naylor 11:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This all looks quite mild to me. I would advise you to focus on editing, and ignore comments you feel are beside the point. IronDuke 01:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Introducing POV and making aggressive & harassing edits and reversions

Resolved.

I've been having an edit war with User_talk:Gustav_von_Humpelschmumpel on Talk:Jeronimo Bassano and Lanier family tree. He has been introducing POV by attempting to undermine one authority on the family's Jewish origins, David Lasocki, as a review of his edits will show. I keep trying to impose balance in that section, but he keeps editing and reverting, basically taking over his "turf" and imposing his POV. He made certain to provide the university affiliation of his preferred commentator, but edited out the title and university affiliation of Lasocki, the other point of view. Then, he chased me over to Lanier family tree and made a completely unjustified reversion of a verifiable fact which was supported by a genealogical link. I hope this can come to a good conclusion with some outside advice and input, because frankly I am not going to continue editing on Wikipedia if he continues this aggressive and impolite behavior.--139.80.18.108 03:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This user came to the page basically immediately accusing me of bias- he has now resorted to completely inventing accusations (User_talk:Blnguyen#Request_for_Sanctions_Against_a_User). I believe both ips are the same person and are User:Andrewudstraw who seemed to cause some issues in 2006 [12] ("Sure you do. One neoconservative watches the back of another. I too read Talk:Neoconservativism and see how you operate" to User:MONGO). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Also the reversion to Lanier family tree was completely justified as it was just unsourced family trivia. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Gustav von Humpelschmumpel can make all the personal attacks he wants (calling another person an "ass" when reverting on the Talk:Jeronimo Bassano page shows his attitude); it will still not change the POV problems with the edits he made. I invite others to simply look at the page, what he has done to it through his edits, and come to their own conclusions. Further, the Lanier family tree reversion he made was unjustified because the genealogical link provided in the original entry was proof that a descendant of this family married another Italian Piva in 1994. Perhaps this is not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia, but many articles do have a trivia section.--139.80.18.108 22:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I never called anyone an "ass". Thankyou Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a calmer approach is needed. Personally, I would prefer my marriage not to be featured in Wikipedia, even in a section on my family tree. This introduces some privacy issues; maybe even identity theft problems could happen. It's bad enough that my information is in the free genealogy website on the web. Is it appropriate for me to object? I don't have an opinion on the whole disagreement over the Jewish issue, although it would be good to have lots of sources because I believe others in my family--my brother is fanatical about our genealogy--will find this topic interesting. Can we get some short quotes from each of these sources into the article? Jeronimo Bassano isn't very long, as articles go. --Andy 22:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on that is clearly you editing under an ip- stop being a WP:DICK. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Far be it from me to actually agree with your edits (did you read what I wrote?). Calling me a dick doesn't help your case very much.--Andy 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you are just trying to get out of the fact that you blatantly made a false accusation that I called you an "ass" under an ip and I spotted it was actually you. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


I've looked through these articles and I do not see any improper behavior by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, other than a small indiscretion just above in the way he quoted the essay WP:DICK. His edits seem to be according to policy. There is no sign in the talk page history that he deleted other user's comments or called anyone an "ass." If that text exists, please show a link to the history or diff to show it. I was not able to find anything like that. On the other hand, the IP editor has made some antagonistic comments, especially of concern since the accusations seem to be fabricated. There also is some indication that it's possible the IP may be a sockpuppet as Gustav von Humpelschmumpel mentioned. If the negative behavior continues, it might be helpful to file a report at WP:SSP; however, that takes work and time so unless the problem increases, it's probably best to ignore it.
I did not go into the details of the editing conflict, because that's not the purpose of this page. If you would like help with an editing dispute about content, try Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Editor assistance. --Parzival418 Hello 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


User:Suidafrikaan marking almost all edits as minor

Resolved.

I have alerted the user to Help:Minor edit, but was greeted with a personal attack and would rather not be involved with him directly. He continious to mark almost all edits as minor when they clearly are not: Special:Contributions/Suidafrikaan. Deon Steyn 07:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a user preference setting that causes all edits to be marked as minor by default. Maybe he has that checked unintentionally. --Parzival418 Hello 08:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I see it now yes, that doesn't seem very smart? Either way, his edits aren't marked correctly, but I don't want to set him off, because he has accused me of persecuting him :-) --Deon Steyn 09:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well there are some uses for that, such as when doing many edits in a row that are all spelling corrections or something, that some people like to do. For substanital edits, it's preferred not to mark them minor, but if he's making trouble for you I suggest just ignoring it. If he is uncivil in debates about content edits, that would be different and you might have to find a better solution. For this though, take the easy way out. --Parzival418 Hello 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


User:64.60.195.98 editing and removing other's comments from Talk:Dragon Skin body armor

Stale.

I have repeatedly reverted these edits, requesting that the individual stop, as the points removed are not personal attacks or otherwise inappropriate. I don't know what to do next, however it is frustrating that this individual thinks that a proper way to avoid discussion they do not like is to simply censor it. I have not reverted their last removal. Darker Dreams 13:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Infringement of WP:NPOV on article Theories on the origin of Croats

Resolved.

I am not a regular wikipedian, nor an expert on this particular topic, so apologies if I am not going about this the right way. I believe the section on the Iranian theory on the origin of the Croats on the above mentioned page has too strong a point of view. The references used are either obscure and indecipherable (this has nothing to do with them being in Croatian of course), or in the case of footnote 3, are strongly nationalistic and of dubious neutrality. The section does not talk to the latter section on genetic evidence which more or less refutes it. My understanding of the history of the peoples of the Balkans is that such a strong 'Iranian theory' has been largely put to bed by academics, and I think this article would benefit from some reference to this. Perhaps someone reading this will be more knowledgeable about the topic and would be able to clean up this article? Saamah 17:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to post your request. It's good to protect the NPOV as youmentioned. You can edit the article yourself, or you can post your comments on the talk page of the article. There, you will find editors discussing the article and you can work with them to improve it. To learn about how to edit Wikipedia articles, please visit the main help page table of contents. --Parzival418 Hello 19:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


User:Yankees10

Resolved.

This is about the article G-Unit Feuds, I have tried to improve the layout of this article to enable easier understanding for people who are coming to wikipedia to learn something new. The User Yankees10 has continually been reverting my edits. In my opinion he is being protective of the article beause he claims to have made it himself. There has been other minor disputes between me and this user over the same article about merging with G-Unit, but again he continually removes my tags. I chose to let that one go because I did not want to have to take it further. I would appreciate some help on this situation

Thanks

--The-G-Unit-Boss 17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC) 17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the first tag revert on G-Unit Feuds, your merge tag should not have been removed, however I do feel that had a discussion taken place it is likely that your merge proposal would have been opposed - my reasoning is that both articles are already of a reasonable length, and since it is a popular subject they are both bound to get longer, better to have sparate articles. As an alternative for you what about placing a condensed version of G-Unit Feuds into the G-Unit article? That said, you do have every right to put a merge tag on the page, and the 3RR rule is there to make sure it isn't removed before a discussion can take place sbandrews (t) 18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
on the subject of the current debate on section structure I see what you are aiming to do by puttung all the feuds into a section feud, however this has the disadvantage that editors can no longer edit the separate sections individually, so I would side with yankee10 on this issue. sbandrews (t) 18:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, With my version of the article there are still little links-'edit' to edit each section, i.e each feud with a different person, the current article that yankees10 continues to revert to is not clearly structured and is not easy to understand for inexperienced users. Also with feuds it is often difficult to distinguish between feuds that are still continuing and those that have been settled, I have had this conversation with yankees10 but he seems to think that he can tell when a feud is over and prefers to have 'Past Feuds' and 'Feuds'.

Thanks

--The-G-Unit-Boss 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, you are right! Can't think why I thought that... There are two issues here, first putting everthing under the heading feud - second distinguishing past and current feuds. I would suggest trying to reach consensus on one issue at a time, show you willingness to compromise by reverting to yankees10 version and opening a discussion on the talk page about what criterion are being used to determine whether a feud is over or not, and then move forward from there... sbandrews (t) 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am absolutely sure that trying to disscuss this matter with yankees10 will not resolve anything, he is being completely ignorant to the fact that I am only trying to improve the article. When I changed it to my version he reverted and wrote : wow you dont know when to give up, there is no way of persuading him.

Thanks --The-G-Unit-Boss 17:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In that you may be right, but there is more to the talk page than discussing with your current fellow editor - what you write there will, unlike content you put on the article page, remain for people to read for a long time. So it is a great place to write down what you think should be done to the article - even if your ideas don't get taken up immediately future editors with the same viewpoint can take them up and point to them as evidence of consensus. You started well using the talk page for the merge issue, be bold, use it again, this is just what it is for... sbandrews (t) 07:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Ok, Ill try that, its just that not a lot of people visit the talk page, is there any notice that is available to put on the article which alerts people of disscussion on the talk page?

Thanks

--The-G-Unit-Boss 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, maybe this tag will do - {{disputed}} - or perhaps - {{ReversionWar|talk page section name}}. sbandrews (t) 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing dispute at Talk:Atheism

Resolved.

ThAtSo's lack of civility has poisoned the discussion at Talk:Atheism intended to improve the article.

On June 9, the day Atheism was the featured article of the day, I pointed out that a citation in the article (dealing with the relationship between religiousity and intelligence) was not a reliable source. Specifically, it was an article from an obscure, non-peer-reviewed magazine by an unknown author. No editor had actually seen the article, but it was mentioned in Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion, a diatribe against religion. I explained that instead of using this highly dubious source, we should look for objective sources in peer-reviewed literature. I even went on to Google and Google Scholar to find sources we could use.

Thatso reacted acerbically, with the following comments:

  • "This correlation doesn't directly tell us the cause. In other words, it doesn't tell us whether religion encourages people to be stupid and ignorant, or religion just makes better marketing headroads among the stupid and ignorant. No matter how you slice it, though, when you put the facts in such blunt terms, feelings are going to be hurt. That's too bad, but a fact's a fact, and we can't hide them just to spare feelings. That's why, in the end, this section isn't going anywhere" (June 10)
  • "Thank you ever so much for your statement of faith. Unfortunately, your unsupported assertion carries no weight in the face of the evidence, so I must reject your conclusion. The truth is objective and cannot be changed by your whims, no matter how strongly you wish otherwise. Finally, it's not up to me to prove the link; there are dozens of studies that prove it for me. Any doubt you express now is itself consistent with that link. After all, any 'belief system' that encourages you to reject proven facts isn't going to help you learn." (June 12)
  • "This is getting tedious. I'm not making this stuff up, just referencing the meta-study that you are very much aware of and wish to delete all mention of. It's not my fault that there's a correlation, and it's not my responsibility to somehow personally prove what those studies already prove. This isn't about me, it's about you wanting to hide facts that you consider unpleasant, which just isn't going to happen." (June 13)
  • "Please, if you were interested in an objective perspective rooted in the evidence, you'd be an atheist and we wouldn't be having this discussion." (June 18)

Thatso's angry responses and attitude violated WP:NPA (no personal attacks), WP:AGF (assume good faith), WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) and Wikipedia:Civility. I explained this to him on his user talk page. But instead of changing his behavior, ThAtSo tried to turn the tables on me with a frivolous complaint.

User:Devraj5000 whose user page says he wants to "promote atheism in the Wikipedia" went on a rant on the talk page about how atheism is good and religion is bad, so there should be no criticism of atheism in the article. He did this after I had explained WP:NPOV on his user talk page. So I pointed out on Talk:Atheism that he was violating NPOV and should refrain from involvement on the page if he could not take a step back from his personal views. ThAtSo stepped in in Devraj5000's defense by attacking me:

  • "I may be new to Wikipedia, but I know it's not kosher to try to scare off contributors with personal attacks. Cut it out or I will report you."

I would appreciate if some people can help explain to ThAtSo why his conduct is so potentially detrimental to the project before he forces me to seek arbitration. -- Mwalcoff 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

These comments are both provoked and cherry-picked, intentionally taken out of context so as to mislead. Their context is the discussion page of the article on atheism, where Mwalcoff is bullying atheists by encouraging them not to edit the article. His motivation is that he is a theist who would like to insert a large number of uncited apogetic arguments to bias the article towards his POV, and he needs to remove the people who oppose his changes. I encourage you to go the page and read the whole thing for yourself so you can see what's really going on here. But first, let me show you some of the things he likes to say:
  • "If you are too zealous of an atheist to edit this article from an objective perspective, you should not be involved in this article."
  • " If you are unable to take a step back from your personal views, you should refrain from editing this article."
I may be new to Wikipedia, but I know all about bullies in real life and that means I won't back down. ThAtSo 08:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Comment. I've changed the heading of this alert to "Editing dispute at Talk:Atheism" rather than " User:ThAtSo" because it's not reaqlly about his behavior, it's about a disagreement in the content and methods of editing at that article. After reading the long complaint above and then looking at the talk page, I do not see User:ThAtSo writing incivil comments or personal attaks. I do see that both of you are somewhat heated about the topic, and I do suggest that you both take a deep breath and relax a bit before writing your comments. Focus on the content and not on each other.

Regarding the formatting of the report, I should point out that it was not posted according to the instructions for posting alerts, near the top of this page, where it is requested that editors posting alerts not engage in long discussions and descriptions and instead make a concise statement of the problem and provide links to specific examples. I should also point out that it is not appropriate to bring up arbitration at this stage of your discussion, since arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, not the place to start. If you get stuck in the early easy processes, mediation could be an option, but I doubt that will be needed.

I suggest that you invite other editors to offer their comments on the content of the article. That way it can move away being a dispute between just a few people to a wider discussion that can attain consensus. To do that, you could file a Request for Comment at WP:RFC about the article. (To be clear, I am not suggesting an WP:RFC/U which would be for comment about a user - that would not be appropriate in this situation.) You could also invite editors from various Wikiprojects that relate to the topic of the article, such as religion, philosophy, sociology and psychology. Good luck. --Parzival418 Hello 20:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you completely on ThAtSo's behavior. From the beginning of this dispute, ThAtSo's comments have dripped with incivility, personal animosity and refusal to assume good faith on my part. He has even brought that attitude here to this page, in which he accuses me, completely falsely and without evidence, of a sinister motivation. If you go back and read how this dispute unfolded chronologically, including my comments on ThAtSo and Devraj5000's user talk pages, you'll see how I did everything possible to maintain politeness and assume good faith. But my overtures were met with more incivility on ThAtSo's part.
Note that before coming here, I posted an RFC about the editing dispute. There are two separate issues here: the editing dispute, and ThAtSo's behavior. I can deal with the editing dispute, but ThAtSo's continuing harrassment needs to be stopped.
I apologize for not reading the instructions more carefully. -- Mwalcoff 22:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the apology about the instructions. I didn't mean to make a big deal about that.
Regarding your comments about User:ThAtSo, I have re-visited Talk:Atheism and read all of his comments plus some of the others. I do see that there is an overall hi level of stress there, between many of the editors on the article, but I just don't see any pattern of harrassment by that one user. I also reviewed your talk page and that of the other two editors you mentioned and I don't see the problem you described. I see that he has stated some strong opinions, but you have done so as well. Some of his comments that you've described as personal attacks, to me just look like disagreements. Maybe some other editors should visit the page and bring their comments - this is just my personal viewpoint.
One of the important things to consider is that there is that there are multiple editors on both sides of the dispute and ThAtSo is not any kind of "ringleader". There are some comments by various editors there that one might consider uncivil, and in one case, someone else pointed it out and there was an apology. It's certainly far from consensus, and that's frustrating. But I don't understand why you see the problem as generated by the one user you reported.
I recommend that you change your focus and instead of trying to convince a certain person to change their mind, work to find consensus among the editors working on the page. If someone says something uncivil, point it out and ask for it to be withdrawn. If you and the other editors consistently steer the debate away from heated arguments or personal comments and towards referenced facts and reliable sources, it will work out fine. If a user really does have a problem and won't behave according to the community policies, over time that will become more clear and the user will get himself in trouble. So far though, at least to me view, that's not happening in this situation. --Parzival418 Hello 01:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pazival. I'm not out to change ThAtSo's mind. I just wish he would stop being sarcastic, insulting and accusatory. I'll try to ignore him. -- Mwalcoff 02:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan, I appreciate your willingness to give it a chance. --Parzival418 Hello 05:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: List of mind mapping software (initial report was titled: User:Timeshifter)

Stuck. Disagreement about article content and methods of communicating is ongoing. No one particular editor is causing the problems. Recommend avoiding all personal comments and focusing on content only. RFC active at the article, hopefully more editors will visit and consensus can be found. Interested editors, please visit this link to enter your comments: Talk:List of mind mapping software#Request for Comment: List of mind mapping software --Parzival418 Hello 07:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

Race and genetics

Resolved.

Edit war with User:XGustaX for removing cited material Muntuwandi 05:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice. User:XGustaX deleted the above report from this page as of 22:47, 19 June 2007 with the edit summary "(debate is over)". The alert text has been restored because content entered on this page is for community involvement and should not be removed except in unusual circumstances, with justification. When an alert is resolved, it can be noted here for the record, but not deleted. I have not reviewed the specifics of this alert, but it should be noted that removal of the alert by User:XGustaX was inappropriate in that it was his conduct being questioned by the editor who posted the alert.
Editors are invited to review and comment on the alert as reported. --Parzival418 Hello 08:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


I am sorry I was not aware it was against the rules. The issue does seem to be over we have reached and agreement and we have finished disussing how to add the information and revise the other information. XGustaX 13:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's not a big deal. It's just that this page is a record for the community of these discussions. After a while if the alert is inactive it will be removed from this page and archived by date, linked in the archive box near the top of the page. It appears the conflict is resolved. If it flares up again, you've welcome to add to this alert posting. --Parzival418 Hello 07:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Toupee

Resolved.

During a heated debate over content in the Toupee article, IP 24.15.208.65 declared that I was arrogant and then, when I tried to urge him against calling names, he simply reaffirmed the statement. After the second time I suggested that we discuss content not contributors, he was rude. I even kindly said that I would, "rather putz around arguing with you about a list of toupee wearers than see you not contributing, so don't make personal attacks, okay?" All of this is documented on Talk:Toupee#two concerns. VanTucky 05:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a read through wp:npa and the most fitting piece of advice I found for you was 'Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all.'. Though it's rather too late to use in this instance, looking back through the comments on the talk page it's easy to see how the conflict grew out of a few badly chosen phrases and words on both sides. My solution for you? One of you needs to either apologise (the brave way) or back off (less brave :D) and forget about the harsh words, kind regards sbandrews (t) 08:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the advice. I've since agreed that I was just complicit in provoking the attack by responding and by threatening a block for violation of npa. VanTucky 05:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy and user:bobsmith319

Resolved.

This guy has continually been a one-man crusade to censor the nude image of a pregnant woman, and despite consensus being against him, today I noticed he once again removed the image, for no reason, with no edit summary and not even an attempt to discuss on the talk page. I went to his talk page and warned him if he tries it again I'll have to do something, I figure a RfC, but I've no idea if even that would convince him to stop being disruptive. he's been warned multiple times, but I'm going here first because it's been a while since he last tried it, and I'd rather prevent this from becoming messy like last time. Kuronue 02:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see his many arguments on the talk page for removing the image, but Bobsmith319 has only removed the image from the article once recently and once six months ago. So he's not revert-warring or causing trouble with the article. I see that he makes strong statements on the talk page and often veers into borderline incivility, but as long as he does not actually remove the image from the article, those are just words and you can ignore them, especially since there is consensus at the article to retain the image. If he removes it, revert the change. If he removes it again, post a notice on the talk page to the other editors (not directly to this user - don't argue about it) and ask to confirm consensus so someone else can revert it and you don't get into a reversion war. Review the article on WP:Consensus for some good tips. Every comment does not need a response. You can't change someone's mind if they are not open to change - comments on the talk page are just talk. As long as he's not disturbing the article, I suggest you ignore his provocations. Most important, don't post on his user talk page, that can inflame the problem. If he posts on yours, if he is civil, reply if you wish. If his comment is uncivl, strike it out and let him know you will only reply to polite comments. --Parzival418 Hello 07:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Soxrock's disruptive editing pattern

Despite pleas from several editors, User:Soxrock persists using a highly disruptive method of editing articles that, while technically not against any specific policy, is disruptive and detrimental to the database as a whole. Specifically, the editor in question has been making rather minor changes to articles (typically dealing with sports statistics) as a series of several dozen tiny edits instead of one or two large edits. Several editors, including myself, have urged Soxrock to stop this primarily through the use of the "Show preview" button. We have explained that his editing style has major negative impacts on the project's servers: the server load and bandwidth required to update the pages for every single edit he submits, the clogging up of edit summaries and the wasted extra storage space required for the thousands of intermediate pages he leaves in his wake. None of this has dissuaded him from this pattern.

For specific examples of this behavior, please see the following diffs:

  1. [22] — List of managers for the Cincinnati Reds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), 218 consecutive edits over the course of 27 1/2 hours.
  2. [23] — 2007 Tampa Bay Storm season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), 47 consecutive edits over the course of 14 hours.
  3. [24] — 1961 American Football League Draft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), 250 edits (plus 5 edits from another editor who was trying to demonstrate how to accomplish the same amount of work with only a handful of edits) over the course of two days.

These are only the most egregious examples from the past week.

When confronted about this disruptive behavior, Soxrock has been alternatingly duplicitous — by saying he will change his ways (see here and here)— and indignant (as with here).

For some reason, this only seems to be problem that has surfaced in the last two months. Per my comments here, I think that Soxrock has a bad case of editcountitis. (See here for Soxrock's edit count and edit summary usage.) What we need to impress upon him is that in the long run, he is doing more harm than good as far as the project goes.

Thanks, Caknuck 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

His main purpose for doing this, as Soxrock himself has admitted, is to avoid edit conflicts. But in reality, he makes these series' of edits on articles in which he is the only editor, if not one of the very few editors, who edits that article, reducing the risk of any edit conflict arising dramatically. --Ksy92003(talk) 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe his main purpose of doing this is to drive up his edit count. I questioned his editing techniques before, here: User_talk:Soxrock#Small_Edits_on_ATH_Stats. Just looking at his contributions, I see that the situation hasn't gotten any better. The last 37 edits (all on June 25th) of this article 1999-2000_NHL_season are his, including an astounding 29 edits in 17 minutes. Bjewiki 12:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kellygorge

Resolved. Not certain if he gave up or was satisfied by the last edit I made to the article in question, but the problem is resolved for now. Caerwine 05:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This user keeps making badly formatted and unreferenced edits to Technician Fourth Grade and related articles. I've asked him to at least make decently formatted edits and that I'd be willing to put some effort into verifying his edits, but instead he keeps making badly formatted edits without response. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to concentrate on formatting his/her entries (as he/she is a new editor) and place fact tags next to contentious material - then if a reference isn't provided after a few days, by either you or another editor, you could remove the material, this might help calm the situation down a little. Try and put plenty of reasoning into your edit comments, keep them calm, polite and instructive, often a good way to reach uncommunicative editors - use the edit comments to invite discussion on the talk page - good luck, sbandrews (t) 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Talk:Rigdonite

Resolved.

I personally believe that JCG has a hard time assuming good faith, (usually explicitly assuming bad faith) and doesn't appear to understand wikiprocedure (see Talk:Rigdonite). Right now I feel as if I'm fighting an uphill battle against him. McKay 14:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a read through - it is starting to get a bit heated :) but you are both making some good points. What do you think about his/her suggestion of a merger with Sidney Rigdon as a way of moving forward? sbandrews (t) 15:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
call me crazy, but I'm having a hard time seeing his points as being sensical. I don't think either of us think a merger is necessary. Both of us think that the topic is probably notable, but I put the tag up, because the notability guideline hasn't been met, and he insisists that it has been met, without ever stating how. That's the crux of the issue. I quote guidelines, he just says I'm wrong. I'd appreciate any input on that page or on The Church of Jesus Christ. McKay 16:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was out of line in my comments. The chill pill comment was made to redirect you to my actual statement about capitalizing the C in all Restoration groups, which was my major comment that you had not commented on. Thanks guys! Jcg5029 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in your statement about my not commenting on the uncial 'C'. I did not have any substantive comment on that part of your statement. McKay 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you accept my sincere apology? Jcg5029 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I accept an apology, but it appears as if several other problems remain:
  1. You don't appear to understand wikiprocedures
  2. nor do you explain your reasoning within wikipolicy.
  3. Removal of cleanup tags without consensus happens repeatedly, McKay 20:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


OK, I edited both your comments a bit to keep us on track, my apologies for being away for a while - basicly I repeat that I do think you are both making some good points here, its the kind of discussion that happens very often on wikipedia, the important thing is as both of you point out to keep on assuming good faith - and from an outsiders point of view may I assure you both that I see heaps of good faith on both sides.
I have also renamed the discussion here - as realy this is a discussion about what is happening in the rigdonite article, this is not an editor review nor have I any intention of becoming involved in one - nor imo is one needed sbandrews (t) 06:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
As a way of bringing in more editors to get a broader range of views on the subject proposing a merge to either Sidney Rigdon or Latter Day Saint movement could prove very constructive - my vote would be for the latter - and would in no way diminish the value of the work in the article, indeed the added context would probably improve it greatly. sbandrews (t) 07:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
good, if either of you want/need help setting up the merge templates do please ask, kind regards, sbandrews (t) 04:43, 28 June 2007 (1UTC)

Richmond, California

Stale.

Iliketobeanonymous is being very unvicil to me on the Richmond, California article, talk page, edit summaries called me an idiot, and has made lots of intimidating belittle snips at meCholga is a SUPERSTAR¡Talk2Cholga!Sexy Contribs 04:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

but you seem to be giving as good as you get :) - I read through some of the discussion on the talk page, and one thing that strikes me is that a few times you say there can be no compromise (when it comes to the facts) - well from my experience on wiki when it comes to an edit dispute there always has to be compromise, so this is my advice to you, start learning how to get *part* of what you want by compromising a little - its like bartering at a market eh? Can be fun, luego amigo :) sbandrews (t) 06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ceiling fan

Stale.

This article has been largely written by one person. I feel it needs a lot of work to conform to WP:NPOV and WP:Cite. user:Piercetheorganist who has largely written the article by himself, continually fights any edit made to the page, frequently not with civility. I am concerned by his behavior (he has been banned once for incivility). I mainly would like another experience editor to review what is going on and to bring more editors into the process to try to build a consensus. Idioma 04:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

could you narrow it down a bit - which edits in particular do you find questionable? sbandrews (t) 08:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

Various editors keep reverting my {{globalize}} tag for the article without having achieved consensus or addressed the issues raised by me on the talk page. My concern has been an inadvertent violation of WP:NPOV by the introduction of a Systematic bias into the article by the exclusion of notable mainstream non-western academics as non-RS due their affiliation with Muslim institutions of learning. I do not wish to get into an embroiled in an extended edit-war over the expression of a concern with the article!!--Tigeroo 21:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Apostrophe re: multiple articles involving persistent violations of WP:CIV

  • Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Please see special contrbutions for user Apostrophe as to edit summaries such as "completely incomprehensible...get over it...it takes a special kind of idiot....dumbest use...READ...incoherence much?" etc. This goes on for months and this editor has been banned for such discourteous behavior without any demonstrative change exhibited after being censured. Below this post are those of fellow editors who also expressed that this should be posted elsewhere other than WP:AVI where it was initially posted. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
doesn't look like a obvious case of vandalism, more like an edit war. Might want to try Wikipedia:Resolving disputes instead. Nat Tang ta | co | em 07:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree -- this is probably worth looking into, but is also probably more suited to a discussion board, such as WP:AN/I. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You might list them at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Corvus cornix 07:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:Madchester

Resolved.

I have been the victim of harassment by User:Madchester over the last few days. Any edits I make are immediately reverted, and attempt to make contact with User:Madchester is regarded as vandalism, and he continually reverts my talk page when I have asked him not to. I will attempt to inform Madchester of this page.

Any assistance with this user would be most appreciated, thankyou. Thatswhatsup 19:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy is that users should not delete (warning) messages on their own talk page, though I understand that can sometimes be frustrating, that's just the way it is - hope that helps sbandrews (t) 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I read Whatsup's message as saying that Madchester was reverting Whatsup's Talk page, not his own. That qualifies as open harassment, if true. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
the reverts were done to replace warnings on Whatsup's talk page - Madchester is an admin and had left them there (I think) sbandrews (t) 20:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thatswhatsup was constantly remove other editors' comments and warnings without their permission. Barring blatant vandalism, that is unacceptable per WP's talk page guidelines. --Madchester 20:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, now that I look over Whatsup's contribution history and history on both his and Madchester's talk page, I agree. It appears that Whatsup has engaged in active vandalism and has been properly warned, and is in fact harassing Madchester in retaliation for administrator warnings. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thatswhatsup: As explained above, Madchester is a Wikipedia administrator, and near as I can tell he was well within his right to warn you about your behavior. Your responses to him, including your tone and the blanking of your Talk page, were visibly inappropriate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
KieferSkunk: I was not harrasing Madchester, I tried to communicate with him on his talk page and my edits would continually be removed and a warning of vandalism. It was after that I used foul language, which I agree is inappropriate, but as is reverting my edits without cause. I was not vandalising any articles, I was contributing, yet my articles would be reverted without cause or justification, and any uploaded images deleted regardless of license. I do not want Madchesters comments on my talk page, and have removed his comments, as this user is causing me much frustration and is distracting me from making useful edits to the wiki. Furthermore removing my comments from his talk page that is unacceptable per WP's talk page guidelines Thatswhatsup 13:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid your contribution history, the history on your User Talk page and Madchester's User Talk page do not bear you out. Madchester does not appear to have removed your comments from his talk page - all he did was add the {{unsigned}} template to your comments to indicate who had left them. He moved portions of his talk page to a set of archives. Meanwhile, your tone toward him appears to have been very aggressive, posturing and/or threatening from the start. I am basing my assessment on reading the Diffs for your edits and edits surrounding yours, from all three sources.
Early in your contribution history, you appeared to be adding or changing established images in several articles to the same unrelated image file. Those changes were reverted, and it appears that Madchester gave you a warning to stop doing that, among other things. At this point, I do not believe Madchester has done anything wrong. If you can post links to specific examples in whcih you feel you have been wronged by Madchester, we can go from there. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 14:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not know how to check my contributions or to retrieve history, but any attempt to edit any page at all seems to get reverted automatically. Surely in his talk history it shows that I made comments which were removed with a vandalism warning as my only response. I apologize for my atagonistic communication, but continual reverts without reason or communication is frustrating. At this point I do not want his name on my talk page as I am still quite angry. Thatswhatsup 17:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
KieferSkunk: If you want proof just look at my talk page, I am now being accused of using an alternate IP, my talk page is continually reverted against my will, and I am accused of vandalism(it is my own page....), I am getting mighty sick of this, and would like some sort of restraining order, why not have a different editor make reverts if they feel it is warranted? Also, I expected to be banned temporarily any second now, as I have archived my talk page, and Madchester won't like that. Thatswhatsup 18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Two things: First, it's not a good idea to bait admins into taking disciplinary action. Second, to check your contributions, click on "my contributions" at the top-right corner of any WP page. While on your User or User Talk page, you can also click on "User contributions". To see the edit history of any page, navigate to that page and then click the "history" tab at the top. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, continually blanking your page despite a recent block is not going to improve your reputation on Wikipedia. Don't take the warnings personally, they're only suppose to help you improve your contributions to the site. I don't want to extend a block on your account for both the repeated talk page refactoring and evading a block by using an alternate IP.

And I had to archive my last month of comments, b/c one of the bots had placed some 50+ image tagging warnings on my talk page. It just made it impossible for other editors to communicate with me properly. --Madchester 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not used an alternate IP at all, if I have it was automatic, and not something intentially done, I decided to wait until I could complain about you, since you removed any ability to talk to you and failed to communicate with me when I could. I want your name of my talk page, feel free to let some other editor summarise your "warnings". Thatswhatsup 17:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't look to me like you understand, Thatswhatsup... if you want to resolve a conflict, violating WP policy (blanking your Talk page) and telling Madchester to get "the hell" off of your Talk page isn't the way to do it. Those warnings he left on your page are official policy warnings, given by a WP administrator, and unless I missed something along the way, those warnings were left for a reason. Not to harass you, but to let you know that your behavior appeared to be out of line.
I do not see any evidence that you have actively tried to resolve your conflict with Madchester at all - all you have done was to tell him (in a very confrontational way) to not leave any messages on your Talk page, and then complained about him here.
To Madchester: It's difficult to prove IP-address issues regarding IP-based blocks, though I believe there's enough circumstancial evidence to support your claim. I'm sure you're aware that most ISPs assign dynamic IPs to their customers, and in many work environments (behind firewalls, etc), the IP can change dramatically even between page loads. Also, as I understand it, a user can still access his/her own Talk page even when blocked from the rest of WP, specifically so they can protest the block. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
KieferSkunk, If you look at madchesters talk page history, I had asked why he would not stop blanking my talk page, you would think he could give a warning with a bit more explanation. Regardless, I am not the only one who has violated WP policy. Please explain what evidence you are referring to that supports that I tried to get around the block? I am thinking of starting ove with a new username, one that is not on MadChesters watchlist. Tis a sad world when someone is blocked and cannot even edit their own talkpage to protest. Thatswhatsup 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that you tried to get around the block, I will ask madchester to clarify sbandrews (t) 13:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Madchester has confirmed that he was mistaken on the issue of block evasion - so I have struck through the relevant part of his edit on this page sbandrews (t) 17:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
An apology would be nice, and I request to be taken of Madchesters watchlist(he is notified of any edit I make), as I feel that is not unlike being spied upon. Perhaps he in the future he can provide an explanation with his warnings. Thatswhatsup 13:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of any such watchlist - not one that notifies of any edit you make - though of course all of our edits on wikipedia are open for all to view. I think it is unlikely that you will get any apology, since you were exceedingly rude to him! Try to remember that admins are just normal people who work voluntarily in this project to help, in the end, people like you. I did point out to him that more explanations with his warnings would be a good idea, I'm sure he has taken that onboard, sbandrews (t) 17:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


User:MaxPont re: Talk:Stephen_Barrett#Refusal_to_accept_Mediation

Resolved.

MaxPont has been questioning the three editors that disagreed with a mediation attempt [25] by commenting on their talk pages [26] [27] [28]. After each editor responded, and MaxPont was warned not to take the issue further (User_talk:MaxPont#Mediation_was_declined), MaxPont has taken it to the article's talk page. --Ronz 15:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A complicated situation - with regards to your recent discussion on Maxpont's talk page, I agree that his questioning of the three editors had an element of harassment to it, however all three seemed to respond well, calmly explaining their reasons (even apologetically) , after which Maxpont left them alone - all good. Do you realy feel you have the right to *warn* other users away from discussing issues - that too has an element of harassment to it, don't you think? sbandrews (t) 16:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering that MaxPont escalated the issue to the article discussion page, yes I think it was appropriate to warn him previously. One reason that I didn't mention for giving the warning was the discussions on the mediation talk page, which was deleted. The answers that the editors gave again for MaxPont had already been given on the talk page. For that matter, they had been previously given on the article talk page before the mediation was even suggested as a part of the prior RfCs, prior mediation, and prior three months of non-stop discussion on the issue which led to this mediation. --Ronz 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It reminds me a bit of the never ending arguments on the talk:global warming page - several of the editors on the stephen barrett page, no doubt yourself included, are suggesting just letting the issue drop for a while - and that seems like a very good idea, but can we really demand that all others do likewise? Who is to decide that consensus has been reached to stop discussion? sbandrews (t) 17:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Still it's no excuse to violate WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARRASS just to make a WP:POINT. --Ronz 18:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Ronz archived the talk page section.(diff) (diff) After MaxPont had reverted both edits, I removed the section once again from the Barrett talk page (no consensus required to remove stuff like this. how does violating WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARRASS help build an encyclopedia?). MaxPont is invited to make their points without (restoring) policy violations that poison the atmosphere. Avb ÷ talk 21:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Zheng He

Resolved.

I have been trying to avoid edit war over whether Chinese voyager Zheng He reached the Americas in the 15th century. User:Sllee19 (talk) has engaged in multiple reverts and I have been critical of his contributions. User:HenriLobineau (talk) has accused me of an "unhelpful (almost closed-minded) attitude," "deliberate misrepresentation" of the views of another, and deletionism. Talk:Zheng He is long, but the Americas debate begins at Talk:Zheng He#Original research. See also User talk:Sllee19 and User talk:HenriLobineau. Please bring us your counsel. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

One visitor came to the page, and I have created a sandbox for the discussion. Posted the following at Talk:Zheng He#Sandbox created:

As the discussion over purported evidence of a Chinese presence in the Americas before 1492 has become lengthy and is drawing on highly detailed evidence, I have acted on the suggestion by HenriLobineau and created a sandbox for the discussion. Everyone is invited to continue this discussion at User:Alarob/Zheng He. My hope is that we can arrive at a consensus and perhaps improve one or more sections of this article. Please visit the page (which contains only a descriptive header) and let me know if you would like to see some additional ground rules or a better description of the page's purpose. Also let me know how the debate should be structured. Perhaps there should be a section on the brass medallion, one on the Big Dipper flag, and so on. I look forward to an instructive and friendly exchange of views.

-- Rob C (Alarob) 16:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It now appears that the two users who complained about me are unwilling to hold a discussion. Thanks to User:Weston.pace for stopping by. Anyone else? Please? -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be going about things in the right way - most importantly you are keeping your cool! Some of the editors involved have very short edit histories, often they will disappear when the talk page calms down, so a good technique is to space out your edits, making the whole situation less interesting to those not here to write quality encyclopaedic entries. As is often the case the issue is what is a good source, have we provided a balanced picture of current academic thinking... I have added the page to my watchlist, sbandrews (t) 12:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Veganism

Resolved.

Hello. I am trying to edit the page on Veganism ( at least) so that it contains counterarguments. Currently, the article is completely imbalanced. All of the editors for that section are members of the Wikipedia Animal Rights project, and as far as I can tell they are all confirmed animal rights proponents.

They continuously remove my attempts to add conflicting content, or even links to it, on the ground that it is insufficiently academic. But my counterarguments, although they are simple, are ones I had to derive on my own BECAUSE no academic or internet source contained balanced information about this subject. The effects on my personal life have been devastating, and I consider this a very serious issue, like having Wikipedia's page on drugs not mention anything negative.

I attempted to turn this matter over for formal dispute mediation, but the proposal was rejected, I think because I had not yet exhausted all other options. I consider that these options are likely to be fruitless, but I am prepared to try them all at this time so that I can get assistance from the Mediation committee in the future. I will not repeat the discussion here, but instead link to the mediation request page, which contains links and discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Veganism

Repeat2341 11:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

From looking over the veganism and vegetarian pages I would say that part of the problem is that you are not yet following the correct procedure for making such edits - i.e. ones that are likely to be disputed. The first and most important thing to know is that when someone reverts one of your edits, take it to the talk page! The talk pages are where most disputes are discussed first, and you don't seem to be taking full advantage of this. A good idea is to search the talk page and its archives to see if similar ideas have been discussed before, perhaps to find editors who have expressed similar views, sbandrews (t) 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

GATXER unable to resist violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

Resolved.
Good afternoon. After taking the time to review the actions of this user, I have come to the conclusion that some intervention may be needed. User has clearly violated civility rules and referring to sourced content as "POV vandalism" is unacceptable. I hope this can be adequately resolved, but since this user already has a case pending in the 3RR Noticeboard, I don't know how likely this is. I'm going to try to reason with him/her nonetheless. Hope we can get this user's side of the story and come to some type of resolution. I'll notify him/her now.The Kensington Blonde T C 22:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on this subject was reached days ago.Editor Nescio then requested a Mediator. The Mediator then agreed with the rest of us and told Nescio he was wrong and we are right. Editor Nescio still refuses to listen to the Consensus.I may have violated civility rules, frankly I'm not sure of that, but its out of frustration that Editor Nescio refuse to accept the Consensus.

As for vandalism, I have been told if someone continues to change a page after Mediation and page Consensus, that is considered Vandalism. Is that not true?

Frankly I believe Editor Nescio just wants to change the page to fit his POV. He's in mediation in many pages. I admit he's knows how Wiki works more than me but doesn't that mean he also should know what Consensus means? GATXER 02:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you please direct me to these instances, so I can take a look? Are you referring to this case? If so, yes, you are somewhat correct in that it was decided something along the lines of "we now know" was inappropriate. But it was also decided that using sourced content to describe the critics' views was within the rules. Could you explain why you then continued to remove sourced content and refer to it as "POV vandalism" after the ruling response on the mediation had been made?The Kensington Blonde T C 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page, Consensus that we should list the reasons and then put the Criticism in the Criticism section and not a running Commentary. "We now know" was POV just as ::(This is not a valid casus belli under the laws of war and with the prohibition of a war of aggression in mind.)[1] is. That is the POV part left. No court in the world has ruled that.

POV vandalism now only is for the This is not a valid casus belli.

Consensus of the talk page has been clear that the running Commentary is POV and should be removed.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_Resolution#Thoughts_on_Running_Parenthetical_Commentary_in_Outline_of_Factors_used_to_Justify_Authorization_of_Force

Also from the Mediator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_Resolution#Suggestion_by_Addhoc

The Running Commentary makes the page hard to read and understand. That's not just me saying so, Its everyone but editor N.

I've made some mistakes. I admit that I'm new to this. I let Editor N get under my skin.For that I'm sorry....for Doing what the Consensus agrees with,I'm not sorry.

In the year or so I've been on here, I have never seen a page Consensus that was everybody on one side but one.GATXER 04:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What I would suggest at this point would be to re-arrange the sourced paragraphs to state that "critics assert" or "critics state" or something along those lines. Whatever consensus stated, the deletion of these sources in their entirety without good reason (i.e. the sources are blatantly inaccurate) is unwarrented, and was not suggested by any mediating body. If you can manage to handle the remainder of this conflict in a civil manner, we just might find a resolution that would be favourable to both sides. However, if you continue to edit in the manner you have done so, you could damage your reputation, or worse, be blocked. And I, for one, would not like to see this happen.The Kensington Blonde T C 04:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has been very clear on this issue, Even before I joined in. We think the reasons for the war should be stated and then criticism should be in the criticism section right below. The Running Commentary just makes the reasons had to separate out. Some of the stuff like "(This is not a valid casus belli under the laws of war and with the prohibition of a war of aggression in mind" isn't backed up by any court in the world at this time.

It should be pointed out that its not criticism we mind, which is good because the entire page is filled with POV stuff. For example every single References is anti-war or Bush. Its just that we think that Editor N is trying to confuse the reasons to make it harder for people to understand. The "Casus" is clearly POV.those are the edits I have been making. I have NEVER touched anything in the criticism section I believe.

I would point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force and to the fact there is no running commentary. GATXER 05:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • To be clear, this request was not another attempt at mediation. Although I appreciate the effort, all that is required is that this editor stops his abusive and belligerent way of contributing. No more, no less. By his own words he is under the impression that "frustration" is a carte blanche to violate WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please inform him that such is unacceptable even when things get heated. Further, you will find the mediator has done what this user refused to do and that is to move the information this editor unwaveringly was deleting against "consensus." The inclusion of the disputed information by the mediator shows that the claimed "consensus" against doing so is a misrepresentation of the facts. Also, continuing the debate while the mediator has already settled the case[29] implies a lack of sufficient knowledge of events on the part of Mr G, or may be part of the behaviour I ask him to stop. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


Well, since this particular noticeboard pertains to civility rules and the violation thereof, I would have to agree with Nescio, at least in this particular portion of the ongoing dispute. GATXER, the fact of the matter is that you have been shown to resort to uncivil tactics, something that is not accepted on Wikipedia. We don't want to see users frustrated here, but there really is no justification for personal attacks. Such tactics serve only as disruption. I may have gone a bit too far here in telling you not to delete the sourced content in question. You doing so is clearly a violation, but since this pertains to etiquette, it's just not my place to take part in the matter, so here is my take:

GATXER: I'm going to give you advice which I hope will be the final word in this portion of the active dispute. Personal attacks are not acceptable. I would strongly suggest that you read both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA thoroughly and repeatedly if necessary. Whatever it will take to get you to return as a civil editor. I would suggest you limit user interaction until both the articles mentioned are read. If this type of behaviour continues, you will be reported to the Administrator Noticebord, where you may be blocked. Because you seem to be remorseful for these attacks, I am under the impression this will not be necessary. Demonstrate your willingness to cooperate with the project as a whole be reading these articles, and abiding by them. Doing this will help your cause, in one way or another. That is all, and I hope the mediation provides the both of you a favourable resolution.TThe Kensington Blonde C 18:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 I consider this matter closed. I was uncivil to him. However I find it funny coming from a man who called George Bush " Fuhr, err, Great Leader." before I called him a Moonbat, who then complains about name calling. I really wonder why editor N needs so many Mediators on Bush pages.. IMHO editor N uses a mediator to bully people to get what he wants. Should it really be necessary to have a mediator decide if "we now know" was POV?. Anyway its over. For those confused by this whole nightmare.....The Mediator fixed the page doing what the Consensus wanted.He did what we all wanted and Editor N was 100% against. I want to thank.Addhoc publicly for it. I have read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and will try to do better.GATXER 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I consider the matter closed, although the way this user persists in his ad hominems, and misrepresentation of the facts, does not seem to match the "remorseful" attitude described above. Nevertheless, I will accept his apologies and hope that in the future he continues to adhere to the above cited policies, even when confronted with "emotional" and "controversial" topics. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)