Billsmith453 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
→User:Yorkshirian (again): new section |
||
Line 433: | Line 433: | ||
== User:87.194.247.89== |
== User:87.194.247.89== |
||
Hi there, hopefully this is the right place for this, user 87.194.247.89, keeps making edits to articles including the [[University of Manchester Students' Union]] which I'm working on, to push his pov on the way we twinned with the university of An-najah. I now notice he's edited the page for [[An-Najah National University]] in a similar way. I've left a message on his talk page and stuff on the article's discussion board but I'm not really sure what to do next. [[User:Billsmith453|Billsmith453]] ([[User talk:Billsmith453|talk]]) 11:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
Hi there, hopefully this is the right place for this, user 87.194.247.89, keeps making edits to articles including the [[University of Manchester Students' Union]] which I'm working on, to push his pov on the way we twinned with the university of An-najah. I now notice he's edited the page for [[An-Najah National University]] in a similar way. I've left a message on his talk page and stuff on the article's discussion board but I'm not really sure what to do next. [[User:Billsmith453|Billsmith453]] ([[User talk:Billsmith453|talk]]) 11:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
== User:Yorkshirian (again) == |
|||
I'm becoming rather displeased and dismayed with [[User:Yorkshirian]]'s abuse against myself, and would like some intervention. Yorkshirian seems to hold a bizarre prejudice (even racist sentiments) against me, keep calling me a "[[Lancashire|Lancastrian]]", when I'm not from Lancashire and implying somehow that it nullifies me as a worthwhile editor with a voice anyway (I have warned him I take offense several times too). Some facts/incidents: |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yorkshirian&diff=next&oldid=184101720] - Warned about incivility and poor conduct. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yorkshirian&diff=prev&oldid=203054200] -Calling others concerns trolling, and ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yorkshirian&diff=prev&oldid=203205688]) that they are a timewaster. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYorkshire&diff=184329903&oldid=184270580] - Abusive edits saying I'm a [[Lancashire|Lancastrian]]. |
|||
*[[User_talk:Yorkshirian/Archive_1#ANI|Promised to behave]] following ANI. |
|||
*[[User_talk:Yorkshirian/Archive_1#Guy_Fawkes_3RR_Warning|Blocked]] for [[WP:3RR]]. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester&diff=prev&oldid=202784502] - Saying I am a bad faith editor. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selby&diff=prev&oldid=202779531] - Saying I troll. |
|||
*[[Talk:Market_Weighton|Saying I'm a random person from Lancashire]], and I stick my nose in and other changes deface articles. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selby&diff=prev&oldid=202766061] - Calling legitimate content changes vandalism. |
|||
* |
|||
*[[Talk:Beverley#Infobox_change|Being incivil]] on talk pages and working against consensus. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddleworth_White_Rose_Society&diff=209884901&oldid=209883453] - Calling me a troll and a "Lancastrian", despite me warning him [[User_talk:Yorkshirian#Edit_war_and_the_three_revert_rule|here (please read the thread)]] that I find it abusive and I'm not from Lancashire. |
|||
Given I feel disheartened, constantly abused with no intervention, and generally made to feel unwelcome on the project by Yorkshirian, I'm more than happy to suspend my content building and elevate this to full mediation and take this as high as possible. This simply can't go on unchecked anymore. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">[[User:Jza84|<b>Jza84</b>]] | [[User_talk: Jza84|<font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk </font>]] </span></small> 12:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:16, 3 May 2008
Welcome to wikiquette assistance | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
Active alerts
This user is continues to harass me on my talk page with spurious warnings and threats of having my editing ability blocked. I believe this is due to his disagreement over this page's existence (he nominated the article for deletion but it was decided the page was worth keeping, much to his disgust). I have no desire to continue this bickering and have asked the user to cease posting on my talk page, he has responded with more baseless warnings and has recently declared that I am on my 'final' warning.
He is only trying to goad me into abusing him so he has an excuse to get my editing rights removed. In my opinion this is a blatant attempt at interpreting wikipedia's guidelines in such as way as to be disruptive while still being able to claim that he is 'only following the rules'. I am sick of being a target for his frustrations. Ars666 (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ars666 is entitled to his opinion regarding the aformentioned AfD discussion (which was closed as Keep anyway, I don't know what he is bitching about) but what is not okay was that during the discussion he characterized other editors as inherently unsuitable to offer their opinion, and ironically, his very premise for this assertion was also completely wrong. This is also a single-purpose account, and I suspect there may be some meatpuppettry going on here as well.
- The issue at hand is that Wakandas black panther put a templatized warning about civility and good faith on Ars666's talk page, after Ars666 had responded very rudely to my attempts to reach an understanding with him. Apparently, Ars666 feels that this template was "poor etiquette."
- A check of Ars666's contribs will show that he has had only one token mainspace contribution. The remaining contribs are all related to protestations against the (failed) AfD of Spots (cannabis). Frankly, I think it is clear that Ars666 does not contribute positively to the project and has no intention to do so in the future. And last time I checked, templatized warnings were the recommended way to deal with editors who have no intention of productive contribution. Therefore, Wakandas black panther's actions were 100% appropriate, and there is no need to continue this discussion. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
User 71.146.83.206
This user has deleted the same single sentence in the Healdsburg, California article three times. The first time, he did it with the comment, "not sure who added this, but this is completely untRue". I reverted it, figuring that it was random vandalism. The second time, he did it with the comment, "dearest DoriSmith this material is false if you believe otherwise you best be prepa". After this, I (1) added a detailed breakdown of the single sentence(!) on the article's talk page, explaining the facts behind every clause, (2) put a brief comment on his talk page asking for discussion to move to the article talk page, and (3) reverted his second deletion. He then deleted the sentence for the third time, with the comment, "this claim is not sourced and you are abusing your privilege of Popups - stop." He left no messages for me on my talk page, his talk page, or the article's talk page.
That line in the article, btw, was originally added in 2005 [1], and has been in there ever since with only minor modifications.
At no point has he ever explained why he thinks it's untrue, false, or not sourced, or even to what part he objects. I don't want to get into a silly reversion war, but I'm having trouble starting a discussion here. Dori (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me that the other user is being particularly rude, although it would be helpful of them to engage in discussion on the talk page. The simplest thing would be to source the sentence, if it's unsourced other editors can remove it at any time for that reason. Restepc (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, I did source it on the talk page—clause by clause. It seems a little extreme to add that much detail to a single sentence in the article, especially when he'll just delete it again and won't discuss the deletion, or even say what he thinks is incorrect. He won't talk to me, so I'd like to stop the reversion dance and somehow find out what's going on.
- As to rudeness (which I hadn't mentioned, but now that you have...), I'm not sure how else to take "dearest" and "you best be prepa"; not to mention his claim that I'm my "abusing" my "privilege of Popups - stop." To the best of my knowledge, popups don't require any privileges. Dori (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- The comments you quote are not very respectful, but I find the sentence you want a little confusing. Is it uncommon for a town to be centred on a 19th century plaza if it wasn't founded under Mexican rule? How does the "though" clause modify the rest of the sentence? Also, you say that you sources the claim on the talk page. Disputed content should be sourced on the page itself (I note that the sentence now has two references, but I haven't checked them), and while you did break it down on the talk page, this breakdown only cited one source, which being a "letter to the editor" would probably not count as reliable. Bovlb (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- As to rudeness (which I hadn't mentioned, but now that you have...), I'm not sure how else to take "dearest" and "you best be prepa"; not to mention his claim that I'm my "abusing" my "privilege of Popups - stop." To the best of my knowledge, popups don't require any privileges. Dori (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I also find the sentence to be, well, not as clear as it could be (it was added by someone else long before I started editing WP), which is why I was trying to find out which of the clauses he objected to. After his reverts (two of which were within 30 minutes of mine), I didn't want to try to put anything back in without some discussion, and I couldn't get him to cooperate.
- I brought it here, and then gave him and this process some time. After three days when he hadn't responded here or on the talk pages, I put the sentence back in with some sources. It's been a week since then and he still hasn't reappeared, so I'm assuming that he's lost interest and gone off to wherever people like that go to when they're not here wasting everyone's time.
I recently wrote a message to Wetman about his comments towards me on the talk page of Amazons [here], where he implied that I wasn't a competent adult and stated that we couldn't have sensible discussion when I disagreed with him on the issue. When I wrote back to him, he replied [here] and again called me incompetent, accused me of having "misplaced self-confidence", implied that my educational background was inferior to his, and compared me to an "aggressive class clown". It is not for my sake that I'm putting in this wikiquette alert, it is for the sake of others. Another editor has told me that Wetman has been rude to him on occasion as well, and I fear that his behavior will start driving away new editors. Asarelah (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wetman has avoided direct personal attacks here, and has tried to make his inflammatory comments non-specific. However, at the root, he is being quite incivil and needs to stop. Mangojuicetalk 04:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I had trouble which I tried to discuss with him here but he was less than civil. There's more at this location with additional information from User:Polaron. - Denimadept (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wetman, having made some 52,000 edits since September 2003, whose resources of patience and forbearance are in perennially short supply, has surely raised some resentment, particularly by inappropriate laughter and frank, often sharp remarks in response to various dishonesties, pettiness, aggressive behavior, attacks with the WP:CIVILITY club, disinfopage pushing, list-making and other coxcombry. His Talkpage archives will show the nature of his habitual discourse quite plainly, and may be thumbed in order to select out further disgraceful examples of his "inflammatory though non-specific" comments:
- User talk:Wetman/archive3Mar2004
- User talk:Wetman/archive16Jun2004
- User talk:Wetman/archive12Aug2004
- User talk:Wetman/archive16Oct2004
- User talk:Wetman/archive15Jan2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive22Mar2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive23Jun2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive3Sep2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive1Dec2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive28Mar2006
- User talk:Wetman/archive3July2006
- User talk:Wetman/archive15Oct2006
- User talk:Wetman/archive7Feb2007
- User talk:Wetman/archive25Jun2007
- User talk:Wetman/archive10Aug2007
- User talk:Wetman/archive28Dec2007
- User talk:Wetman/archive16April2008
Remarks concerning competency in the field of Greek mythology belong at Talk:Amazons, where the complainant deleted a commonplace statement in July 2007, but did not have sufficient interest in the subject to have it on his Watchlist. Rather than make defensive retorts to individual complaints, Wetman prefers to let the record speak for itself, and to reserve the option of perhaps making some general remarks with broad applications— or perhaps not— once everyone has fully expressed themselves. Wetman (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your record does speak for itself. Here are three people who you've annoyed. I suggest you try harder to be less annoying, as repelling people from Wikipedia is not productive. And I can't believe you are totally ignorant of your effect, given, as you say, your record. - Denimadept (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I had kept the Amazons page on my watchlist, I simply didn't notice the remark that you made until recently, which I stated in my initial note to you on the talk page. I am also a woman, not a man, just so you know. I would also like to point out that a neutral third party, MangoJuice, also believes that your behavior has been inappropriate and incivil. Asarelah (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I also had a disagreement with him about an addition he made to History of Chester, where he saw no need to add a reference to some material he had added, commenting that the article was mediocre. Of course, it would always remain mediocre if people had this attitude. A reply from him suggested that since the wikilink he had used contained a reference, that would suffice, but recent discussions on WP:Reliable sources confirms that I was correct in stating that this was insufficient. He then ended the discussion by making a statement: "What very high standards for such a mediocre article! Wetman never keeps articles on his Watchlist that are so distinctly "owned", so, that will be all from me at this article." The accusation of ownership was totally unjustified, and a comment by one of the leading contributors to UK articles: User:Jza84 supported the view that his comments were highly uncivil. (diff of exchange on History of Chester page. DDStretch (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
A spat I had with him yesterday at Talk:Dorian invasion over my changing a word involved quite a bit of personal attacks and insulting language. He does not play well with others. Too bad, as I actually value his contributions. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I, for one, don't mean to imply that he's useless or anything like that, but that he needs to play with others better than he has been doing. - Denimadept (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- So how should this issue be resolved? Asarelah (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- If it were easy, we wouldn't have brought it here. However, perhaps it's time to get more active. I feel he needs a apollogist following him around to try to reduce his negative effects, but I doubt anyone would apply for the position. I'd appreciate it if he'd try to consider his words first, forego his attempts at humor in such situations, and assume good faith in all situations other than blatant vandalism. - Denimadept (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This user began New York Pathological Society, an article I had a concern about leading to the application of the Notability template on the article. From there, a user talk conversation between the editor and I began. It's clear that there are serious issues with interpretation of policy that are subject of a RfC on the society article talk page. It's not a user RfC, so I think this is still appropriate for dealing with the issue of civility.
Citations to several diffs showing behavior of concern to me:
Here is other behavior I wasn't involved in that is of concern:
Erechtheus (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Erechtheus has described my extensively documented and cited criticisms of his behavior and integrity, which have dealt with a number of specific actions he has performed and specific statements he has made, as character assassination. Consequently I would like to have a more concrete explanation of what issues are being brought into this dispute resolution process. If Erechtheus feels the request is appropriate for this venue, and if he feels it is an honest request with the intention of demonstrating the nature of this disagreement to third parties, I would ask that he qualitatively identify or otherwise state in his own words each of the assertions I have made which he believes exceed the bounds of a civil discourse. I would not intend for this list to be binding or complete, but rather that Erechtheus should feel free to add specific allegations against me at any time.
I don't intend to be describing any limits to my response - I reserve the right to make any statements on this matter which I see fit and I will definitely bring up my own independent points of discussion - but I will advise Erechtheus that were he to furnish such a list two major subjects in my response would be:
- To demonstrate in each case that the assertion was not made baselessly, but was supported by evidence citing his other actions and statements (which would not absolve me of incivility, but which is an important aspect of proper talk page etiquette per WP:TALK)
- To compare the gravity of each assertion to preceding behavior and statements of Erechtheus to examine whether my statements, civil or otherwise, were within boundaries that Erechtheus had himself set in the conversation (this may simply demonstrate that we have both behaved uncivilly but it is relevant to the nature of this conflict, as Erechtheus appears to consider himself unduly and unequally harmed by our exchange - though I would not presume to speak for him on that point.)
--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- No. What you suggest is contrary to the explicit instructions for use of this process. This is the last time I intend to respond to you here. Erechtheus (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the instructions explicitly request a description of the situation. I have placed my description below and I really think that as the initiator of this you should add your own. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The 2 of you (or even just the original author) could have added quite a bit of content to the article in the past day (its first day?) if this argument wasn't going on. You know... enough to satisfy notability guidelines. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's very true. However, the origin of this dispute was that I pointed out to Erechtheus that the information in the article more than established WP:N by indicating the presence of a large number of secondary sources and asked him if, in light of that, he was labeling the article as deletable and repeatedly mentioning WP:N to press me to fulfill some non-notability-related preferences he has for the article. (I have since discovered that the behavior I describe is covered by WP:GAME.) In the course of the discussion he made several requests for the article to be reformatted stylistically and made comments upon its writing style. I recommended that other templates might express his aesthetic preferences but he persisted in inserting a notice that the article was a candidate for deletion due to non-notability of its subject. In the mean time he took actions involving another article I had written that I believe may have been part of a further attempt to pressure me into rewriting the New York Pathological Society article to his taste.
I did not contribute further content to the article during this dispute because I believe that a Wikipedia user should not use policy or any other means to pressure another user into writing content.
This section of Wikiquette alerts currently contains little more than a collection of links selected by a single party in the dispute provided without context or comparison to that party's actions and statements. I have included this synopsis because the instructions at the top of this page ask for a description of the dispute. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also note that the dispute over the the article itself appears to have been resolved by user CobaltBlueTony introducing a template that does not threaten deletion or assert non-notability of the subject. I appreciate this and I look forward to being able to offer that template as a compromise in the future. However, I genuinely believe that, whatever his attitude now, Erechtheus has been engaging in WP:GAME; as I mentioned, asserting deletability of the article is not the only way he was trying to pressure me. He also took a number of steps that I think objectively show bad faith and malice, such as attempting to edit my part of the conversation on the article talk page. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe so strongly that what Erechtheus has done here is wrong and against the spirit of the Wikipedia project that I have added a new section to the WP:Assume good faith guideline, WP:DGF or "Demonstrate good faith". So of course, that section of the guideline should not be taken into account in evaluating this dispute. A notice that I am the author of that section should also be carried forward to any further steps in the dispute resolution process. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
About 2 weeks ago, I took on improving the article unconventional warfare under the Military History Project. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Some bold rewrites, as well as a need for help making several articles consistent and minimally overlapping -- possibly spawning specialized articles for some background, where I had asked for guidance to deal with the problem of apparently overlapping articles. Do note that I have written extensively in a deliberately globalised article, insurgency.
Tonight, this anonymous user has started complaining that I was horribly altering a "stable" article, which was start-class in MILHIST. I believe I have substantially improved it, taking it from 5K or so characters to 26K with original drawings and continuing to add.
No one objected to this refocusing in the relevant project, and I only started working on unconventional warfare as it had only a cursory coverage of either worldwide or US concepts and needed better coverage. I am fully aware of WP:OWN, and suggest that doesn't apply here, given I asked for input on the article page and at the project page before making any substantive changes.
I've tried to discuss this with the anon user, who keeps insisting that the unconventional warfare article must be global, does not discuss insurgency, seems unwilling to bring the discussion to the MILHIST discussion page, and then reverted the article, explaining where (paraphrasing) my additions about the U.S. Army go in his idea of the article. I can't find any evidence that unconventional warfare was ever a comprehensive global article. Please look at insurgency to see that I understand the difference between something that is intended to be global, and something that is a particular national doctrine for its own approach to that global concept.
While I reverted to put my disagreement on record, I don't want to get into a revert war. I have tried to act in good faith, explained to the anon user why I made changes, and that they had been proposed both on the article talk page and on the MILHIST talk page. The only response was on MILHIST, with a recommendation (coincidentally from a New Zealander) to refocus the unconventional warfare article. That the anon has no edit history, that MILHIST raised no objection to trying to improve the article out of start class, and that the article was small going back at least a year suggests something strange is happening.
At this point, he reverted the article, and then pasted my earlier work into it as a subsection of his preferred article, referring it to my notes on U.S. Army use of the term. Those seem to have been pasted verbatim, which doesn't work well because they were written to be a major article rewrite and not a subsection; I hope it's not a violation of WP:OWN to suggest my contributions are being used out of context and thus not meeting my own editorial standards.
Help! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I left a warning to the IP editor about the cut and paste moves, since that's quite frowned upon. (Although which article was it that he took material from, and where did it end up?) With regard to the unconventional warfare article: I'm not entirely sure I understand the relation between guerilla warfare and unconventional. Currently, the lead sentence of the guerilla article suggests that it's a subset of unconventional warfare. Is that correct? If it is, then I can understand why the IP would want to have some sort of global definition in this article. Perhaps the solution would be to have a small global lead, with the bulk being the american defn. (Assuming that Guerilla warfare is a subset of UW). If you intend for the article to be soley about american practice, perhaps a move to a more clear name would be in order. Thoughts? (Am I completely misunderstanding anything?) Best, --Bfigura (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. Unless you reverted something, what is out there now is a cut and paste of a few lead paragraphs of the really minimal article that had been there, with my work, which makes some completely different assumptions about basic definitions, pasted as a subsection.
- As has been discussed in the Military History project, insurgency is the broadest term, on which I have written extensively, and very much with a global viewpoint in mind. Insurgency is properly the global and more general term, and it's not as if I deleted material from unconventional warfare that isn't covered, and sourced, at much greater length in insurgency. Guerilla warfare is one way of waging "offensive" insurgency, but there are other ways to do it, such as a coup. Counterinsurgency is the broad, globally oriented term for measures taken to stop or mitigate insurgency.
- The U.S. has specific doctrines on how to use its forces to conduct insurgency and counterinsurgency. These US-specific terms, in professional military literature, are usually called unconventional warfare (or more often UW]] and foreign internal defense (FID). Again, I've written on most of these topics, with separate articles for the U.S. and worldwide views. It happens that the FID article does go into some British and French history, but there also has been considerable cooperation and thought among these countries. If, for example, I were writing about an insurgency using Maoist concepts, I'd call it "protracted war" since that's the term Mao used. The term in Greek Cyprus was guerilla warfare, as defined by George Grivas. Che Guevara called his practice "guerilla warfare", and so faorth.
- Although it sounds awkward to my ear, I'm willing to compromise with something like "U.S. Unconventional Warfare Doctrine", "U.S. Foreign Internal Defense Doctrine," etc. I wrote an article on Special Reconnaissance, which is another special operations doctrine, but with multinational definitions. "Unconventional warfare" is an awkward term, since, outside a specific U.S. usage, it is ambiguous since there is no unambiguous definition of "conventional warfare". Most often, conventional warfare refers to fighting by regular militaries, without nuclear/WMD and without guerilla operations. In U.S. doctrine, UW is interpreted to be guerilla operations, subject to quite a number of detailed definitions that avoid the "nuclear vs. conventional" problem.
- The problem with this IP editor is that he only wants to address making this article global, has never responded to any of my questions about seeing if insurgency covers what he wants, and, regardless of what he may say about large numbers of editors and a stable article, the reality is that there was a small article before I started. Perhaps I'm a bit irritable here in looking at the Start-Class article and found very little substance or sourcing; this is a field in which I've worked for over 40 years. Scary, isn't it? :-)
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- One other thing -- since he's been coming in under different IP addresses, where did you leave the note? Might I ask that go on the Talk: unconventional warfare since that's the only place I know he will see it? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I left it on the talk page of the IP address that was the header for this section. I've also placed it on the talk page of the article in question. With regard to ways to go forward: it sounds like the UW term is, as you said, awkward. Maybe a solution would be to have a stubby disambiguation page, with links to possible / related articles. (Then this page could go something like "Unconventional Warfare (U.S. Doctrine)"). That said though, I'm not sure what the manual of style would say about that. --Bfigura (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
User Hibernian
User Hibernian : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hibernian
..is using the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technocracy_movement Talk: as a kind of personal attack blog. Example. Skip quote: "I am not involved in TechInc or NET.". Wow! somebody actually got Skip to admit that he was kicked out of Technocracy Inc.! It took him about 2 years to admit it and come to the realisation, but better late than never I guess! What you didn't mention of-course, is that you were very embittered by that dismissal and have since attacked the organization in any way you can (including on Wiki) and even tried to setup a rival group. You've recently also attempted to insert the name of your "group" into Wiki articles. Hmmm no, no conflicts of interests there, I think Skips just a honest contributor with no hidden agenda at all (And if you can't guess, yes I’m being Sarcastic). --Hibernian
This is uncivil and demeaning and also not true. Could something be done? Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- You need dispute resolution, you're not going to recruit people to your cause here. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Another example of this editor being insulting and demeaning from today. It seems this person just is itching to pick a fight all the time. An example of a typical statement by Hibernian today on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technocracy_movement Talk:Technocracy movement.
Quote... Uh hm, right, well I'm really not even going to bother refuting the baloney that you continue to spew, but like I've said before, Your opinions of this or any other Tech Inc. publications don't matter to anybody but yourself, they don't matter to me and they certainly don't matter to Wikipedia. The fact still remains that that electronic version is the only one that has so far been made available by Tech Inc. on the internet, it's as simply as that, no other version is necessary or acceptable. That's the version we can use, End of Story. --Hibernian (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ...end quote
I wish someone would talk to this person about his highly subjective and angry demeanor. He is impossible to reason with. He is a kind of bully with his Pov. angry and accusing. He is also talking about a link above that is blacklisted as spam on wiki. skip sievert (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
ru.wiki : Back in the USSR???
Interaction of various sections can help to improve quality of wiki; projects in various languages may help each other. I think, right now, the Russian section of Wikipedia needs such a help.
If you know at least few Russain words, you may look, for example, at
- http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Политический_заключённый (political prisoner)
- http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вертухай (jailer )
These articles are under deletion procedure. You may check the history of the talk pages - faults of these articles were not discussed there.
Soon, there will be neither political prisoners, nor jailers in Russian-speaking countries. Perhaps, this cannot happen at en.wiki; but it may worth to look, what is happening at other sections, and try to understand the fenomenon.
Just a look and a commnent from a side could be very suitable. dima (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting, but not a Wikiquette issue. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thomasalazar (talk · contribs) has been adding unsourced statistics and NPOV language to the article Española Valley High School (and is close to a 3RR violation at the moment). It has been explained to him why these edits are inappropriate; however, he removes warnings and discussions from his talk page (see here, here, and here), and makes uncivil comments on my talk page (see here and here).
Any advice would be helpful. ... discospinster talk 19:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Left a message with the user. Some of the comments were patently uncivil, and a good bit of the material being inserted was somewhat unencyclopedic. --Bfigura (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe he has reappeared under another account (EVHS (NNYDL) (talk · contribs)), adding the same statistics and leaving similar messages on my talk page. ... discospinster talk 02:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- There seem to be a lot of users with an interest in that school who don't like you. Have you thought of a checkuser request? Although I suppose since no one's evading blocks or being a giant vandal, such a request might be premature. --Bfigura (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I figure as long as there is attention paid to the situation, it will remain under control. I hope so, anyway. ... discospinster talk 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- There seem to be a lot of users with an interest in that school who don't like you. Have you thought of a checkuser request? Although I suppose since no one's evading blocks or being a giant vandal, such a request might be premature. --Bfigura (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks and disruption of AFDs from an anon-ip editor
User:216.49.77.67 is disrupting an ongoing AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Ann McBride) with personal attacks. This editor has also vandalized AFDs on a similar subject: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big O and Dukes. I'm all for everyone commenting in AFDs but they need to stick the subject of the AFD and keep the personal attacks out of it and would appreciate some admin assistance.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I will leave a note on the IP Talk Page. I can hope that it will moderate the editors comments. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ongoing pattern of personal attack, ad hominem attack and "outing"
The user, TheOzz, has been confronted about this several times and although he seems genuinely interested in being a constructive participant in editing the article in question, he also seems to be completely blind to his pattern of incivility. I thought it would help to receive an outside comment. I am particularly concerned about things he's offering as background information about real people that may do professional harm to them, and about his ongoing "outing" of an early editor of the article.
Here are some examples of diffs where TheOzz has insisted on supplying the personal name of an early editor and where he has offered background information about a critic of Babywise--in a manner that implies the person is a criminal, and about another critic--in a manner that implies he is not professionally credentialed.
When confronted, he escalates by sharing emails and more details.
Could someone please look this over and give some recommendations? Taketime (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done. I left TheOzz a warning to inform him/her that this isn't acceptable behavior. If you think that personal information needs to be permanently removed, please head over to oversight. If this persists, a quick and neutral summary (with diffs) on the admin's incident board would probably be called for. --Bfigura (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to go and look at the changes made and give an opinion about whether it's sufficient? TheOzz took your advice insofar as removing the personal name of the wikipedia editor he had "outed", but it seems as though he may not grasp the extent to which he is engaging in ad hominem argument, personal attack, dragging in off-wiki interactions (the emails he shared), and so on. Here's the diff: [16] Thanks again, Taketime (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like you guys are working rather constructively now, which is great. If the ad hominem attacks restart, let me know (maybe on my talk) and I'll try and get involved. But for now, I'd rather not disrupt progress by trying to force someone to take back comments. (I didn't seen anything so bad that it needed to be immediately removed, but if I missed something, let me know). --Bfigura (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
User:T-rex deleting comments from Talk:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
User:T-rex has deleted my comments from Talk:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines here (although he partially restored that edit), here, here, and here. He did not provide an appropriate edit rationale explaining why he was removing my comments. When I placed a request on his talk page to stop doing this, he responded only by removing that with an edit summary "like this?" Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- This user has once again removed my comments from the talk page, after I placed a notice about this report on that page. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
rude comment by someone falsely accusing me of spamming
I uploaded one photograph which is a sign associated with a well-known company which is related to both the city of Antigo, Wisconsin and fishing tackle. I then linked that photo within two articles that contain data related to the text on the sign.
Upon returning to Wikipedia, I noticed that I had a message awaiting me. Upon navigating to it I was shown the comments pasted at the bottom of this message.
I feel this person is rude for accusing me of spamming or promoting a business. I had no such thought in my mind.
A simple mention that my content was not acceptable, and hopefully an explanation why it was not, would suffice.
I hope other editors of Wikipedia content are not as rude as the asshole "Geronimo20." Not only is the person rude, they do not accept personal email so that I could discuss the matter with them directly. It would be most beneficial if content editors could be contacted if they initiate an action that directly affects another registered Wikipedia user who has submitted content.
As the situation stands, I uploaded a photograph and attempted to associate it with two existing articles. Asshole "Geronimo20" took offense at it for some unknown reason and I still do not know why he/she accuses me of spamming.
I would appreciate it if someone with a more congenial manner than "Geronimo20" informed me what was wrong with my attempts to add to the Wikipedia database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoodoo (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
“ | Stop spamming Wikipedia with promotion images as you did with Antigo, Wisconsin and Fishing in Ohio. Wikipedia is not an advertising channel for the business you are trying to promote. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | ” |
- Okay, there are several things wrong with this complaint. I'll address them in order:
- First off, this is not really a Wikiquette issue. The warning you received was blunt, at worst, but falls in line with the accepted warnings that users can receive for contributing unacceptable content to the Wiki. Given that the image and information that you posted was in relation to a commercial company and was provided without context to otherwise well-developed articles, I can see how Geronimo would see your contribution as spam. Whether that was your intention or not, that's what it looked like, and had I been the first one to see that appear in the article, I likely would have given you the same sort of warning. (I would have used a standard user warning template, which is worded less bluntly, but otherwise very similar to what Geronimo said.) Please see WP:SPAM and WP:NOT for more information. (On this note, the worst I could say about Geronimo's warning was that it might touch on WP:BITE, but it does not appear to be uncivil or in assumption of bad faith.)
- Second, you seem to be assuming that Geronimo was acting in bad faith when he reverted your edits and left you the warning. By saying that he's taken offense to your contributions, you are making a likely incorrect assumption about his intentions. It is standard practice here on Wikipedia to quickly revert edits that are seen as disruptive. Now, we're not perfect and we sometimes make mistakes, but the general rule of thumb is: If you are bold and add something, and someone else reverts it, the next thing to do is to take it to the Talk page and work toward building a consensus of having your content included. It may be that you come to a better understanding about why your content isn't appropriate for that particular article, but may be appropriate elsewhere.
- Finally, calling Geronimo an "asshole" is certainly not going to help you. That is a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL and constitutes a direct personal attack against him. It is the sort of thing that will get you reported here on the Wikiquette Alerts board, and if it continues, it can be escalated to Administrators' Noticeboard. If you are upset at Geronimo for leaving you that warning, you should first cool off, then try talking to him directly on his User Talk page to express your feelings in a constructive way. Boards such as this one should only be used if you are unable to work things out directly with the person you're having a conflict with.
- I hope this helps. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, for reference, here is the most appropriate standard warning that you would have received if it came from me:
“ | Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles, as you did to Antigo, Wisconsin. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. | ” |
- looks like time to change our standard messages then. All that can really be said is that oner editor thought it seemed to be promotional material, and we should not be making pronouncements to contributors of that judgmental sort. Yes we have to delete the articles, and we have to say why, but we should not be using terms like that except after several continued insertions of the sort. That's one of the reasons i usually write my own messages. of course, that means I cant use an automatic program for them and I have to think about what I'm saying. DGG (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly, I'm not sure how else to phrase the message. Putting the logo and brand name of a commercial company in an article about a city, particularly in its infobox, is going to look like spam, no matter how politely you put it. The standard message exists because we get a LOT of spam, as you can imagine. So when something is added that fits the pattern, we deal with it in the standard manner. Nothing personal, mind you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Conflict about national football team articles
Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) has created a conflict by adding a OR tag to the notable/famous player sections of dozens of national football team articles despite the protests of many editors and the urging that they bring the issue to WT:FOOTY. Because these sections have been in the articles for years uncontested, my position is that they should be removed pending the development of a criteria for inclusion in these sections. The main problem is that Fasach Nua has accused me of trolling his user page, when all I am seeking is an acknowledgement that some form of arbitration has to take place in order to prevent an edit war over dozens of articles. Unfortunately, in the mean time Fasach Nua has removed all of my relevant comments from his user page, making arbitration that much more difficult. He repeatedly removes even my attempts at a peace offer without reading them or acknowledging the process. It is hard for WP to be a collaborative project without the acknowledgement of the proper process when there are disputes. As he will no longer listen to or even acknowledge my comments on the issue, I'm hoping that a third party could intervene. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This user and an unregistered IP (98.216.128.107) has left a string of messages on my talk in response to my reversion of his spamvertising edits to MIT ([17], [18], [19]) and later tried to blank them using an unregistered account . Talk edits to User:Madcoverboy include calling me a moron, refusing to engage in a dialogue by blanking comments, etc.: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Looking at Sitnikov's talk page, he has engaged in a series of actions that have been warned against in connection with spamvertising. As always I try to WP:AGF, but it seems the user is trying really hard to get blocked. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm probably a bit close to some of these issues to form a neutral view, so I though I'd mention it here. In general I've noticed that comments by Qworty in AfD debates can be uncivil, especially in regards to self-published authors. This seems to have come to a bit of a head at this AfD, but there are other examples floating around. While Qworty does good work, I'm concerned that some remarks unfairly characterize other editors, and may warrant a suggestion to tone comments down a tad from someone who can take a more neutral perspective. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an odd case. His user page is a slew of random userboxes and his "pet subject" seems to be Espanola, New Mexico. Not such a bad thing, but his most recent edits have caused me concern. He will not interact with other users, insists on blanking his talk page and is edit warring to some extent with his most recent article on James H. Rodriguez Elementary; he keeps removing the cleanup notices. It's totally unsourced and bordering on nonsense with the allegations of the place being haunted. Could someone please have a word with him? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds a lot like these guys. ... discospinster talk 20:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Cowicide's incivility
I don't exactly know what to do here, but I am requesting a third party to review what is happening. I shall give a quick overview:
I removed a large section of OR from an article, he put it back. We had a small edit war until I proposed a small solution: that we insert the material into the body text of the article. This was about an hour after I blanked it for the last time. We made up, etc. Awhile later he posts what I see as a basic attack, telling me and other users that I'm a liar. I assume he didn't bother to check the history of the article, and assumed I blanked the section after I spoke with him. I noted this to him, and he didn't seem to care. It just downgrades from there with him, but I continued to stay civil.— DædαlusT@lk / Improve 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Details needed, please. Which article, to start? Diffs would be useful too. - Denimadept (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This person is editing articles and putting tags while not even being an administrator. This user has used personal attacks towards Wikipedia New Mexican Members he has only edited their articles and my own and say I don't communicate with other users enough that's fine. Maybe I do not beleive in talking to other users as much as he does. This user has made accusations I have a slew of random userboxes well that is why I don't use or create my own. He has called my common editing of information of Espanola, NM a (PET PROJECT) he has not thought maybe I have an intrest in this neighboring town. I happen to be an alumni of James H. Rodriguez Elementary and I have seen erie things go on inside the school. The reason I delete my cleanup notices is they pile up and start taking over the page and it looks hideous. I'll will leave this at this discospinster has the odacity of saying I have a slew of random user boxes while he has many as well while is it not allowed a Wikipedia User may have as much userboxes as they please. Please talk to him someone. If not I will have to request a removal of discospinster. Thank You. Diamond Joe Quimby (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- User:discospinster has been "editing articles"?! gasp Can't have that being done by just anyone, can we? Oh wait...
- It's perfectly realistic for someone to say, "wow, that's a whole lot of usernames suddenly feeling an urge to add information about New Mexico schools; is it really coincidental?" It's also realistic for someone to say, "don't delete the cleanup notices on your user page" when you haven't done any of the requested cleanup.
- Now, as to your request to User:Thomasalazar that he nominate you to be a bureaucrat specifically so that you can get User:discospinster kicked off WP... About all that can be said politely is that you might have better luck if you correctly link to the request for bureaucratship info and read how nominations work, as it appears your previous attempt has already been reverted (and not by User:discospinster or myself, btw). Dori (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think Diamond Joe Quimby is mistaken — I have never had any communication with this user at all. ... discospinster talk 14:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This user has shown uncivility concerning Spore (video game) and it's talk page (as well as the mediation case on the article). Here's some evidence of his behavior:
- [26]: He yells at people during the case. He was notified here about it: [27]. It's the second time he's been reminded about it (I'm not sure of the first time).
- Maybe you should see what they're doing before it. Even the moderator started to notice that while I make concessions, the others remain obstinate.
- [28]: this was days later, and he once again did caps lock/bold yelling. The discussion wasn't a forum post, but he claimed it was. It should be noted: the Spore talk page has talk header, plus a notice saying to keep a cool head during discussions. I don't see his post as a minor slip up at all.
- [29]: here he removes a image overuse tag. It should've been discussed on talk before the tag was removed.
- And maybe you should read what I wrote - it should be discussed in the talk page before it's placed. I've had to deal with Talk page rules before in the same manner. I don't believe others should be exempt.
- [30]: I had re-added the tag, then he reverts it and assumes I don't think the article is important.
That's all the evidence I have so far. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Also adding this, this, and probably the worst one, this. I'm the mediator in this Spore mediation. Thanks Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have to say that I've been the target of it too. Besides what other people have gathered, you can find plenty of instances of it on the spore talk page. (Dismissing the opinions of others with words like "absurd" or "oops. want to try again?", sarcastic laughter, and lots of YELLING. These are more just icing on the cake compared to the bigger civility problems.) His/her comments don't personally bother me. But I can't turn a blind eye to the destructive impact it's had on community discussions. When it doesn't frustrate people into just giving up and leaving, it derails discussions so it's impossible to find the main point. He/she shows no willingness to compromise, except to unilaterally say what a new compromise should be. But most of all, it's the "yelling", belligerence, and insults that really have no place in wikipedia.
I might add that I stumbled into this situation because other editors were having trouble reaching a compromise on the spore article. I tried to mediate the differences of opinion. The others engaged in constructive disagreement. JAF1970 was destructive and seemed to enjoy creating conflict even though we actually agreed on several points. That is what ultimately led to formal mediation. I would trust Steve Crossin for a neutral opinion about how that went. The mediation has been going on for more than a month. Randomran (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)- And I haven't been a target? Hm. Well, maybe I'm not passive-aggressive enough to get away with it, but I'm more direct and forthright, which is what you're supposed to be when you've worked in a magazine with other people in front of you. The stuff I've seen people here do would have gotten them fired. JAF1970 (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
MedCab is not formal mediation ;). Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- My bad. Either way. Other editors such as myself were brought in to find a compromise. That broke down, and Steve Crossin was brought in. Randomran (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've been the target of people ignoring what I say, or agreeing then ignoring what I say, or people - who have been banned from Wikipedia later - spamming my talk page with unrelated stuff. I've been dealing with extremely rude people as well. I only give what I get, so perhaps you should be asking why I react this way. JAF1970 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What's worse is that I go out of my way to get the most correct information possible - and when I get irrefutable evidence - directly from Patrick Buechner and by extension Will Wright himself - I get people basically saying that Buechner and Wright don't know what kind of game they're actually making - from people who've never even touched the game. Add to that the sort of piling on and the noxious atmosphere I get at times, and you might understand why I get snappish, especially in light of the fact I've been dealing with this industry in one form or another for 30 years - and professionally in the last 15+. JAF1970 (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that you are trying to use this source, [31],appears to be a self published source, to nullify all other sources, the numerous amount that has been provided. Your proposal gives the idea that you are reluctant to compromise. That is the issue here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have also received and witnessed a number of uncivil comments from JAF1970, including many instances of dimsissive laughter, eye-rolling (yes, he actually typed "rolling eyes"), yelling, insults, straw man arguments, drawing absurd metaphorical comparisons like these: [32][33][34][35][36]... I can provide additional diffs if needed. He even accused two editors of sockpuppetry at one point. He seems to think that his experience in his profession makes his views on the proper content of the Spore article hold more weight than those of other editors, even within this discussion! [37] JAF1970 may bring my own comments to the table — I admit at one point I did lose my cool briefly, following a particularly heated argument — however, whereas I took a step back upon being warned that I was out of line, and have since kept considerably more distance than I really wanted to on the issues in order to avoid additional altercations, JAF unapologetically continues to step on everyone's toes. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 14:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- As regards this particular situation, I certainly see quite a bit of ownership behavior going on, as well as a fair amount of assuming bad faith (some on both sides of the dispute) and a high tendency for JAF to personally attack other people when they disagree with his viewpoint. I hate to say it, but this dispute is hardly different from the dispute I had with him last year over Pac-Man Championship Edition. (That dispute was what introduced me to WQA in the first place.)
- I don't doubt JAF's ability to write good articles and find good sources, but I am disappointed by his tendency to assert ownership over them, especially when his attitude and behavior have the effect of driving other editors away and discouraging constructive collaboration. I would definitely consider some of his comments in this situation as stepping way over the line when it comes to civility policies, but since I have personally had issues with this editor in the past, I'm going to have to refrain from taking any action on it. If we're unable to resolve anything here on WQA, this will probably need to be escalated, either up along WP:DR or taken to the admin noticeboard if the behavior gets any worse. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kiefer, um, miss some personal attacks on me that preceded it, huh? Unlike others, I don't know the intricacies of applying to a kangaroo court on Wikipedia. I also don't create sock puppets. I also don't rally people to my cause and hogpile, because there's plenty of people on Wikipedia I could summon in my defense (ie: User:SeanMooney, etc). I try to follow someone's advice to me about "feeding the trolls", like User:Sillygostly - check out his behavior, and tell me what a 37 year adult should do about a 15 year old kid behaving like that? (Well, 1. in real life, I wouldn't be forced to associate with children like that, and 2. on a magazine, he would be an intern for exactly 2 hours before being escorted from the premise.) I guess part of the frustration is that I can't expect to have one editor to report to like I would in a real magazine or (though I've never worked on one) encyclopedia/dictionary - instead, I have to deal with anyone at any age who can turn on a computer and log onto the internet, which is one HUGE problem with Wikipedia. (This does give me a great idea for an article to be published - probably on a major pub, too.) JAF1970 (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I do agree that JAF has been, at times, blunt, he has put a HUGE amount of time and effort into many articles, most of which I have seen in Spore. I know, from being a long standing contributor to Wiki, that you can become attached to particular articles that you have put a lot of time and effort into, and JAF himself has recognised that he has snapped at people on more than one occasion. I think that our own personalities can become too involved with Wiki at times, and when people say things that are clearly wrong about an article that you've helped a lot with, you can snap.
What I think we need to take away from this discussion is that I think that JAF feels frustrated by the comments of others, as do we all on articles we have worked hard on. As a result, he does often come across as aggressive. JAF, I have told you this before, and I stand by it, that you DO need to think REALLY carefully before replying to people, because while you may have the best intentions, your comments can seem too snappy at times. Other people, cut JAF some slack, we all know that it can be hard to see people with less knowledge than ourselves do some stupid things on articles we've been working hard on! I propose that you take a couple of weeks Wikibreak as I think that you can assume bad faith on the Spore article because you have become too attached to it. I will do my hardest to make sure that it's not destroyed! Spore hasn't been released yet, so no doubt there is far more discussion to be had! --Samtheboy (t/c) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
JAF may be blunt and upfront to other users, but he is a good editor - the Spore article has been improved immensely thanks to him. It's clear that he's passionate and well-versed about the game. SeanMooney (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Re:Ownership - I don't think I "own" Spore (video game). I just don't want people to state speculation as fact (see: release date, Wii version etc) until it becomes fact. Furthermore, people tend to load on a lot of extraneous stuff. JAF1970 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- JAF is a good editor, but that doesn't give him the right to be agressive towards people about it (in edit summaries, and talk pages). Everyone wants good articles here, but it's not productive to yell at people so much. I agree with the ownership comments. Once someone disagrees with his view then he's uncivil about it. Others have the right to edit the article and talk page. If they made a mistake, it's best to be calm about it. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- And that was the main point I was making in my comment above. As I said, I don't doubt JAF is a good editor - I've seen many instances where I think he's done an excellent job contributing to articles here on WP. But no matter how good someone is at editing, that doesn't mean they get to treat other people just any way they want. Two wrongs don't make a right, to address JAF's comment about "having to deal with people who treat him poorly".
- And, as I also mentioned, I've personally been on the receiving end of JAF's fury when I made a series of edits that he took exception to. Right from the very start, he was quite uncivil toward me - I remember being accused of blatantly vandalizing the article and trying to push my own agenda, and even after I admitted I made a few mistakes in my initial edits, he continued to push my face in those mistakes to the point where, if I'd been a new editor, I would have likely been driven off Wikipedia as a whole. I did eventually get drawn into firing back with personal attacks of my own, and the whole dispute spanned something like seven or eight Talk and WP pages (including WQA and MedCab). I learned a lot of lessons from that incident. But my point? I'm just citing an example where the behavior others are describing in this WQA report has also happened to me in the past - I see this as part of a longer-standing pattern with this particular editor. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't see this posted yet: [38]. JAF tells Sam to come here, because of a "troll attack" and they are in "full attack mode". Now that's very rude and not needed. Just because you don't agree with us JAF, doesn't give you the right to call us trolls. Your behavior isn't acceptable, so why should people ignore it? Being a good editor, doesn't make you immune to all other rules. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- JAF is a good editor, but that doesn't give him the right to be agressive towards people about it (in edit summaries, and talk pages). Everyone wants good articles here, but it's not productive to yell at people so much. I agree with the ownership comments. Once someone disagrees with his view then he's uncivil about it. Others have the right to edit the article and talk page. If they made a mistake, it's best to be calm about it. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
User Layla2008 continues to add, then when someone undoes the same unsubstantiated, uncited statements over and over, the Layla2008 posts them again. In one instance, Layla2008 wrote: (cur) (last) 00:32, 24 April 2008 Layla2008 (Talk | contribs) (10,903 bytes) (→References: you can run best friends, but you can't hide) (undo) CatDogLover (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Question? It appears you have not notified the editor of the issue. Perhaps you should talk to them before bringing it here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The post [39] by Mathieugp (talk) at Talk:Anti-Quebec_sentiment#Conspiracy_theory violates Wikiquette guidelines. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. The discussion on Talk:Anti-Quebec_sentiment#Conspiracy_theory is about the problematic tone of the article, not a political/historical discussion of subject itself. Although Mathieugp (talk) makes some legitimate commentary that the name of the article may need to be changed and that the scope of the article needs to be narrowed, the bulk of the post advocates the POV of the article's topic: that there is widespread prejudice against Quebecers and French Canadians in Canada among English-speakers. He provides a long quote from the 1800's to back up this polemic claim. He sources this claim with a link to his personal web page that promotes Quebec independence see link.
Passionate advocacy on behalf of a political POV on Talk pages violates Wikiquette Soapboxing guidelines. So does self-promotion by providing links to a personal web page that also promote these views. The length and inappropriateness of the subject makes the legitimate dialog in the section difficult to follow.
I ask that Mathieugp(talk) correct this breach of wikiquette by removing the portions of his post that advocate his political opinion, the supporting quote, and the link to his personal web page. Talk pages are not the place to make political and historical points and promote personal projects. --soulscanner (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked their talk page, you haven't even left them a message. The best thing I'd advise you to do is first post them a message with your concerns, and discuss it on their talk page. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 08:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate this commentary. I posted a message about a minute after I posted here. This breech of wikiquette has been going on for a longtime on related subjects, and it's been discussed ad nauseum at various discussion pages to no avail. If you would like examples, I can provide them, but I don't like rehashing and documenting old disputes (that would be another breech of wikiquette); I'd much rather get an outside third opinion on this instance. If these are indeed breeches of wikiquette, they should be documented; if they're not, I'll leave it alone and just ignore them. --soulscanner (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Wikiquette alert by Soulscanner (talk) (above) violates common sense which ought to be against some Wikiquette (what an awful word by the way). He describes "widespread prejudice against Quebecers and French Canadians in Canada among English-speakers" as "the POV of article". He says that I "source[d] this claim with a link to his personal web page that promotes Quebec independence". Finally, he proposes censorship of my comment based on his opinion that it is a "political and historical" point and that it "promote personal projects".
- First, that there is "widespread prejudice against Quebecers and French Canadians in Canada among English-speakers" is not "the POV of the article". That is what he inferred from reading the article, and most likely what made him not like it and post his comment that it "sounds like a conspiracy theory". The original article was a description of a phenomenon called Quebec bashing of which numerous journalists, including English-speaking ones sympathetic to Quebecers, have complained of. Numerous books have been written on the subject, the latest one being Quebec bashing : morceaux d'anthologie. Du Lac Meech à la délirante Jan Wong just this year. There was considerable opposition to the very existence of the article on such a controversial topic. While some of it was legitimate, the article indeed needing to be neutralized, most efforts came from people who simply did not like that such a thing could exist and be real, as real as any other social phenomenon. The links to the press articles in reference were removed as they were hosted on a site which republished them and it was unclear whether that site violated Canadian copyright rules or not. At some point, the article was renamed to what it is now. Already at that point I had signaled that as a consequence, the article needed to be completely reorganized as the content was not about "Anti-Quebec sentiment" in general, but about Quebec bashing. The reorganization of the contents never occurred. The principal contributor to the article (User:Liberlogos) has stopped taking care of the article, disgusted by the struggle he had to engage in to keep the article from being vandalized daily (I got this from word of mouth, as I know the person behind the user name).
- Second, I did not source what Soulscanner said I sourced. I sourced a quote from an article of the London and Westminster Review written by British philosopher John Stuart Mill in which he commented the affairs of the Canadas in 1838, just after the beginning of the civil war and before Lord Durham landed at Quebec. I confess guilty of sharing most of the political POV that Mill had on Quebec, the other colonies, Ireland and England. But I was not trying to advocate "The Ballot, Justice to Ireland, Justice to Canada" here. The reason I posted this was simply to illustrate how far back we can go when trying to reference observations made by various people, some of them quite notable and credible like Mill, on the misrepresentation and calumnies against popular politicians from Quebec.
- Third, the link indeed points to a copy of Mill's article that I personally wikified on a personal site of mine where I often publish English translations of French texts related to the history and politics of Quebec. The site indeed promotes the independence of Quebec, democracy, equality among nations, linguistic human rights and other related subjects. I could have given this link instead, but I chose to link the version of the article with the pretty images and wiki links. If really it directly violates some rule or even some official suggestion, I do not mind substituting one for the other. We can even remove it completely.
- As for the proposal to censor my comment, which includes a quote from Mill pertaining to the subject, supporting the point I am trying to make, I find it is rather shameful. I understand that Soulscanner might not be a great fan of Mill, but still, what he wrote on Quebec in 1838 is deeply related to the [original] subject of the article, that is delusional calumnies written on Quebecers who denounce the injustice of the British North American rule over Quebec now or denounced the injustice of British rule over all colonies in the 19th century.
I am reporting User:Naruto134 for his discription of his edit on Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon it is edit done on 01:58, 2 May 2008 it says "Fixes, and dude, do something about your horrible spelling. What are you, a preschooler?" the history page is here. Click Here Save The HumansTalk :) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- While this is hardly the nicest thing to say, and it could have been said more civil, I think the best thing to do would be to go to the user's page and ask them about this. Generally, except in an extreme situation, a wikiquette alert should likely be filed after talking to the editor (either on their page, your page, or the article talk page). In addition, you should also contact this editor and let them offer an explanation. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
User:87.194.247.89
Hi there, hopefully this is the right place for this, user 87.194.247.89, keeps making edits to articles including the University of Manchester Students' Union which I'm working on, to push his pov on the way we twinned with the university of An-najah. I now notice he's edited the page for An-Najah National University in a similar way. I've left a message on his talk page and stuff on the article's discussion board but I'm not really sure what to do next. Billsmith453 (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Yorkshirian (again)
I'm becoming rather displeased and dismayed with User:Yorkshirian's abuse against myself, and would like some intervention. Yorkshirian seems to hold a bizarre prejudice (even racist sentiments) against me, keep calling me a "Lancastrian", when I'm not from Lancashire and implying somehow that it nullifies me as a worthwhile editor with a voice anyway (I have warned him I take offense several times too). Some facts/incidents:
- [40] - Warned about incivility and poor conduct.
- [41] -Calling others concerns trolling, and ([42]) that they are a timewaster.
- [43] - Abusive edits saying I'm a Lancastrian.
- Promised to behave following ANI.
- Blocked for WP:3RR.
- [44] - Saying I am a bad faith editor.
- [45] - Saying I troll.
- Saying I'm a random person from Lancashire, and I stick my nose in and other changes deface articles.
- [46] - Calling legitimate content changes vandalism.
- Being incivil on talk pages and working against consensus.
- [47] - Calling me a troll and a "Lancastrian", despite me warning him here (please read the thread) that I find it abusive and I'm not from Lancashire.
Given I feel disheartened, constantly abused with no intervention, and generally made to feel unwelcome on the project by Yorkshirian, I'm more than happy to suspend my content building and elevate this to full mediation and take this as high as possible. This simply can't go on unchecked anymore. --Jza84 | Talk 12:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)