Line 274: | Line 274: | ||
::If we want blocking frenzy -sure ;)--[[User:Gilisa|Gilisa]] ([[User talk:Gilisa|talk]]) 18:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
::If we want blocking frenzy -sure ;)--[[User:Gilisa|Gilisa]] ([[User talk:Gilisa|talk]]) 18:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
=="because even seeing your signature at my talk page makes me sick"== |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1&curid=25953178&diff=354344104&oldid=354342759%20%22because%20even%20seeing%20your%20signature%20at%20my%20talk%20page%20makes%20me%20sick%22 Another disgusting and offensive message] [[User:Vexorg|Vexorg]] ([[User talk:Vexorg|talk]]) 18:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:20, 6 April 2010
Welcome to wikiquette assistance | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
Active alerts
Biting the newcomer and uncivil comments
Comments were made by User:Fred the Oyster on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petrolsoft Corporation that were inappropriate.
Comment 1 toward User:Mathteacher69: [1]
Comment 2 toward User:DragonHawk: [2]
I would appreciate it if this matter could be addressed. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Both Fred and DragonHawk could have been more tactful in their instruction, and user talk pages would have been a better location for such. Fred's reply to DragonHawk was relevant, but the final sentence, "So I'd be very grateful if you found a dark place for your patronising, and erroneous, lecture", was both uncivil and unnecessary. Furthermore, DragonHawk's "lecture" was, to the best of my knowledge, not "erroneous", though misplaced. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- In my view, the two diffs attributed to Fred the Oyster are not uncivil because they don’t breach the Wikipedia Code of Conduct.
- Fred addressed the following to DragonHawk: So I'd be very grateful if you found a dark place for your patronising, and erroneous, lecture. Combative and gratuitous remarks like this are unproductive and have no place on Wikipedia. The fourth of Wikipedia’s five pillars says Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. … Be open and welcoming. Fred can defend himself by saying he was not uncivil, but I would say he is guilty of practising a little oneupmanship that is neither respectful nor welcoming.
- Fred may also defend himself by saying he has no patience for patronising language. If that is so, he should be aware that he wrote the following to newbie Mathteacher69: Oh and BTW Mathteacher69, I realise that maths may be a source of interest to you …
- Fred is very welcome at Wikipedia, but it would be good if he, like everyone else, occasionally reminded himself that the price of participating at Wikipedia is respect for the five pillars of Wikipedia. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just remember that applies to you as well Dolphin, before you start making judgements on others. Malleus Fatuorum 05:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi MF. Yes, I enthusiastically agree that this applies to me too. (That is why I used the expression like everyone else.) There is no objection to people making judgements at WP:WQA in relation to the behaviour of other Users. That is what WP:WQA is all about! Dolphin51 (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just remember that applies to you as well Dolphin, before you start making judgements on others. Malleus Fatuorum 05:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Guys, please read up on WP:MYOB, and thank you for the additional & unwanted fanning and dramatisation. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 07:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Can I just say that I find WQA to be the funniest place on Wikipedia. Thanks for the invite. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Everyone agrees WP should be civil but there's no universal agreement on what that means in practice. While some of us may find Fred the Oyster's comment on the brusque side, it's well within the WP:Gray Area of tolerated behavior.
In my opinion, Stillwaterising actions escalated the situation -- I'm seeing posts here, ANI, Jimbo's page, AFD -- by getting Mathteacher69 into what appears to me to be an inclusionist agenda mindset. It would have been much better to simply explain to Mathteacher69 how to move the article into user space and find the necessary references. (i.e. as explained at WP:CREATE]) Gerardw (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yah, so, I got notified 'bout this on my talk page. I guess I should comment. • This problem was compounded in that Mr. Oyster wrote his original comments based on Mathteacher69's repeated use of "Keep" in bold for every comment; that was later changed to "Comment". Mr. Oyster's comment then had the appearance of being rather harsher than it was. I didn't realize this until after I posted my own remarks. • Personally, I found Mr. Oyster's remarks about "patronizing"/"lecturing" to be rather hypocritical, given that he was lecturing both me and some other guy. I don't see how the "dark place" thing could be considered productive in any way. But I also didn't feel a need to make an issue of it. • Unrelated to My. Oyster: I'm somewhat amused at the discussion above, where uninvolved people butt in to tell uninvolved people not to butt in. My irony meter just exploded. :) • So, anyway, can we all go back to improving the encyclopedia now? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Communication breakdown
In the course of a discussion I felt that User:Sandstein mischaracterized my motivations and desires. Specifically he intimated that I sought another user blocked.
I made him aware that I never sought the user blocked. Rather than respond he closed the thread. I later asked him to refactor or to substantiate his insinuation. Sandsteins response sidesteps my requests for substantiation and states that I will be met with sanctions if I continue the same unsubstantiated behavior. I would like for Sandstein to substantiate or strike his allegation. Unomi (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Unomi, it's good that you have sought dispute resolution rather than continuing an unproductive interaction. I appreciate the neutral wording of the section title and good faith approach to resolving the conflict. I've reviewed Sandstein's talk page. While it is appropriate to ask a single question and maybe a follow up or two of an admin -- they kind of volunteered for that when they accepted the sysop bit -- once your question is answered there's a time to move one. You don't have to agree with the answer but you should accept it, and if you still there is an ongoing issue that needs resolution it's best to seek alternative avenues rather than continue to address the issue on the admin's talk page. After a certain point what began as a good faith effort to resolve something becomes itself, incivil. I'm not seeing any behavior on Sandstein's part that I would classify as incivil. Gerardw (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Convenience link to mentioned ae. Unomi (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
should be in a separate thread |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by Mbz1From all the administrators I have communicated so far Sandstein is the most responsive. There was no single question of mine, even some intrusive, that were not responded by the administrator. On the other hand the communications with user Unomi are really hard, and IMO the user has difficulties in assuming good faith. Here's only one example: In response to my message: ...I would like to remind you, please, that Israel has left Gaza few years ago, and what they got in return? Rockets, and more rockets, and with that I withdraw myself from the discussion. Unomi wroute that:Resorting to the common refrain of Rockets and more rockets is morally vacant and I am close to considering it a personal attack .... IMO user Unomi should stop filing frivolous reports.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Could the duty firefighter take a look at this section and see if anything can be done with a hose or a bucket of water? Physchim62 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Erpert and Karljoos
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Having followed the proceedure for posting an alert about the unacceptable behaviour of Erpert is it really permissable for him/her to just delete it before the matter is discussed ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekiep (talk • contribs) 09:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- I assume the alert you're referring to is this. It wasn't removed by Erpert but by Gerardw, on the grounds that it constituted a personal attack, an assessment with which I fully concur.
- From what I can see of Erpert's recent activity, the last time he has mentioned you or had any interaction with you was this message on your talk page, posted more than a week ago. I couldn't find anything in his preceding comments which seems to me to amount even to incivility towards you, let alone personal attacks against you, but in any case he doesn't appear to have said anything whatever either about you or to you for more than a week. So, in my opinion it would be in your own best interests to let the matter drop.
- Please note that if you do wish to pursue the matter, the instructions for posting an alert require you to notify Erpert about it.
- —David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that every time I post an answer to the above about the disgraceful conduct of Erpert and latterly Karljoos, it is immediately deleted - please explainGeekiep (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your edit history shows that you have made only three posts ([4], [5] and [6]) to this noticeboard since I posted my comment above. None of those posts has been removed by anyone; they are all still visible while I am writing this. The only post of yours which has been removed from this noticeboard is this one, which, as I have already pointed out above, was removed by Gerardw because it constituted a personal attack.
- If you tried to post other comments which you cannot now see, the most likely explanation is that you navigated away from the edit window in which you composed them without first clicking on the Save page button. This will normally result in their being irretrievably lost.
- —David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Update: While I was composing the above comment the last of the abovementioned posts of Geekiep has in fact been removed by Theresa Knott as a mere duplicate of the first two.
- —David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that perhaps he didn't notice this section because of new sections underneath it. Prhaps he expected it to appear exactly where he left it and so assumed that it was deleted. Theresa Knott | token threats 18:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Update: While I was composing the above comment the last of the abovementioned posts of Geekiep has in fact been removed by Theresa Knott as a mere duplicate of the first two.
I've referred the Geekeip account to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SPA_disruptive.2C_baiting Gerardw (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to bring this sorry saga to a conclusion. I’m sure that if Jimmy Wales could see how contributors are treated by this minority of so called “editors” he would be saddened indeed.
Chris Edgecombe and I grew up together and our early work was in the field of pharmaceutical chemistry, a subject in which he excelled. In the 1970s he was headhunted in industrial chemistry while I stayed in my original field. In the 1980 he turned his attention to research without the use of animal testing and later to the production of renewable liquid fuels to replace the polluting mineral hydrocarbon fuels currently in use.
As you are obviously not interested I wont go into the various blends and products, but suffice to say these have a significant contribution to the United Kingdom meeting its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, The Montreal Protocol and more recently the Copenhagen agreement.
These fuels are now in widespread use throughout the UK and are supplied in bulk ocean tanker loads, reducing emissions from our coal-fired power stations by a significant amount.
Chris was taken seriously ill in April 2009 and not expected to survive, however against all odds he final came out of hospital at the end of 2009 and is back working on yet more novel renewable fuels.
At the point he was taken ill I decided to ensure that if he died his contribution to world science and mankind was recognised and that people should be aware of his unique skills.
Much of the work he did was subject to industrial and commercial secrecy agreements and still is. In addition he never sought personal acclaim by appearing on web sites and thus on the only criteria you seem to understand – Google.
Chris (and Dr John Cosgrove) have asked me to stop any further reference to either of them on Wikipedia as it is a continued embarrassment with these “editors” accusing them of being liars and hoaxers.
I have to repeat that the aggression and arrogance of the “editors” involved is breathtaking and under the circumstances denigrates the whole of Jimmy Wales concept.Geekiep (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well I am glad that you are keen to see this brought to a conclusion. Can I mark this as resolved? Theresa Knott | token threats 23:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- No you cannot. I will no longer involve Chris Edgecombe and Dr John Cosgrove but the conduct of Erpert and Karljoos is far from resolved. You must live in a very strange world to think their actions are acceptable in any form of democratic society.
- I will continue to monitor the actions of Erpert and Karljoos in their dealings with anyone else unfortunate enough to post anything the two of them either don't understand or obviously can't comprehend.Geekiep (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well that's too bad; this complaint is being marked as stuck because I'm sorry to say that none of us can help you achieve what you want at this venue. Please cease being uncivil; each person is entitled to their view - even if it disagrees with you. If you believe problems are continuing, you will need to escalate to ANI or the next step in dispute resolution which is likely to be WP:RFC/U - not here. Good luck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Misleading "You have new messages" bar
I'd like third-party opinions on the misleading "You have new messages" bar at the top of User talk:TheClerksWell (and User:TheClerksWell), which when clicked logs you out. To me this seems to be an unnecessary and disruptive trick. I have removed it twice, but each time TheClerksWell has put it back; I have asked him to remove it himself, but he has refused. What are other editors' thoughts on this? —Bkell (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a joke, editors with good senses of humor would laugh, log back in, and be on their merry way.TheClerksWell (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't the first time fake "you have new messages" notices been discussed (see [7]). As you can clearly see, a lot of people find these kinds of "jokes" inappropriate. What might be a joke to one person may not be funny or anywhere close to amusing to others. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 02:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
This joke causes no permanent harm.
TheClerksWell (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- For your information, TheClerksWell, I did laugh and just went on my way, the first three or four times I saw a fake messages bar, back in 2005 or thereabouts. But this joke is old, old, old. It's not funny any more, it's just annoying. Now whenever I see a "You have new messages" bar I have to stop and hover over the link to see whether I really have messages or not. It's about as annoying as if I had to check to see whether the "edit this page" tab really went to the editing window every time I wanted to edit a page. —Bkell (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not funny, just rude. Gerardw (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- When it happened to me I chuckled, and logged back in. Guys, lighten up.
TheClerksWell (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh well, its been discussed before but some people are just so uptight, really no sense of humour, at all. Jeesh! (P.S: Unless you're an Administrator, please do not remove anything from other users' page, it's bleeding rude and obnoxious. Potentially, it could result in the remover being taken by the removee to ANI for disruptive behaviour.) --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 03:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wait, can I go onto someones page and say their userbox annoys me and that they need to remove it or I will start a big discussion about it? If not, then stop complaining about my prank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheClerksWell (talk • contribs) 03:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Of course not, read my message above. Relax... let's ignore them, shall we? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 03:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've changed it to something a little less likely to cause harm. Please don't make jokes which could lead to a registered editor exposing their IP address. Express the running gag in more creative ways. Franamax (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Let him decide, its his talk page, mind you. Another thing, the term "messed-up sense of priorities" suddenly comes to mind. Please stop doing this unproductive tweaking of other users' talk page, go see the 3.2 million other articles if you don't like this. Don't like David Letterman? Why not watch Conan or Leno instead? Let it rest already, shall we? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
THANK YOU DAVE!
TheClerksWell (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. Logging a user out poses a specific risk of harm, that they may unwittingly reveal their IP address. Many editors operate using multiple windows. Find a different joke. Please. Franamax (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- TBH, I agree with you the IP part. However, per WP:BEANS, if you hadn't follow the link to his page, would it have crossed your mind to go there and click it? And there you have it... Really not a big issue if nobody doesn't raises it here in the first place, eh? Close this and go back to what we as Wikipedians do best - EDIT~! Thanks and regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. Logging a user out poses a specific risk of harm, that they may unwittingly reveal their IP address. Many editors operate using multiple windows. Find a different joke. Please. Franamax (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It could have directed you to Goatse, would you like that instead? --TheClerksWell (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't anonymous users edit under their ips all the time?
TheClerksWell (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but by choice. One reason some people register is so that they don't reveal their IP address. —Bkell (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, if they were smart enough to hover over the link and check they would know.
TheClerksWell (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Instead of trying to coerce me into removing the prank, why don't you catch some real vandals or fix asome articles?
TheClerksWell (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am doing that, too. Why don't you check my contributions to see what I've been up to? The fact that vandals exist doesn't mean that your disruptive prank should be allowed to stay. While you're at it, please also see WP:ITSFUNNY and WP:NOHARM, neither of which is a good argument for keeping things around. —Bkell (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Those are for articles. I never said it should be kept because it is funny. (Though it is)
I could put a funny, harmless picture of a cat in a funny pose and someone could remove it. If I argued that it was harmless, would that argument be void, and the user who removed the image be in the right?
TheClerksWell (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- TheClerksWell, will you please change the link to do something other than logging out the user? --NeilN talk to me 05:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Enough!!!!!!!!!!!! This is ridiculous. TheClerksWell has been blocked ( by another admin), his "joke" has been removed and i have protected his userpage for 3 months to stop him replacing it. Now lets all stop this ridiculous argument and go and write an encylopedia. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I am very angered and dismayed at the fact that I have not had proper representation in this unfair trial. A retrial should be in order.
TheClerksWell (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Given your sense of humor, I'm assuming the above comment is just your way of being funny. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've been seemingly arguing your side on ANI, because editors should realize when they've been logged out. But logging people out without their consent is really not a good thing to be doing. Also, it's no longer April 1. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I changed the link. Pranks are funny all year. TheClerksWell (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hilarious. ClerksWell is now blocked again for disruption, this time indefinitely. I think we're done here. Dayewalker (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Given that he claims to be 14, maybe he could come back in 4 years or so and ask for reinstatement. Assuming the 2012 bug hasn't done us all in. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk page changes
An editor has repeatedly removed some of my input from talk pages. In one case, the editor moved my input. Please see here for a list. Thank you. Maurreen (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Maurreen has already complained about this in various places, including on AN/I, and here was the response from Cenarium and Black Kite. Today she complained on my talk page about an edit I made in 2006. [8] If I say anything else, or even explain the background, it will trigger more of the same posts so I'd prefer to leave it there. SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Per WP:Refactor, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Refactoring includes, "Relocation of material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate." SlimVirgin just got into an edit war with me over putting my post somewhere I didn't put it. She may have a pattern and a practice of such disruption.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] -- Rico 05:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Latest less-than-civil comment by User talk:Skywriter connected to 1953 Iranian coup d'état article
I posted a complaint earlier about comments directed to me by User talk:Kurdo777 and User talk:Skywriter concerning 1953 Iranian coup d'état. examples below.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Complaints_and_comments_on_Mosaddeq.27s_behavior_by_foriegners "your cherry picking skills are still ...trivial character assassinations ... I must say that this is a new low for you Booga ..."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie#Are_you_OK.3F "Are you OK? ... You allow for no nuance, Booga, no shades of differences"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Deletion_of_important_language "your addiction to micromanagement would be admirable to anyone who thinks that's a good quality ... If you have a low tolerance for change, try something else. In any case, Get A Grip. For Your Own Sake."
- cute version of my name: BoogaLuise
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#BoogaLouie.27s_whitewash BoogaLouie's whitewash
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Violation_of_WP:NPOV "... your cherry-picked quotes are so one-sided, so cloddish, your WP:POV is transparent. ..."
Other editors who think it may be a problem
My post on one of the complainees talk pages earned what seemed to me to be a sort of taunting reply
The Wikiquette alerts post got some comments to "please consider the possible legitimacy to their concerns against you regarding article ownership" and be aware that I was "unlikely to get help regarding the editing from this forum," .... but no one said anything like "this isn't really a case of incivility" or "don't be so touchy".
So my question is WERE these cases of incivility? If so does this page do anything about it? If not, who does? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- In answer to your three questions: Yes they were. To the best of my knowledge, no it does not. And finally, try WP:ANI. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's explained at the top of the page. It's not an enforcement mechanism, it's designed to help editors who have misunderstandings/miscommunications get beyond them. There are a few editors who will sporadically try to help based on their own criteria. Personally, when an editor in the midst of an edit war comes here, the incivility isn't blatant and the posting editor's behavior isn't optimum -- e.g. calling another editor's contribution's misleading at best I choose not to try to help. That's not to say you shouldn't post your concerns here as I speak for myself and no one else. Gerardw (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I was trying to AGF but I couldn't think of any other way to put it than misleading at best.
I'll give Skywriter a warning to avoid getting emotional and personal on talk page discussions. However, most of these comments are rather old and therefore do not warrant further action. Booga, your own behavior appears to have been, and remains, problematic in more respects than simply civility on the article in question. You should also not copy/paste a complaint that has already been addressed more than once. Doing so is considered forum shopping. Khoikhoi 06:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ya, they were old because I was trying to ignore them and trying to hold my tongue in reply. But over time I felt I should do something. If you think my edits are "problematic in more respects than simply civility" tell me what the problem is as I think I've been playing by the rules. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Michael Glass & Metrication on Falkland Islands Topics
User:Michael Glass seems to have a mission goal of converting wikipedian articles to the metric system. He has contributed extensively on WP:UNITS to that end but has failed to have his suggestion adopted. Unfortunately his chosen means of campaigning is to repeatedly and tendentiously return to Falkland Islands related topics or the talk pages of the units task suggesting at regular intervals that this be a standard approach repeatedly failing to achieve a consensus to have his suggestion adopted. This tendentious pattern of editing is disruptive and other editors are starting to express irritation at this behaviour see [16] for example. His style of talk page postings are combative and accusatory in nature. I feel Michael needs some external feedback that his behaviour is inappropriate and ultimately counter productive. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 09:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not seeing incivility. The manual of style diff links a stale conversation. Do you have diffs of recent incivil contributions? Gerardw (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- [17], [18] and [19]. The purpose of linking to the stale conversation is that the same conversation gets repeated. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 10:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
when I looked at your user page I had a very strong urge to wash my hands
Could someone please tell me if this is an appropriate use of another editors talk page? Unomi (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Let's stop it here. RolandR have told her to avoid from commenting on his talk page and she probably will. There is much drama on the I-P topic, RolandR reported on Mbz violating the topic ban and she was immediately and harshly (Both sides seem to agree that it was at max a very little breach from the TB, even though I've no intention to doubt the judgment of the blocking admin who is a very reasonable one) blocked for 48 hours. We should leave it where it is and to let her cool down, you demand her to apologize immediately after it was done, and it's not very helpful. So again, let's avoid the drama, we have enough of it already. P.s. Just understand that she was also offended by the poster and its captions by Carlos Latuff RolandR have on his user page. I'm not implying anything on RolandR or exclude his right to have it on his user page, just trying to explain her. Again, please, lets' start being constructive and avoid drama-it seem like there is no one day without few boards and admins involved.--Gilisa (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- 'Over Drama' ???? I came here to report Mbz1 for her disgusting message at RolandR's talk page. I didn't come here for any drama, just to report a very offensive behaviour which I see Unomi has already done. I wasn't aware of the poster on RolandR's front page, I have just seen it. If you read the caption under it you will see it's acutalyl neutral in the I-P conflict. I'm not offended by it. It speaks up about racism, of which there is much in Palestine. Anything that speaks up against racism is good in my book. How can someone be offended by a poster that speaks up against racism? Anyway that is not the point here. The point is the offensive message Mbz1 has left towards RolandR on his talk page. I would say this is self destructive behaviour by Mbz1 especially given her highly disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia over the last few weeks and subsequent Topic ban and Yesterday's block for violating that topic ban. Vexorg (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Not only that but also: "because even seeing your signature at my talk page makes me sick" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
[ec]::Agree with Gilisa above. I will say that I agree that the Latuff cartoon is sickening. It also serves as propaganda as Latuff has said "I will not allow nazis [sic] to use dignified Palestinian cause as a platform to launch racial hatred. I beg you all to reproduce this cartoon all over the Internet. Let's say louder that we are fighting against those racist Jews...". and while he goes on to say that he is against racism against Jews as well, his racism (Latuff's) is clearly directed at Israelis and Jews. While RolandR believes that since he says he is Jewish it is acceptable for him to say such things, I respectfully disagree. RolandR edits in the Israel-Palestine conflict area (dare I say almost exclusively? I haven't thoroughly checked) and such a cartoon demonstrates a battlefield mentality, and is bound to offend "the opposition" and does not seem civil to me, although I assume he is in his rights to write what he wants on his talk page. Stellarkid (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Further it appears the same editors continue to WP:HOUND Mbz1 at every opportunity. Please pick on me instead for awhile. Give her a rest. Stellarkid (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest that the next person that expresses their personal opinion here about things in the real world be blocked for 48 hours to prevent them from doing so again. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
"because even seeing your signature at my talk page makes me sick"
Another disgusting and offensive message Vexorg (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)