User talk:1canuck2

Regarding edits made during August 25 2006 (UTC) to Motion capture
Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. talk to JD wants e-mail 00:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. talk to JD wants e-mail 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! This is pre-written, so I apologise if it seems a bit speaky-downy. talk to JD wants e-mail 17:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppetry
WP:SOCK talk to JD wants e-mail 21:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit reverting
I'd advise against reverting edits again for a while, I think it'd be better to try and discuss the reinclusion of the links first, otherwise it'll just turn into an endless revert war. talk to JD wants e-mail 21:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. hike395 04:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that the only contributions you seem to make to WikiWorld are to stalk and remove us. You will also note, that since you started to harass me the contributions have decreased. So it is easer to burn things down than to create. Please leave me alone. I will ask and see if the Jasper Fforde entries violate commercial promotion.Tmcsheery 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, again. Take a look at the diff . You removed the stuff about phasespace, but you also removed the FOLDOC template, the category, and all of the links to the same article on other languages of WP. That's why I put a note on your talk page. The 3D pointing device stuff may very well be spam (there have been plenty of 3D pointing devices over the years, one could at least say that that material is POV).


 * Sorry the note above wasn't clear. hike395 08:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your message
Well, I am fairly new here too. I have avoided any real conflicts by simply taking some pages off my watch list, thinking of another area I'm interested in and adding a few pages on that topic. I'm not quite sure what to do if a user still continued to follow me around. I have found that I can find the resource I need by adding WP: in front of a word when searching, thus, I expect (I haven't looked), that this link WP:STALK with have your answer. (I used preview to make sure it wasn't a red link...) IPSOS (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, funny, but I find it is typical on Wikipedia, the page tells you all about it, but not what to do about it. You could try putting on your talk page and see if somebody who knows more comes to assist you. IPSOS (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly new to making edits to Wikipedia and have found getting used to some of the "Ins and Outs" of editing correctly difficult to master. I have, however, been trying to clean-up the commercial links and reference on the various Motion Capture/VR related pages. A user (Tmcsheery) who works at one of the companies whose links I removed has accused me of stalking her and of "self-righteous" behaviour. I think she is upset that I removed references to the company she works at that she had added to multiple pages related to Mocap (I removed other commercial content as well). As I understood it, these kinds of links do not belong in WP. After accusing me of stalking, she has, out of spite, gone to the few other pages I have edited and attempted to have them deleted. I do not know why, and I do not know what to do. I am upset by her accusations, especially when I feel I acted with honest intentions for the betterment of WP (you can check my contribs to see what kinds of things I have done). I am a bit of a newbie. Can someone advise me on how to handle this? I left a message stating my case on her talk page more than once, but have only received accusations and negative behaviour from her in return.


 * Perhaps you'll want to try WP:RFC. Make sure you have the diffs to document what you're saying. Xiner (talk, email) 20:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello 1canuck2. I have obviously not extensively researched this (yet), but I think the important thing to note here is that you seem to have acted in good faith. With that in mind, users are expected to be patient with newcomers, and remain civil. These are all either official policy or widely accepted guidelines, and personal attacks are not tolerated.


 * That said, it's always best to first try and resolve a dispute by directly communicating with the user involved, on his or her talk page. As it seems you have already tried that, I would suggest asking for input on the relevant article(s)' talk pages instead, and try to reach consensus there about whether or not your edits were appropriate / if not, why not / etc. If you still feel user(s) are attacking you personally or treating you in an uncivil manner, and seeing that you are a new user (and the following might be quite a lot of information to digest, for now), I would suggest posting a message at the administrators' incident noticeboard, explaining the situation. You are sure to receive some further advise and guidance there.


 * A summary of the official dispute resolution process are as follows:


 * First step: Talk to the other parties involved
 * Second step: Disengage for a while
 * Further dispute resolution
 * Informal mediation: Request a mediator at Mediation_Cabal
 * Discuss with third parties and reach a consensus by looking at:
 * Requests for comment - the main avenue for general disputes
 * Third opinion - for disputes involving only two editors
 * Wikiquette alerts - for problems with uncivil editors
 * Asking at subject-specific WikiProjects or policy pages relevant to the issue
 * Conduct a survey: Clarify the issues in the discussion
 * Mediation: Request mediation
 * LAST resort: Request for Arbitration


 * I hope this helps. Feel free to reply here (you don't need to add the tag again—I am watching your talk page for replies) if there is any other questions you have. Good luck! —Xhantar Talk 20:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Just to let you know that I've had a look at the comments by yourself and certain admins on Tmcsheery's talk page, and also the relevant diffs from your contribution history. I definitely think this qualifies as something that could be reported at WP:AN/I as link spam, especially considering the warnings the user has already been given. However, most of the edits where external links to "PhaseSpace" were added, seems to have happened some time ago already, so the admins will probably conclude that the user has already been warned for this, depending on when the warnings to his/her talk page were added.


 * (Not a comprehensive list):


 * Facial motion capture - 7 February 2006 by User:Tmcsheery
 * Facial motion capture - 21 June 2006 by User:71.131.194.208 (suspected sockpuppetry!)
 * Telerobotics - 07:15, 1 December 2006 by User:Tmcsheery
 * Computer facial animation - 19:28, 21 March 2006 by User:63.204.29.174 (suspected sockpuppetry!)


 * However, if it happens again after your recent reverts, I would report. Hope this helps. —Xhantar Talk 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I only posted my most recent message on her talk page late last night, so I'll maybe give it a few days and see if she replies. I don't want to be perceived as a troublemaker, but I am also bothered by her reaction, especially when she NfD'ed some unrelated pages I had made edits to out of what I can only assume was spite. Thankfully User:IPSOS seems to have handled that nicely and she removed her changes. If I receive no response from her but the link spam stays away, would you just let it be? I don't want to create extra work for admins if it is deemed unnecessary. I'll watch the pages I made changes to see that they stay commercial link free, although I didn't really want to have to turn into the police... Thanks again for your help. 1canuck2 03:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd let it be. All of the AfD templates were removed before even reaching WP:AfD:


 * The Fourth Bear diff
 * The Big Over Easy diff
 * Something Rotten diff
 * The Well of Lost Plots diff
 * Lost in a Good Book diff
 * The Eyre Affair diff
 * Thursday Next diff
 * Jasper Fforde diff


 * If it did reach AfD, you would have had a chance to state your case there, and if the articles ended up being deleted, you have something else to worry about altogether :-)


 * For the moment, at least, IPSOS's third opinion seems to have had the desired effect and a third opinion is one of the points I mentioned above. This is what the dispute resolution process strives for, after all. You also shouldn't feel that it is your duty to constantly patrol these pages, although, of course, you are welcome to do so. At least three admins (GIen; Mangojuice; J Di) have posted warnings to Tmcsheery's talk page (a last warning by GIen on 27 August 2006 (UTC)), and although now archived here, it is very probable that they are already watching.


 * As for the entire stalking argument: stalk all you want. Users' contributions, user pages, talk pages, and articles' histories are public for a reason. The only time stalking becomes a problem, is when it is done in order to harass a user. From Harassment (to which WP:STALK redirects), it is quite clear:


 * The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy [emphasis added], nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.


 * On the other hand, also from Harassment:


 * Harassment is sometimes described as a violation of don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point or no personal attacks.


 * Lastly, do feel free to post at WP:AN/I if any of this re-occurs. —Xhantar Talk 09:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)