Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive12

Archive index

3 March 2007

 * Can someone look into User:Tulkolahten? He has either attacked me or insinuated an attack against me on my talk page (I deleted the comments, though they are in history), Talk:Karlovy_Vary, and User_talk:Rex_Germanus. Antman -- chat 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Provide evidence, or stay away. Provide here all links from the history where you think it is a personal attack.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 10:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My Talk Page
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * Karlovy Vary Discussion Page
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * User:Piotrus' Talk Page
 * User_talk:Piotrus
 * User:Rex Germanus' Talk Page
 * User_talk:Rex_Germanus
 * I've asked him to stop here, and he refused here.
 * kthx. Antman -- chat 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh man, I hope some administrator will take a look on it very quickly, that's ridiculous, it's nothing uncivil. Also why don't you tell them about your attack userbox and about this .  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You removed a lot of context, liek this - it is the complete conversation. Your edits are disruptive, you are saying that you will ignore consensus  and a couple of editors noticed that (like Rex Germanus, Piotrus and me) but all what you can do is to cut some edits from the context and report your version. You have two userboxes claiming you as a german imperial patriot and that you support Danzig isntead of Gdansk. If someone notice that in the middle of the discussion about Carlsbad/Karlovy Vary (exactly the same as Danzig/Gdansk) you claims him as a personal attacker, that's ridiculous.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Antman -- chat 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What what ? Suddenly you know nothing about your uncivility, what a surprise ... ?  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am having trouble reading your English. Antman -- chat 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Tulkolahten, this wouldn't be the first time Antman wasn't able to back up what he claimed. He once claimed I called him a nazi, I said I would leave wikipedia if he showed me where ... I'm still waiting.Rex 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm as I see he is not able to be so patient and read non-native english, any native speaker can do it, if not, then it is something wrong there.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I just don't feel like taking the time to try to read what you are writing, as it is just an attack anyways. Antman -- chat 22:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't even read that and you are blaming me, uf ... too much for me ...  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 09:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's face it, you are both about as bad as each other, & neither of you know when to leave an argument alone. Regards to both, Johnbod 13:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can someone also look into User:Rex Germanus? He has attacked me on my talk page (I've since deleted the comments), Talk:Karlovy_Vary, User_talk:Rex_Germanus (what stands out most there is #Renaming_articles), on Talk:Recovered Territories, by his edit comments on Recovered Territories, and many other things. Antman -- chat 19:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion on Talk:Best Buy and Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal on whether retailing articles (especially Best Buy) merit inclusion of a paragraph on its "no-christmas" business practice. We are concerned that those involved in the discussions may be astroturfing the subject; thus we are requesting outside opinions.  23:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

4 March 2007

 * Can someone look into User:NawlinWiki? He seems to be deleting articles without considering their notability properly - from the comments on his discussion page it seems as though he is only considering whether articles are notable to him personally.
 * Can you please provide a link to an example or two of this for someone to evaluate? --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * New personal attacks by User:Dking. In this edit he says that editors who dispute his edits are "programmed by LaRouche" and have "memorized a lot of empty cant." --Tsunami Butler 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree; he is commenting on the contributor(s), not on the(ir) contribution(s). Seems to me that the mediation process should address such comments: they seem to create an unproductive mediation atmosphere. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is the place for this. User:Matthew is currently having an argument with several editors about content at Talk:Family_Ties. While the discussion is a legitimate one I find he is being deliberately inflammatory. --16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There was possibly a very minor violation of WP:AGF on his part, but he was only pointing out the Wikipedia policies that govern appropriate article content in a non-wikilawyering way. He probably should have referred to WP:POINT instead of WP:SPIDER, but I see no significant Wiki ettiquette violations on his part. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A Mandriva wiki (not part of Wikipedia or Wikicities, AFAIK) had some outdated information, so I asked in Mandriva Talk for someone to make an update there, since contributing to its Talk page requires registration. I made a short announcement about it, if someone could change the wiki there, but User:Chealer removed it and branded it as offtopic. As far as I know, content in talk pages should not be removed. Comments? -Mardus 23:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * User:TVshot appears to be skirting a very fine line of uncivil behavior, and his userpage and contributions seem to indicate that he is editing with disruption in mind. 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm sure people have their eye on him now. I would recommend disengaging for now. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

5 March 2007

 * Davémon appears to be WP:TROLLing the Image development (visual arts) article or has a personal competitive business interest in monopolizing terminology. His edits are not in good faith. The user is rejecting the community input after an AfD discussion. The page history shows that the user is in clear violation of disruptive editing WP:POINT. The user is taking advantage of the fact that art-related wikipedia articles are easy to label original research because they consist mostly of WP:POV. The user is also scrutinizing the article with a double standard. When the article was not sourced, he added a tag but then put a soft  tag on the corporate image page which has alternate use of the term. The user threw every argument in the book against the article, and then archived the failed arguments and the note to "keep" after the AfD before requesting a third opinion so at a glance, the only arguments that appeared on the page appeared to be a dispute between two users. Clearly this person is gaming the system. If this person is allowed to scrutinize POV to this level, wikipedia will be nothing but a bibliography. 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just an update on my suspicions. The way Davémon request and harshly rejects sources on harmless statements in which the accuracy and neutrality of the statements are not disputed, leads me to believe that he wants to horde the information. Once it's posted on the wikipedia, he can use it to his career knowledge benefit, and then get it removed easily by accusing it to be original research so that competitors may never find it. To me, there is no other explanation as to why someone would be so quick to use wikipedia rules at the strictest level against harmless material. Oicumayberight 08:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

6 March 2007

 * I am not sure where to place this; I have been falsely accused of a personal attack by Longend. on Homer slips. page for making a comment on his bad language on his discussion page. Longend removed my comments, homer slips thanked him on Longends discussion page and a friend of homer slips told them to check me for sock pocket. Why am I made to be into a criminal for telling homer slips to stop using bad language and name calling?


 * Saintrotter 6 March 2007


 * At Talk:Frank R. Wallace (see e.g. this revision), user Bridge &amp; Tunnel has been throwing out random nonsensical ad hoc arguments regarding the admissibility of certain sources. Even after his arguments have been rebutted in detail, he still repeatedly insists he's right. Someone please look into this and put a stop to it. 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

7 March 2007

 * Per the talk page at Talk:Firestop_pillow, user User:Ahering@cogeco.ca is having trouble understanding the Attribution policy ("I'm referencing real experience and the pix to back it up in reality, not some fancy stuff a professor wrote in a book", "my knowledge on the subject matter is not book knowledge, it is hands-on"). Could someone else help explain ithe issue to him there? 14:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Two editors, User:Kemor and User:Payne2thamax are engaging in a flamewar via the edit summaries in the history page at N.W.A.; this has been going on for over 24 hours. 23:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Both editors warned at respective talk pages (level 3 for Kemor and level 4 for Payne). --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 08:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

9 March 2007

 * User 200.168.32.36 has removed particular content from the trance music article five times, despite being reverted each time and warned twice. Refer to his talk page for the diffs. I'm not sure this qualifies as vandalism, but it is repetitive disruptive activity and should be stopped. 11:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by poster; will be treated as vandalism. 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Per the talk page at Talk:Tin Oo, user User:Okkar is having trouble understanding the Attribution policy ("Read the source... pay attention when you read the article, it is historical fact, you should take a visit to Defense Museum in Yangon... have you ever been there?"). No one can make a change to one of his poor edits without having their own contributions attacked. When the fact tags he places are addressed (see Tin Tun, Ye Htoon, and Scouting in Burma), he removes them and places the fact tags once again, it is repetitive disruptive activity and should be stopped. 18:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okkar has also made personal attacks on other editors accusing them of bias and favoring Burmese opposition pro-democracy groups. This is one on Hintha: ("Here we go, everytime the likes of you get caught redhanded, you scream personal attack, yet you expect to get away with the misdeed by trying to overcloud the issue at hand with personal attack claims. It is truely amazing to see this form of mentality in Wikipedia. Not only people cheat, lie and do all kinds of misdeeds, they have the audicity to claim to be victim. No wonder there are soo many sorry stories about Burmese refugees, this is just one fine example of the propaganda tactics of opposition groups - hit first then pretend to be victim .. amazing, truly amazing!! Okkar 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)") From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myanmar


 * Here is another comment made by Okkar: ("Finally, the common sense has prevailed and triumphed over destructive mindset of opposition groups and their minions who are using this project as a political propaganda tool. It is a victory over those who seek out to degrade our country by insisting to use the old colonial name of the country as the name of the project and the axe handles who colluded with foreigners with mob mentality to remove anyone who don’t support or share their politically biased views from this project by any means necessary, even if it means they have to cheat or lied. Okkar 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)") From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Myanmar_%28Burma%29#Political_Agendas


 * In both quotes, Okkar is neither assuming good faith nor is he avoiding personal attacks on other editors. This kind of behavior and language is clearly counter to Wikipedia's standards. I've not witnessed any apology by Okar for this behavior. His pattern seems to be to cease temporarily this kind of behavior then start up again later. Based on this constant bad behavior, I raise the question of whether he should be banned from editing Wikipedia. SimonBillenness 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

12 March 2007
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Porphyry_of_Gaza: The commments made in support of large-scale reverts seem very inflammatory, and involve personal attacks. Nor do they describe what was done to the article accurately. Can neutral editors take an interest? 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

13 March 2007
At (Wikiquette) #Informal Request for Comment on debate tactics: Editor A objects to Editor B's debate tactics, and claims that Editor B is using private rather than dictionary definitions of words such as "misinterpretation". The dispute has culminated in Editor B editing Editor A's posts. Editor B claims this is justified. Editor A is informally requesting comments on the debate tactics at the page above (or wherever it gets moved to), and seeks advice on whether to file some kind of formal complaint about the claim of justified editing of another's post. (Please note that page host User:Will Beback is not directly involved in the dispute.) 08:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

14 March 2007
User:Dking has been warned about this sort of thing, but the behavior persists and seems to be getting worse. 14:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

16 March 2007
User:Faranbazu has been warned regarding personal attacks such as those of this post, where he calls other editors fascists and accuses them of racism (or more specifically glorification of the Aryan race), but the behavior does not seem to change. 12:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Case was reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, with new evidence added. Shervink 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Could someone look at User:Alan2012's recent behavior, especially. 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally: (to which he didn't respond),  (to which he didn't respond),  (to which he didn't respond),  (to which he didn't respond).  There's much, much more, but there seems to be a pattern. 15:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies, but it looks like I've escalated the problem by trying to intervene myself ( resulting in him attacking ). I'll avoid interacting with him further until this is looked into. --Ronz 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * His behavior is worsening. Since no one is responding here, could someone at least suggest other venues?  There have been two AN/I's on him that have also not been responded to. --Ronz 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going ahead with refactoring his comments. --Ronz 00:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For reference, there is an AN/I that got no response: 19 March 2007 AN/I. --Ronz 15:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

17 March 2007
Please can someone look at Ludgershall, Wiltshire, particularly the second paragraph. I removed it under "Lack of notability" and it was returned. I would like another opinion. Putney Bridge 14:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Its fucking gay!

18 March 2007
I have encountered some personal attacks arising from a dispute with User:SU182 in relation to some major revisions that were done to the OS-tan article (see Talk:OS-tan. He has since also started looking at articles that I have not edited in over a year and nominating them for deletion or merging in bad faith. Any advice as to how to handle the situation would be greatly appreciated. --Darkstar949 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering what to do regarding an unregistered editor who has constructed an identity that includes a user page and a signature that implies they are registered (Jan talk). The fourth principle of WP:EQ is "Please register yourself" which includes the subpoint that says "If you have not registered yourself, do not construct a signature that might make it appear that you have". The user is engaging in controversial edits and when reverted the person's lack of registration has come up on the talk pages, e.g., [this diff]. Any etiquette advice on what to do in this situation? Buddhipriya 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:Hexe1998 and the user’s edits to the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma article. The source cited by User:Hexe1998 is not neutral, and, in IMHO, does not qualify as a reliable source. I also do not believe that it complies with neutral point of view and by him commenting on the contributor and not the content and calling people racist is in violation of no personal attacks policy and WP:CIVILITY. 23:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

19 March 2007
I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I became involved in an edit war before I learned about civilility. From that point I talked user Tilman about personal attacks and incivility. He continues to do it. I have been accused on an article talk page ''[] of lying by omission and among other things. I have asked Tilman to stop the behavior, but he has not stopped. Can someone view those section and provide some feedback to see is if there is actually an incivility issue? Thanks John196920022001 05:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

20 March 2007

 * Help; anyone! For a week now, I've been discussing the pages Total Chaos and Team Chaos with User:GreatGianaSister and User:SuperfrogJumps. I've been putting up with their uncivil comments here (here and Articles for deletion/Team Chaos, and defending myself against accusations of bad faith edits (they highlight some 'vandalism' edits I've done).

But now they've crossed the line into personal attacks. I left a message on their talk pages to try and diffuse the situation, but these have been rebuked.

If anybody can give a third opinion on this, or help diffuse the situation that would be appreciated, thanks. I feel like I'm on my own trying to defend myself. Marasmusine 07:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could someone have a glance at Knights Templar and its associated discussions? There's a conflict between and  that's growing very acrimonious, and needs application of WP:NPA (see also Conflict of interest/Noticeboard). 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

21 March 2007

 * Joseph McCarthy, Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Violations of WP:REVERT, WP:CIVIL, WP:TEND, WP:NPA.18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)  I would welcome any commentary on my own behavior as well.  18:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like RedSpruce at least wants to discuss the edits; perhaps reverting them was a little uncivil, but it doesn't make you look like a vandal and I would assume good faith. Hear out his explaination and remember to keep your cool! Marasmusine 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

23 March 2007
Use of profanity here by longterm problem editor/suspected sockpuppet. 02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since WP:NOT censored, I don't think the mere presence of a "dirty word" is itself a violation of the rules, though the comments in question might count as a personal attack under WP:NPA. *Dan T.* 02:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is most certainly a violation of WP:CIVIL.--Gene_poole 08:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed here I also tried to smile to him, but I see it's unworthy. He suspects everybody that doesn't agree with his personal opinions, so everybody is avoiding to have discussions with him at Ambient music, New Age music and Space music. He regards himself as the only legitimate owner of those articles. I don't care, honestly.--Doktor Who 19:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above comment would appear to violate WP:NPA too. --Gene_poole 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks *Dan T.*, for taking the time to respond, and please accept my apologies for this late reply, I am very, very busy in my life these days, and I have no spare time to come at this site. I don't want to be thought of as a "problem editor". I take your point and have deleted some comments that I posted when I had no time to carefully check, becouse, due to my job as a pc techie, I wasn't using my usual pc. Doktor Who 01:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * crapflooding a talk page with agressive rant that seems to indicate a strong bias against the subject and editors associated with the BKWSU. Some choice quotes include, "by 'wikilawyering' I quote what the BKs have been doing here to control the article", "was brahma baba too emotional or not good enough for you appledell ?", "according to your agenda as a bk".

Since the article is under probation I have reported this to the arbitration noticeboard. Thatcher131 has requested the case be reviewed as he is currently not empowered to deal with this particular situation. He has suggested that I follow normal dispute resolution process. Although it was concerning a slightly different issue I am assuming the same applies to this editor also.

Although many useful addtions have been made to the article by this editor (after de-biasing ), I would appreciate that some basic assumption of good faith and appreciation of NPOV is established. 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would advice that we discuss this in the talk page of the Brahma Kumarisas most of the issues can be resolved there. I think since Green108 is fairly new at this process it would serve all to mentor him, rather than bite him:don't bite the newcomers. There are gentle ways to bring about folks and I do note that Bksimonb once accused me of "ranting". We have a good working relationship now and I am sure he can also do the same with this fairly new (not too experienced user). I have no issues with this user and will help where I can to offer my two pennies so as to help him along as I noted that he has made some good edits with well researched citations. Please note that all my participation in the arbitration committee case revolved around sources for citation/use and not of issues with editors as I see this as a distraction and not leading to any positive outcomes.PEACE TalkAbout 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi TalkAbout. I appreciate the mediating role you are playing on the talk page. I think this really needs the input of a non-BK such as yourself as Green108 certainly seems to have sensitivities in this area. I guess I was just a bit disappointed with the response I got to trying to establish a good working relationship and I haven't seen any positive changes yet, but if you believe a turnaround is possible then and you can help then I'll post you a barnstar :-) I've heard it said, and agree, that arbitration cases here are almost always do to behaviour problems with editors. Even if they say they are content disputes. The BKWSU case also demonstrated that uncivil user behaviour results in the toughest sanctions. Do you really think Green108 is a new user? Regards Bksimonb 20:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think he is fairly new as per his edit counts. I do note that once before he was bitten by another editor (An orthodox BK) and he went away as he was rather sensitive at that particular time. Please note this link, and I don't think I need to touch on why I am advocating on his behalf. I note that wikipedia has tags for individuals that perhaps may need a little more understanding, or gaidance in an effort of wikispirt/cooperation. I often seek out the help of other editors with technical issues, and for guidance on the admittance of information. I think since he is getting his feet wet and has done his home work (research) we should mentor him and give feed back on the talk page of the article. I note that you and I have come a long way, I do have great respect for former centrewasis and current ones too. You cooperation/understanding would be most appriciated. PEACETalkAbout 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

24 March 2007

 * In the course of an edit war on Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Sulla16 has been making what I think to be personal attacks against me on the talk page. I've put in bold some of the parts I think to be attacks. Of course I have to accept my share of blame for the edit war, but I've found Sulla16 to be uncooperative and inflexible. Since the start over a month ago he's been abusive and insulting; I'm tired of it but I can't encourage his behaviour by walking away, as graceful as that would be—he'd just attack someone else later. Would someone please have a look? 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Over the last few days my edits over the last few months appear to have been targetted by a fairly new user who seems insistent on dishing out warnings to me based on false assumptions, incorrect information and assumptions of bad faith. Currently it appears to be just the two of us in disagreement, and following a recent edit I made to the person article, she trawledd through my contribution history and now appears to be devoting her attention to repeatedly reverting my recent document merge of nephology and cloud which was done after reaching concensus (i.e. no objections nor activity since 2004). Despite nephology containing one sentence only, this user seems insistent that it warrants its own article despite not having tried to gather anyone else's opinion. --Rebroad 15:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This matter is now being dealt with here. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 05:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

25 March 2007

 * And the beat goes on with User:Dking: diff.

26 March 2007
Seeking some 3rd party input regarding conduct of MBHiii, particularly as it applies to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. User has been warned against attacking the credibility of other editors in AfD and DRV debates multiple times, see and. User was further advised against this kind of behavior on his talk page, and has responded that he feels entitled to continually discredit people as he sees fit.

Given that the user has on more than one occasion been warned not to violate WP:NPA this could be escalated further, however I feel that an RFC is not warranted at this point. I am hoping that some input from uninvolved 3rd parties might help the user to understand why attacking the credibility of other authors is inappropriate behavior, and lead him to avoid from doing so in the future. Thanks. 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

29 March 2007
Could someone comment, perhaps intervene, in the argument between and  here: User_talk:Levine2112. There are accusations of harassment, biting newbies, assuming bad faith, and use of hostile language. 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please assist in an edit war that has become a admin war. Shell Kinney is allowing a user, jeanclauduc, to vandalize web pages and reverting articles back to innacurate versions. Other users have already commented on this PLEASE HELP

30 March 2007
The articles on Paul of Tarsus and Pauline Christianity have been essentially hijacked by a small group of "orthodox" editors with a severe sectarian doctinal POV (ie. Anglican and Roman Catholic). They will not allow anyone to make factual edits that challenge their POV. These folks need to be suspended from editing these articles for a time to cool off.12:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)