Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive14

Archive index

Talk:Polish Defense
I am concerned that this discussion about concerns regarding this page will become a problem of commenting on the contributor instead of on the actual content. Also concerned about the same happening on Talk:Greco Defence. FrozenPurpleCube 23:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hang on a sec, the only reason that people were commenting on the contributor is because that contributor was being, if not rude, certainly quite brusque ("Get back to me when you've improved it") Really Mr.M, it's a bit much to complain about NPA when you provoke people like that.  Eliminator JR Talk  14:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be especially bruque or rude. My apologies if it's taken that way, but if the worst you can say is "It's rude to say "Get back to me when you've improved it" then I'm afraid I'm not going to take your concern as any more valid than when you complained I removed Kasparov from a list of baby boomers.  And given that you are hardly an uninvolved editor, I'm afraid I'm going to ask you to let somebody who isn't personally involved comment.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Being completely neutral, I would've taken umbrage at that remark, as it sounds like you're ordering people about. I appreciate it might not have been meant in that way, but I can't blame Sjakkalle for being slightly peeved.  Eliminator JR  Talk  17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your claims of not being involved are not supportable. You're not neutral, and claiming that you are is hardly going to convince me of anything but that you are even less fair.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I give up. I wasn't involved in this, and was merely trying to point out why the disagreement occurred. I don't see any point in continuing, so I'll back out of this one now  Eliminator JR  Talk  20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your involvement in this specific situation is irrelevant, you have a past involvement in the situation. Surely it's not so hard to fathom why I don't consider you truly neutral?  Frankly, I'm baffled that you'd even claim otherwise.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Outside view: FrozenPurpleCube is being borderline disruptive in both of those talk pages, and likely trolling at Talk:Sicilian Defence. The comments directed at him in them are valid.  The other editors of the articles seem to be handling the situation appropriately and have given FrozenPurpleCube good advice; I hope he follows it. 75.62.7.22 07:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, but I'm disinclined to follow the advice of an anonymous IP address since you could be any number of people who decided to log-out and try to anonymously swing support for your side. Pardon me if I seem suspicious, but sockpuppetry is a common problem.  This is especially so since you seem somewhat informed of the situation from the start.  FrozenPurpleCube 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not involved in any of these articles and don't know any of the people involved. After reading this discussion and the related talk pages, I see that tensions are somewhat elevated but I don't see troublesome violations of WP:CIVIL.  My suggestion is that everyone just relax a bit and not take the comments so personally.  Certainly, it's better to keep comments perfectly focused only on content and not on editors, but if someone strays from that and makes a comment that might be interpreted as insulting (whether intentional or not) just let it go.   It can only affect us if we let it.  Often, it's hard to tell how someone means something in a written note.  On the other hand,  if there are truly uncivil comments such as insults or threats, that would be different and would need to be addressed.  When the comments are mostly just annoying,... just let them go and focus on content.


 * I don't mean to make light of anyone's experience here; I've encountered annoying editors plenty of times, and it's, well... annoying! I believe the best way to improve the articles and to enjoy editing is to de-escalate the emotional temperature and concentrate on facts, references, and clear writing. If the disruption becomes so much that it stops progress on the articles, then dispute resolution procedures may be needed.  I don't see that in this situation though, at least not so far.


 * I'd like to offer links to a few articles. Some of these may seem basic, but for me, I find them valuable to review now and then for insights on how to respond in difficult situations:  Avoid personal remarks, Etiquette,  No angry mastodons, BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Truce.


 * Good luck with the articles! --Parzival418 Hello 23:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note also FrozenPurpleCube's participation at Aldol condensation and its talk page, as pointed out by another editor who FrozenPurpleCube ticked off (comment now removed ).   75.62.7.22 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, an editor who has decided to attack me in a very rude and offensive fashion, such that it was removed for uncivility?? Is there some reason I should be concerned that that reaction reflects on my behavior?  FrozenPurpleCube 16:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Readers can check your contributions and form their own opinions. 75.62.7.22 03:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly why it's not necessary for anybody to make their point here, if anything, it's counter to the purpose of this page. FrozenPurpleCube 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Insults from Calton
1 - recent conflict: The background is that a discussion over the deletion of a userpage ended with my acceptance that Alphachimp and Calton had acted properly in the tagging and deletion, thanks to Alphachimp's responses to my arguments.

My issue is with the insults by Calton made during this discussion, on my talk page. My responses are at Calton's talk page.

I don't believe I have been uncivil myself during this, but if I have then I would like to correct that and am prepared to apologise. I have already apologised to Alphachimp, for suggesting his deletion was an example of incivility, and withdrew that statement. The disagreement with Alphachimp was robust but without insults.

2 - Relevant history: After writing the above, I noticed there is already a complaint about tone,, on this page.

Also, the comments at User_talk:Azukimonaka are an example of "Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" (WP:CIVIL). --Chriswaterguy talk 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Article: Kevin Potvin
I'm concerned about the repeated revisions of an editor on "Kevin Potvin." He or she has repeatedly removed references to articles that appeared in mainstream newspapers, including the National Post, and additional details that would shed light on an ongoing controversy. This includes Kevin Potvin's own writing. The editor seems to have confused libel with facts-that-are-just-unflattering to Mr. Potvin. Perhaps a more experienced editor could take a look? Thanks! FactsFirst 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this article is about a living person, special policies apply. Please review this article first:


 * Biographies of living persons


 * If you feel you need to follow-through with a report about this, then use one of the forums listed below.


 * Requests for comment/Biographies
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Thanks. --Parzival418 Hello 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between Andrew c and LoveMonkey
There has been a history of conflict between myself and LoveMonkey, and I have tried to smooth things out in the past, see User talk:LoveMonkey. However, things are getting pretty heatead at Talk:Gospel of John. I have asked LoveMonkey to remain calm and civil, but the personal attacks towards me seem only to increase. I would like uninvolved editors to please examine the recent posts by both parties, starting with Talk:Gospel of John (sorry if it is a lot to read). You are also welcome to view our talk pages and some of the previous disputes we have been in. I want to know if I have done anything wrong, and I want to know if it's ok for me to be bothered by another editor calling me "unethical" and so on. Thanks.-Andrew c 19:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Andrew c - Good day. "EE" here. I've taken a look at the details regarding this conflict and it is my observation that the dispute in question is not particularly complicated. To the best of my judgement, your edits to the article merely reflected your concern for lead section policy, and I, and most editors would be in full agreement that there cannot be an overflow of content in the introductory section of any article; all the articles need are basic explanatory elements, and more than enough information is already provided. All in all, I've seen no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that your changes and explanations were not done for the right reasons. I must add, however, that LoveMonkey has not been uncivil to an extreme degree. Uncivil, yes. Closed minded, I'm not entirely sure, I think this user is acting only in perceived interests of the article, just not doing so properly at this time. I will try and reason. You've done nothing wrong, and I think this is a dispute that can be easily resolved. Hope this helps. EnglishEfternamn talk  contribs  07:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting and giving your thoughts. However, it doesn't seem like things are getting better. Do you have any advice for me? I've tried to clear things up, apologized, asked to move forward, asked the user to assume good faith, and to discuss article content instead of interpersonal disputes, etc, but nothing has changes, and the user still seems quite spiteful towards me. Are there next steps I can take? -Andrew c 16:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I invited the user to give his/her opinion right here on this page, but has declined to do so at this particular time. Maybe the message has not been recieved yet? I don't know. All I can recommend for now is that you sit tight. If you continue to experience more incivility, unnecessary reversions, or any otherwise hostile actions over the next day or so, don't hesitate to report him to the administrator noticeboard. I'll be glad to help you in that regard, but let's just wait and see if it really has to come to that. Give it one more day.  EnglishEfternamn talk  contribs  19:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Activism and attacks by User:Green108
Could someone please take a look at Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University. There seems to be some intense activism against the subject and editors  there. Now the attacks have extended to other pages. This example shows presumption of bad faith, using affiliation to discredit an editor and baseless accusations. Green108 has re-inserted the attack after it was deleted. Thanks 07:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading signature by User:TTN
The user has a signature that does not resemble his username and, more importantly, exactly matches that of another user, User:Nemu, but has ignored my requests that he change it. Rhindle The Red 14:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to instruct this user to change the sig, if he refuses, he should be reported to the administrator noticeboard. EnglishEfternamn talk  contribs  23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Update here, it looks like TTN has agreed to change the signature, though someone should be notified if he/she decides to change it back. EnglishEfternamn talk  contribs  23:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Mikkalai
User:Mikkalai, an admin, is becoming increasingly hostile, condescending, and non-encyclopedic in his/her talk edits. This is primarily evident at recent edits to the RFD for Illegal number, in which s/he repeatedly claims, "read my lips: "Whe-re is the re-fe-ren-ce for the term "il-le-gal num-ber?"'", etc., attacks every post wanting to keep the article in question, and has recently begun using low-level profanity, such as "bullshit". There have been a number of users who have complained about Mikkalai's conduct on that page. samwaltz 19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any more behavior problems then just that one, because it was in a 2 day period, it could be some real life problems. Some more examples would be nice. --Drestros power 21:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Drestros power


 * I participated a little in this AfD, and have encountered Mikkalai in the past, and I can testify to his general incivility and rudeness. Just looking at the first ten of his contributions, right now (02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)), shows edit summaries like "rm unreferenced babble" and "rm false statement you guys cannot read sources with attention: tsam was the only Jewish *captain*" . Here, he again uses the term "unreferenced babble" (May 10); here, "bullshit" (May 11). For examples of consistent incivility, he seems to often let his POV against Romanians get in the way of editing the encyclopedia: he was involved in an edit war in early 2006 in Moldovan language over whether or not it was a distinct language from Romanian (see archive of talk page); he opposed the FA nomination for the article Rus' Khaganate (December 2006) quite vocally -- one user said, "It seems to me that the purpose of this reader is to derail this FAC nomination. It's his right to oppose, yet he makes several gross mistatements of fact that must not go unanswered."; in Articles for deletion/Bolohoveni (October 2006), he became quite uncivil when the discussion went against his POV, saying "The article is FALSE, for crying out loud. Did yoo care to read my explanations?", "This is English-language encyclopedia, which is not supposed to describe ignorance of Romanians. The article text is false" (and several other times claimed the "ignorance" of one thing or another), and, my favorite, "Why do I have to have an evidence that it is bullshit? It is the job of bullshit perpetrators to prove that they are correct. If it was not your question, then please ask exactly what you want." I'm sure I could find many more examples, but I think this is a pretty representative bunch. -- BlastOButter42 See   Hear  Speak  02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mikkalai is indeed being uncivil. I would suggest leaving a message on his talk page and if nesicary reporting him. If a user thinks an administrator has acted improperly against them or another editor, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action according to Resolving disputes. For more possibilities, see Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges. Administrators can be removed if they misuse their powers. Currently, administrators may be removed either at the request of Jimbo Wales or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers or placement on administrative probation. The technical ability to remove administrator status rests with stewards. There have been alternative procedures suggested for the removal of sysop status, but none of them have achieved consensus.  Some administrators will voluntarily stand for reconfirmation under certain circumstances; see Category:Administrators open to recall. An often paraphrased comment about adminship is the following, said by Jimbo Wales in Feb 2003, referring to administrators as sysops:
 * ASH1977LAW 11:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Mikkalai has also been blocked twice for violating 3RR because of his POV. -- BlastOButter42 See  Hear  Speak  03:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You can try to message him about his recent edits, but it seems like he would not answered because of his talk page..Saying that, but you can always try. --Drestros power 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Drestros power


 * sigh. I left her/him a message, which has since been deleted without comment. samwaltz 21:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The user is also removing important merge proposals from the page in question, without waiting for the proposal to be resolved, or giving her/his rationale. . samwaltz 04:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My advice is to take this to Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges ASH1977LAW 11:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He indeed has had soem problems with keeping control of himself. I'm tired of it. His language, yelling over the internet, sarchasm, and harshness on the newbs is disrespectful and brings the wrong image to wikipedia. This must be stopped. -- Stealthrabbit  talk  01:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To be strictly correct, I think this issue is about editing and user relations, not about misuse of admin privileges. A non-admin could equally well do the things Mikkalai is accused of, and they would be equally unacceptable from a non-admin. So I think this should go under Requests_for_comment/User_conduct. I'm not aware of this user being credibly accused of misuse of admin privileges. Maybe someone could say that his being an admin aggravates the other issues, but I'm not sure that's even really true; and if there's a punishment, I think it would be more appropriately a general editing block - as might be applied to a non-admin. Taking away his admin status wouldn't stop him from being able to do all the things he's accused of here. As the closest thing to an admin-priv abuse I've seen: he did at one point threaten me with "your IP will be blocked." However, I've heard that from plenty of abusive non-admin users too, and until he actually does block someone inappropriately or specifically threaten to do it himself, I think a passive-voice threat ("you will be blocked" as opposed to "I will block you") is just garden-variety incivility. What I'm getting at is that he didn't use his admin privileges to make the threat. I didn't even know he was an admin until several days after I first encountered him, and I was surprised (but not as surprised as I should be) when I found out.

Side issue: what about this business of deleting comments from his talk page, usually without resolution? The talk page even has a note explaining that that's his policy. I don't know all the rules of this place, but I thought that deleting others' comments from your talk page without resolving them was already a big WikiNoNo in and of itself, even without anything else going on. 67.158.73.188 14:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * RFC is now at Requests for Comment/Mikkalai samwaltz 12:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User: E. Sn0 =31337=
User: E. Sn0 =31337= has been very uncivil to many different vandals and has been warned at least twice. Here are five of the many examples (with more here and here on his talk page).
 * You've visited my user page, I see no way in Hell's Kitchen you didn't see that perfectly clear message about bigoted troglodytes like you. I'm calling a spade a spade. Look at my contribs; you're not the first throwback to the Inquisition I have judged and found wanting, and you'll certainly not be the last. Now get your bigotry and hate off my Internet!
 * User talk:67.175.171.102


 * (Undid revision 130162517 by 70.90.76.113 (because he is fat))
 * Revert to Minicomputer


 * (Undid revision 130161344 by 70.90.76.113 (because he is a big fat loser who vandalizes wikipedia))
 * Revert to J. Presper Eckert


 * Watch yourself, lest you cross me.
 * User talk:66.65.177.82


 * Have a nice day, nerfherder.
 * User talk:Eggserroneous

Honestly, I am not sure how to deal with this situation. Thanks for any help. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 21:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User: E. Sn0 =31337= has been blocked one week by adminsitrator User:HighInBC for incivility. Hopefully this will correct the behavior.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  18:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:DreamGuy
User:DreamGuy keeps calling me a blattant spammer and a sock puppet of User:Jsimlo, reverts and deletes everything I try to create. No warning, no explanation, just accusations with no proof. I am already involved in AfD because of him. I think I just got into a longer problem between the User:DreamGuy and User:Jsimlo, when I started to write an article about User:Jsimlo's software. Please, see my talk page and this talk page for direct accusation. Thank you. Give it back 13:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not reverting everything he does (even though he came to my talk page to dare me to), just the parts spamming User:Jsimlo's website, which up until today was all this new account had done. DreamGuy 23:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Until my complain here, you did revert or asked for deletion of everything I contributed with or to. If you should feel otherwise, give one sample I have written before the 13:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC). Sorry buddy, I am sure about my claim. And you still can not deny calling me a blattant spammer and a sock puppet on all occassions, without any proof or any inital warnings. Give it back 04:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything anoyone can do to stop User:DreamGuy accusing me of sock puppet on my own user page, even without evidence? This particalur issue was already written on the AfD page, his talk page, my talk page, some other admin talk pages, yet no one else suggests I am really a sock puppet of someone else. User:DreamGuy is still the only one that accuses me of so. I do not want my user page to be reading a sock puppet warning just because some User:DreamGuy does not like me, because he did not break me. Please help and explain what to do. Thanks. Give it back 14:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. This sounds like it goes beyond the scope of Wikiquette alerts. You might want to take your concerns to the Mediation Cabal or file a Request for Comments. -- BlastOButter42 See  Hear  <sub style="color:#FFB90A;">Speak  04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Mediation Cabal or file a Request for Comments is the way to go here.ASH1977LAW 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy seems to have a pattern of deleting material without justification and being incivil to those who try to talk to him about it. My particular complaint is his deletion of Mixoparthenos and the ensuing discussion at Talk:Mixoparthenos, but his talk page suggests this behaviour is normal for him.--Yannick 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I too have now been wrongly accused of being a sock puppet. I have only ever had this one account.--Yannick 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated insults from User:Anittas and User:Icar
User:Anittas, who has been blocked for a long term before, has repeatedly posted inflammatory comments and made allegations about me, other users, and an ethnic group in general, all of these over the past days. The situation escalated on April 22, when he left a message in Romanian on User:Bogdangiusca's talk page, addressed at that user, but making deeply offensive comments about Wallachians in general, which are in line with other, less disruptive comments, he has made in the past. The text is to be found here. I shall translate the relevant part of the message, and I believe other Romanian users can confirm the rendition; note please: other parts of the message are also offensive, but I will not comment on them myself, since they did not implicate me. "You nose held up high you; I have said and will say it over and over: inhabiatants of Muntenia, Oltenia and the Banat are the uttermost criminals in Romania, if not in the world. Check out that morning star who thinks himself high and mighty for having picked up a few things abroad [I cannot really tell who this comment refers to, but I think it refers to me]. He thinks he has greater objectivity than the rest of us. One thing should be clear to you: you can parade through all the universities in this world; you can have the most beautiful women; and the smartest children; and you can have social relations with the world's biggest cockerels, but in the end, you'll still be a nation of shoemakers. I remember when Bucharesters used to come to our city, and church bells would ring to announce their arrival. And what is it that they did? They came in like children proud to have never seen beetles and of being afraid of cows; and their parents would produce the odd phrase in French and they said over and over, 'but we do not have that in Bucharest.' 'Well, of course, you stupid cow, that may well be because you are in Dorohoi and not in Bucharest!' is what I used to think to myself. Still, I do not get how come you are so arrogant. How much of it can be blamed on the Phanariotes? Why do you think you are so special? Well, it may be that you are exotic, but if I want to see parrots, I'll check them out at the Zoo. And that Morning Star [me?], I am to gather, fraternizes with others like you for him to tell you 'hey man'--'yeah, man' etc. Oh, oh you sorryasses have ruined Romania's image everywhere you went: in Spain, in Italy, in France, etc. And I am to gather that you, who call yourselves intellectuals; say you are different, but in what way are you different? Well, I'll leave you for now. Keep healthy and have a good time :)."

I felt insulted by this type of comments, but I did not report it outright, since I figured this was not characteristic of Anittas, and figured that he was not going to repeat this type of attack. Therefore, I replied only to ask him, half-joking, if he was aiming to get himself blocked again ? Interestingly, his answer was: "Well, that depends: if you start sending off emails [?] or beating a drum, these guys will pension me again. I thought it could stay here, between us. :)" . Over the past days, however, inflammatory comments specifically aimed at me surfaced over and over again (and again made mention of my Wallachian origins in contrast with his):, . Recently, there was this comment, made by User:Icar and making various allegations about me (including about me having "a Trotskyist POV" - which is speculatory misrepresentation; "a hatred of Romanians", an "abhorrent practice" etc.); Icar is the subject of a previous complaint here, for precisely the same type of accusations (I expect that to be taken into consideration). To this comment, Anittas has replied with the words: "I find [Dahn] a very destructive member, but I urge you to watch your step. He has connections". Note: since this is recurrent and I consider parts of it highly disruptive, I would like to ask editors who weigh in to point out what the next step should be (in case they agree with my assessment). Dahn 11:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This goes FAR beyond a simple etiquette concern and should be referred to WP:ANI or through the mediation process. If this user has been blocked before, such personal attacks may merit further disciplinary actions.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  18:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Abuse from User:Ehheh
I've read over the guidelines for external links and have had a site (I didn't make) that I would like to recommend to the External Link section of of the PHP page. It has valid PHP articles, many PHP scripts available, a PHP forum with lots of resources available to members, such as; code snippets, forum support, and the site has been online for over 7 years. I believe this site has just as much rights (if not more) to be on that page as the External Link: Quercus has (which is just a java add on). However, this user keeps removing my link from the page without a reason. This user continues their abuse to constantly unedit any changes I make without a reason. The user's validity, as his user name 'Ehheh', gets me to believe that this person is just a spammer and stalker.

I'm stuck on how to handle this user and if he decides to follow me around more to remove any contributions I make. Or the user unfairly removes any links I decide to add. I can't constantly dispute this problem by just re-adding all my contributions. How would I handle this problem? Thanks everyone.


 * Dear Anonymous,


 * Normally we take the discussion of a wikiquette conflict to the place where the discussion is happening. In this case, though, it appears that you haven't yet taken the recommended steps toward opening a dialogue.  Let me mention a few things here, then:


 * There are a number of factors that you might not be aware of. First and foremost, you are editing Wikipedia from an anonymous IP address.  While that is allowed and welcomed, a large portion of spam and vandalism comes from anonymous accounts so many users tend to assume the worst.


 * Second, Ehheh has only made one edit to the PHP page, as far as I can see, this year. The first person who undid your edit indicated that they believed it to be link spam, which is an appropriate action especially in light of your unregistered status.  When that occured last month, the appropriate next step was to bring the subject up on the talk page.  You can still do that, and I highly recommend that be your next step.


 * I hope that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia, and that my note here helps you understand what is going on with Ehheh and the other users. Please feel free to ask me directly if you have any questions--I'm not the most experienced editor but I would be happy to help you find answers to your questions in the documentation and the community.


 * Gruber76 14:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Racist attacks by User:Hayden5650
For about two weeks this user uses disruptive language at Talk:Romani people. I gave him an initial advice, then I made a presentation of who this user is. However, the verbal violence increased, even boasting as the preserver of the NPOV of this page. Generally speaking, the racist attacks as a whole on this talk page become really stresfull, I think they should be monitored closely by the admin staff, to keep away violent language. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Jrod2
Myself and this user got into a dispute over whether certain references on Loudness War were "spam" or not. I disagreed, and reverted his removal of the source from the article. After he reverted it back, I submitted the matter to the informal Third Opinion page and I am currently waiting for a response. That whole situation is fine, and I admit I may have gotten a little heated in it as well, I even apologized and he apparently accepted my apology. However, since then, he's edited my user talk page and accused me of not acting in good faith and spamming Wikipedia and then marked the contested article Link Farm and Spam and threatened that it could be considered vandalism if I removed them. I'd be happy with just contesting the article, removing that stuff from my user page and ignoring him, but I'm worried he'll report me or something if I do so. Illuminatedwax 07:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An addendum: he is now making threats about putting people on the Community Sanction Notice Board for removing a personalideas tag and making blind reverts (Talk:Loudness_war) Illuminatedwax 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Another addendum: This user is repeatedly readding the spam tag when several editors have clearly indicated that the links are not spam. At the very least, can someone please tell me if I can take off the spam warning on my talk page and/or revert this user's constant adding of spam tags and removal of important sources? Illuminatedwax 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fourth addendum: This user is repeatedly reverting my changes on Loudness War and posting vandalism notices on my talk page for no good reason, and going berserk about links to outside sources. Illuminatedwax 08:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC) I should also not that this user is bothering other editors of Loudness War like User:Kjoonlee. Illuminatedwax 08:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User has no more quarrel and removed the warning tags from my user template. Hopefully they will do or allow the same for other users. Illuminatedwax 04:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Radiant!
Radiant is currently seeking to turn a discussion over policy at Wikipedia talk:Notability into something personal, by casting accusations about 'pushing agendas' and repeatedly posting on my talk page to goad me into argument. This is not the first time he has done so. --Barberio 13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Barberio is objecting that I ask him questions on his own talk page. Ironically, this is not the first time he has done so; he has had a habit in the past of forbidding users to contact him on his talk page. WP:KETTLE.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The only user I have ever 'forbidden' from contacting me on my talk page was Radiant, when I asked him not to continue posting messages on a specific topic which I considered closed. --Barberio 13:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to you that it may be bad for Wikipedia if you keep alienating editors by not caring about their requests or desires (i.e. that you leave them to their own devices, etc.). Further, if you've bad blood with a particular user, it might be best to leave well enough alone and wait for another like-minded editor to come along and object to the behaviors that bother you so much. This might help you avoid the appearance of acting in conflict of interest (i.e. you already have bad blood so why mess with this user again?). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Radiant, I respect and like your obvious intensity of your drive toward goals, and I think it often gets you further than you would otherwise get. But I also think sometimes it makes you get a bit carried away. You tend to dismiss other folks' requests/stated desires if you feel you have a good reason to do so. Sometimes you're right (and may be in this case) and sometimes you aren't, but you don't really seem to care as long as you have a good reason. You've noted yourself that Wikipedia's not about rules or policies, but about the Wikipedia itself.
 * Special offer: You can win a Barnstar today by editing this section and disagreeing with me! Supplies limited, submit your entries quickly!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't want a barnstar, but I will investigate the issue you reported at WP:ANI of a user who follows you around and posts negative comments about you on all your threads. Jehochman  ☎ / ✔ 14:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Radiant, you suck, you are totally wrong and I disagree with you entirely. O:-) --Kim Bruning 14:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC) I even threw in a personal attack as a personal free bonus! O:-)
 * Just fyi, I'm kind of... indifferent about barnstars, though it was a bit cheesy to get one from Barberio. I'll probably eventually move it to my user page. I think they're interesting for the variety they come in and the motives often attached, but I don't really need them to be here and go about my business. :) --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow up to this...

Radiant seems to be veering towards somewhat disturbing activity that seems to be heading in the direction of targeted harassment.


 * 1) Making a perfunctory 'Vote' in a AfD nom I've been involved in for an article that he showed no other interest in. Then making a random unsupported accusation of sock puppetry.
 * 2) Deleting comment asking him to substantiate both the sock puppetry accusation and his 'per WP:CORP' reference.
 * 3) Sneaking in an 'under the radar' attempt to make substantial content alterations to WP:N, with a inconspicuous edit summary claiming to only be making a formatting changes.  Later appearing to try to goad me into an edit war or personal dispute -
 * 4) Making a revert which, sadly, I can only believe was based on who made the edit rather than the edit's merit.

Maybe an intervention is needed here? --Barberio 14:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed this... yes, I agree. ASH1977LAW 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's with Barberio? He seems very well-intentioned, but since I'm active on the COI noticeboard, I got drawn in when I noticed he had nominated two templates for deletion that are sometimes used in COI controversies.  He even left a 'canvassing' warning there, as though newbies were likely to find their way to that discussion. Then I observed that, when the TfD debate seemed to be running strongly against his view, he went and severely edited the two templates being discussed.  Appearing on his Talk page since this behavior seems to be outside the usual norms (at least in my own experience) I see that he is upset that some people (like Radiant) are posting on his Talk page. While I can't testify that Radiant never loses his temper (I have some vague memory to the contrary) I observe that Radiant's comments on Barberio's Talk page seem to be sensible. EdJohnston 18:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Barberio is lying. (1) I find AFDs via the daily log page, not via the articles, thus it is routine to comment in an AFD for an article I haven't edited. That AFD contains apparent sockpuppetry, e.g. Andrewburt, E n moon and Brashley46, hence my comment. (2) Moving comments is, rather obviously, not deletion. (3) That is in no way a "substantial content alteration". Neither is it goading, and Barberio was involved in edit wars before that comment, e.g. here. And (4) Wrong, I have been objecting to complicating or weakening CSD policy for a long time. I would suggest a healthy dose of WP:KETTLE.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There were significant content changes that altered the meaning of the guideline beyond simple formatting changes as suggested by the edit summary. Altering "give guidance on" to "determine", and adding in "While secondary sources do not, in and of themselves, convey notability". These seemed aimed at returning to a stricter proscriptive requirement. --Barberio 09:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And that would be a straw man. I would suggest you stop attacking people or seeking sanctions against them, and do some constructive editing instead.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, after more than 8 hours of WP:IAR being under RfC, 4-6 editors agreed on a new version of IAR's formatting/phrasing, requested a project page edit, only to be slapped down by (who knew?) Radiant!, with a very disrespectful link to WP:WRONG. But I expect I'll get called a liar too. It seems to me that there are more gracious ways of turning down editors who feel they are building early consensus, but not in Radiant!'s world, apparently. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:WRONG is not disrespectful, it is a clear and simple explanation of why, if a page is protected over an edit war, asking admins to revert the page to the other version is inappropriate.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. Looks like your use of WP:WRONG also upset the editor whose comment you replied to when removing the editprotect tag. It really is time for you to belly up, Radiant! It's clear that you don't like to put a lot of effort into being likeable, but when you start alienating editors, one could ascribe it to an actual intentional pattern of yours. Alienate editors you disagree with - problem solved when they go away! --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Need I point out the irony of you making personal attacks on the Wikiquette Alert noticeboard? I note that Mondegreen is likewise attacking Eagle on his talk page. Note that despite your implication to the contrary, I am not in fact involved in this "disagreement".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, I should instead just link to essays and guidelines which are of course totally unimpeachable when making my point. Radiant, don't be a dick. Mondegreen is talking about you on Eagle's talk page and asking him to weigh in on your behavior. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and Eagle has now responded that people should wait a bit and calm down, which is precisely my point. The irony stands. If you want a link to an unimpeachible essay, try WP:KETTLE.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Still think I'm misinterpreting Mondegreen's interpretation of your link to WP:WRONG? Is it possible you were perhaps thinking WP:WRONG was some other essay? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible/probable personal attacks from User:Bus stop on those who disagree with him
User:Bus stop repeatedly is accusing other editors who disagree with him regarding the content of List of notable converts to Christianity as antisemitic, blatantly pro-Christian, blatantly cabalistic, and so on, regularly impugning their motives for their actions, and rarely if ever responding to questions or comments which he is pointedly asked to respond to. John Carter 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied, but beyond an outside third opinion, I'm not sure if it will help much. This user definitely has an axe to grind and is starting to make unfounded noise regarding antisemitism, though usually not at any particular user except through implication. This user definitely needs to chill out. However, the page has already been protected by an admin, so personally my response would just be to ignore them. Illuminatedwax 18:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Update, since the protection has been removed: basically user Bus stop seems to be intent on insisting that Bob Dylan is Jewish, therefore, since he remains in the list of converts to Christianity, the page is antisemitic. Also there is the possibility this user takes offense at any people of Jewish heritage being listed as a convert. User John Carter is continuing to fan the fire by arguing with Bus stop, and it's getting nasty. I recommend that the matter of Dylan's Jewish heritage be settled in an official matter, since this is the crux of the matter. There's already been an RfC (no consensus); I'm not sure what the next step is. Illuminatedwax 09:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbecoming Conduct from Administrator User:FCYTravis
I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I did not know about the three-revert rule or understand the concept of Edit war prior to a recent censure from User:Alison. I now understand both concepts. Had I understood these concepts, I would not have gotten into an edit war. FCYTravis, however--as an administrator--understood both ideas, and yet he chose to engage in an edit war and slander me by labeling my edits “homophobic” rather than take on my arguments in Talk:Homosexuality. When he was cautioned by User:arichnad on his Talk page, he stated, “I took it right up to the three-revert rule and no more.” That is terribly disappointing behavior from an “administrator” and it is a discredit to Wikipedia’s credibility. No comment was made to him on that subject.

I wrote a very similar comment to FCYTravis on his talk page. His response was to simply delete my comment. I expect better behavior from an administrator, and I would like to see FCYTravis censured and his unbecoming conduct go on the record.LCP 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A Second issue: FCYTravis did break the three-revert rule
A second issue has come to my attention. Although I was censured (and rightly so) for breaking the three-revert rule, FCYTravis was not. I took another look and it appears that FCYTravis did break the three-revert rule. The rule states, “An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period.” FCYTravis’ first revert was 16 May at 21:51. That means that prior to 17 May at 21:51 he should not have made more than two more reverts. However on 17 May, he made three more reverts, the last of which was at 17:45.LCP 02:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also see this thread on my talk page - A l is o n  ☺ 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Genjix
User Genjix called me an idiot Talk:Keepsake_(computer_game). I request a warning for his insult. Furthermore he insists with an edit war on an unsourced statement in the artice Keepsake (computer game) which is not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources and no original research. --134.109.240.58 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I reprimanded him and advised on the situation (user simply said "You're an idiot"), but really, I don't think this situation required outside action at all.Illuminatedwax 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was offended by him and I have absolute no tolerance for such uncivilized behavior. I request therefore a warning on his discussion site. More regarding the article on the discussion site. --134.109.72.212 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

He repeated his offense and said to me "Go to hell". I request an official warning for his behaviour on his discussion site. --134.109.72.218 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:MaxPont
MaxPont has posted a long personal attack to harass editors who've questioned his original research, which he's been using to support his edits. This comes after he's used edit summaries inappropriately, and some minor edit warring. --Ronz 00:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Handyandy33
This user has repeatedly made personal attacks on myself (and others) at Articles for deletion/Nicholas Waters. He has accused me of being pro-censorship and a "grammar fascist" (see this edit), and has done nothing but attack and attack some more. I posted this on his talk page, and he claims that post as my attack against him. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancient India
A nasty revert war is in full swing in many articles about ancient India, between user:PHG and user:Devanampriya. Essentially PHG adds information on contacts between east and west, whereas Devanampriya would prefer to keep the articles about India only. The arguing has gotten quite nasty. I've made one attempt at diplomacy, and was shot down immediately. For my brief involvement, and a representative list of some of the edits in contention, see talk:Kushan Empire. In the interest of full disclosure, I am personally more inclined to side with PHG, as I am very interested in references to India in Greek and Roman sources, and would like to be able to find them in the articles (Devanampriya considers this to be "Orientalist" "fanwank"). But frankly, whatever your opinion, I think this debate could benefit from some uninvested outsiders to cool it down, and help establish a community consensus. That way it won't just be about these two editors (When I tried to chime in, I was virtually accused of being a Meatpuppet, but then I have already admitted my biases). --Iustinus 22:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Continued Hostility by User:Betacommand
Not sure what's going on with this user, who was recently stripped of his admin powers for primarily 'bot related issues, but his talk page has included such recent gems as "Um the foundation has made these rules get the fuck over it," which, while crude, isn't directed at a specific editor... unlike his blatantly inappropriate "matthew shut the fuck up, I wrote the code my self..." Perhaps this is just earthy language run amok, but maybe, just maybe, this user needs to take a time out? Jenolen   speak it!  09:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:MalcolmGin
MalcolmGin falsely states that a certain editor calls others "whiny jackasses". Calling people a jackass is incivil; putting words in other people's mouth is likewise incivil.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, the use of WP:WRONG can be summarized as calling the editor it's used to reply to as a whiny jackass. I'm sorry you disagree, but the summary stands. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:WRONG is in fact an important and long-standing corollary of the protection policy, and nowhere mentions either the word "whiny" or the word "jackass". If you misunderstand WP:WRONG that would seem to imply you feel strongly over a relatively minor difference, and I would suggest a nice cup of WP:TEA.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that not only have I but another editor strongly objected to your use of WP:WRONG in administrative process, I would think it might be a good idea for you to review the article and figure out whether you really think it's the most supportive use of your time as a custodian in Wikipedia or whether you could find a less derisive resource to link to when seeking a shortcut for just saying what you think is the matter. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think WP:WRONG is harmful and/or derisive, I suggest you nominate it for deletion.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are aware that it's a soft redirect, aren't you? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Are you aware that (1) we have a process for deleting redirects, and (2) meta also has a process for deletion?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just curious. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing when anyone would link to WP:WRONG in seriousness when responding to an editprotect request, least of all an admin. It seems at best unforgivably misreadable, and at worst unforgivably insulting. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you think it is unforgivable, nominate it for deletion. That's all there is to it. Other than that, if you believe my behavior is unforgivable, there is no point in discussing it further, since nothing I can say will make any difference.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I think you are fully capable of being able to stop yourself from linking to a contested article as part of your of course fully supportive and civil administrative actions when telling editors that the timing of their requests to use your admin powers is not right. Of course you know better than us when is a good time to unprotect pages. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Man who is sarcastic, complain about ironic essays should not.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Yoda speak is easily misinterpreted as a lampoon of Chinese-English Pidgin, and though you probably don't know it, I'm half-Chinese. I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off the Yoda/Confuscius speak for the duration of this conversation.
 * 2) You expect your critics to be perfect and to have endless patience. Eventually I'll stop being totally forthright and completely humorless in the face of your derision and start being sarcastic and ironic. I think that more than half a dozen attempts of mine to try to get through to you through patience and fortitude alone count as good faith. Invoking KETTLE at this stage makes me think that you really aren't taking me and my feedback and objections seriously and instead are just looking for ways to torment and make fun of me.
 * As such, I'll be over here in my talk page if you feel you must be hurtful and disrespectful again. Do have a good day. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A grudge held by User: The Prince of Darkness
I merged some character articles a while ago, and ever since, he has held some petty grudge against me. It involves calling any sort of merging I do vandalism, commenting on every complaint I get from people (usually just fans after a merger), and things like that. The most recent thing is when I try to cut down cruft on Waluigi (a minor video game character) he just reverts it without a word. Any sort of comment on his talk page is just ignored. If anyone does look there, there are probably a few uncivil comments left by me. I was just dealing with four people just like him at one time, so I was a little annoyed. TTN 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarah777
Sarah777 is an Irish editor who has objected to the existence of an article on the "British Isles" because she considers the term offensive in Ireland. She has advocated redirecting the page, either to Britain and Ireland or to British and Irish Isles. Recently she has posted long comments on the talk page whose purpose is to criticise the conduct of the British (whom she often calls "the Brutish") - in most of them she attempts to draw an unfavourable comparison between Britain and Germany under Hitler,. Additionally she frequently leaves messages and edit summaries calling other editors "vandals" and "trolls" and accusing them of personal attacks. While anything that might constitute a personal attack is always mild, she has been treating the talk page as a soap box for quite a while.--Lo2u (T • C) 01:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think she is a bit out of control; I left a note on her talk page. However, she's not really hurting the article itself, just being an irritant on the talk page. Illuminatedwax 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in responding to this alert, this user decided that my response wasn't civil or coherent enough and left a warning template on my page saying so. Illuminatedwax 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a problem I had too. She increased her talk page vandalism count by one when I posted something. And her comments on the talk page are as strident as ever. She's been warned by at least five users, including one admin and responds to all of them with the same accusations of incivility, vandalism, trollery and "imperial myopia". Her response to the above "please keep your opinions about the issue to yourself." is pretty typical. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil remarks by User:Fabartus
On this arbitration talk page User:Fabartus attributes User:MK and his supporters' objections to User:Piotrus's behavior as stemming from "a healthy dose of differences in cognative capability (sic) and training". Novickas 16:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ronz & User:Levine2112
I've (Ronz) asked Levine2112 to not post links to a dispute I've unable to settle with User:AGK after removing such a link from Talk:Stephen_Barrett

Over a day later, and after making 10 edits to Talk:Stephen_Barrett, Levine2112 restores the link and replies to my request.

Since then, we are edit warring over these links on Talk:Stephen_Barrett and User_talk:Crohnie. --Ronz 22:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The link which I restored contains information from our mediator describing why he felt that mediation has proved and will prove to be unsuccessful. I think it would be of great benefit for all parties in the dispute to read our mediator's comments. Ronz is taking the mediator's comments as a personal attack, rather than a neutral party's observation about the state of the discussion environment. I agree with the mediator that the environment is far too hostile for civil discussion. For the past week, I have been trying to get all parties to work together and agree on a compromise; however, the incivility has quashed my efforts. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue concerning the links has been resolved. As for Levine2112's comments above, I'm ignoring them as just an angry outburst. If anyone thinks otherwise, I'm happy to respond. --<span style="color:lime; background-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Ronz 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive personal attacks and NPOV - Indian Rebellion of 1857
Repeated edit wars and abusive language, personal attacks on editors, on Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857‎. Disruptive editing on Indian Rebellion of 1857‎ connected with a right wing nationalist POV. Comments welcome on User:Jvalant, User:Bobby Awasthi, and on the article in general. srs 00:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Spylocked
The edit war is about the external links in the article. See the talk page. Involved editors: Miked1d, some anonymous editor and me. Comments or advise from the community is welcome. Otto 07:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit war over Nonogram
There has actually be a lot of argument over the whole of this article, but in particular over ths section. See the article's talk page for discussions and so on, and the edit history. I don't wish to influence anyone by giving my perception of events, but I feel there is one editor who using false arguments against other editors' edits. Any comments or advice appreciated. Tim (Xevious) 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help: Edit war Non-standard cosmologies Administrator User:ScienceApologist
Normally serious acting ScienceApologist (see many good Big Bang discussions) steadily erases here only by RV without answering seriously in related DISCUSSION or giving a rational(!) reason, using Speech-bubbles only instead of serious arguments - last series:


 * 18:30, 29 May 2007 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (39,274 bytes) (rv continued POV-pushing.)
 * 15:41, 29 May 2007 84.158.252.114 (Talk) (43,044 bytes) (We have asked now >demon for MEDIATION and for a fair DISCUSSION (why is there no answer, since beginning?) and without bare Mickey Mouse speech bubbles by ScienceApologist.)
 * 13:36, 29 May 2007 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (39,274 bytes) (rv -- Wikipedia is not a place to soapbox.)
 * 13:04, 29 May 2007 84.158.237.19 (Talk) (43,044 bytes) (Dear ScienceApologist, please accept our old previous offer in DISCUSSION, before permanently, blindly - additionally without comment! - erasing serious physics you don't like? please act seriously!)
 * 15:06, 28 May 2007 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (39,274 bytes) (rv continued POV pushing.)

POV named serious WIKI-Links as:
 * Einstein effect named Gravitational redshift,
 * Gauss' theorem, section "gravity" (hard understandable but true, used by Einstein, Hubble, Zwicky...),
 * well-known but also here erased Hubble cite with 2 links, confirming finally in 1952 Zwicky's meaning (important to correct a mainly falsified history).
 * He favorised Fritz Zwicky instead of "his" Big Bang, here erased with 2 of many sources.
 * USED IN: “2.2 The Poisson Equation of the Self-Gravity”, especially “2.3 Free-fall Time” within gas in [Star Formation, Kohji Tomisaka, National Astronomical Observatory Japan).
 * etc.

Since weeks stable, then erased... Pardon, is this a fair style of a WIKI-Administrator to unloved but historical physics? Nothing in related DISCUSSION (Now repeated same phraseology)!

PLEASE REFER ONLY TO IP 84.158.210.97 or clubs-speaker wfckehler@aol.com,

NOT to following club's distributed cluster IP: 84.158.252.101 21:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Although you would prefer lengthier answers, User:ScienceApologist does have latitude under WP:FRINGE to expect stronger than usual evidence to justify uncommon theories when discussing a hard-science topic. Note that he is not an administrator. It will not be easy for regular editors to have a dialog with you since you seem to have a different IP address almost every time you log in. Do you have some objection to creating an account? At present, it will be nearly impossible for anyone to leave you a message on your User_talk, and the effect may be that people may not give full credence to your arguments. EdJohnston 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit War with User:Baseball Bugs
User Baseball Bugs has been engaging in what I would deem a revert war with me. Despite my attempts to communicate and suggest appropriate ways of dealing with a difference of opinion, he/she continues to revert edits of mine regardless of their validity. I have expunged information that does not belong from various articles. This started with a discussion on the Black Sox Scandal and has expanded elsewhere. I would appreciate some help in resolving the matter. //Tecmobowl 03:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above user refuses to actually discuss anything, it's his way or the highway, and continues to POV-push on articles such as Ty Cobb, and to post spam in the Shoeless Joe Jackson article, and to undo my edits in Babe Ruth while giving no specific explanation as of the moment, at least, as to what he thinks the problem is. Baseball Bugs 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Case in point, I explained my reverts in the summary and have done so when necessary on the appropriate article's talk page. I requested that further commentary be made on those pages so that anyone who might be interested in the discussion can chime in.  Instead, reverts are made and my talk page has been littered with comments.  My edits are explained, and I see no reason to use the same explanation over and over again when they have been explained once.  I will remain quiet on this until some others can offer up a suggestion. All I ask is that the information that belongs in articles is appropriately referenced and that information that does not belong is expunged. // Tecmobowl 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked him what I consider fair questions about his continued reversion of these articles, which he labeled "harassment" and deleted from his talk page. I have already asked an admin for help. The admin advised the user to talk to me. The user said he would no longer talk to me. He continues to POV-push on the articles in question. I don't know what to do. Baseball Bugs 04:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Case in point, he continues to delete the official MLB.COM career stats for Ty Cobb, with no reason given, which is obvious POV-pushing; and nearly tricked me into a 3-revert violation (which he also escaped doing, by minutes). Baseball Bugs 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He refused to explain why he keeps deleting the official stats, and told me I should fix the article. First, I already did that, several days ago, and he deleted my changes in the process of rewriting it. Second, he continues to refuse to answer my questions and deletes them as "harassment", and presumes to tell me where I may post questions to him. Baseball Bugs 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I posed the same issue on his talk page, and of course he deleted it again. I have also informed the admin about this situation, as we seem to be at an impasse here. Baseball Bugs 04:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have concluded that the only solution is avoid including any page on my watch list that is also on Tec's watch list. I think he is a bully, and the way to avoid bullies and stay on an even keel, in the absence of any authority figure, is to stay away from where they are known to frequent. Baseball Bugs 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My assessment was correct. The complaining user here got himself into edit wars with several other users also, and is currently on 48-hour suspension for two separate 3-revert violations. Baseball Bugs 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthew ignoring WP:EPISODE
I have been cutting episode articles due to WP:EPISODE. They fail the required criteria of being more than a plot summary by having sourced real world information (also failing WP:FICT and WP:WAF). Then he mass reverted them and used his own twist on the guideline to essentially ignore me. He just states that "All episodes have sourced information. You just have to find it." and "Google it" as his defense even though the guideline states "verifiable information." He claims that I am the one with no argument and only seems to be humoring me with his responses. I believe he has been blocked for running an unauthorized bot, so he hasn't replied lately. Though, I assume his replies will be exactly the same after, so some help would be appreciated. TTN 10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely agree regarding Matthew, he appears to actively dislike secondary references. Addhoc 13:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

user:Valrith
Valrith is using Wikipedia guidelines to frustrate other users. On the surface that may not sound that may not sound like a bad thing, but the user in question often misinterprets those guidelines (i.e. by calling small mistakes "vandalism" or making every sentence in an article with "citation needed"), abuses tags and reverts, and engages in trivial disputes. If you look at the user's talk page, you will see that his/her entire page is filled with warnings, blocks, and disputes. The user has been asked to tone it down numerous time from administrators and other bureaucrats. I don't know what should be done to remedy this situation, but this user does not appear to be making valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Chicken Wing 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:81.157.73.83 / User:IP-81-157-73-83
On Talk:Mandrake Press, this user seems more interested in making accusations against other users than in discussing the article. GlassFET 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jüri Uluots
Edit war by User:Digwuren, whose contributions are biased and POV. He has already been blocked for it. Digwuren does not react on motivation for corrections on talk page. Otto 07:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)