Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive27

Celia Green article
Please could I have some assistance on the above article which I believe to be a vanity biography created by the user Ranger2006 - who appears to be Celia Green. Please see my comments in the discussion, but put simply, this article has been referenced to in a newspaper advertisement to suggest that this person is notable and requesting money for her. 86.160.229.161 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be a Wikiquette issue. There seems to be a discussion on the article's talk page suggesting that this isn't a vanity article. If you feel there's a  COI issue, the conflict of interest noticeboard is →  over there. However, I would advise against  forum-shopping. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:SpigotMap
I ran across some comments that SpigotMap let on Talk:Bong. While I respect that SpigotMap wants to increase the quality of the article and the article desperately needs attention, SpigotMap is following a course of action on the talk page that is in direct violation of WP:CIVIL. I left a message on his talk page informing him of this, informing them that as a member of this community they must abide by the community guidelines including WP:CIVIL, and that failure to follow those guidelines can result in blocking. The response they left on my page was not in the spirit of cooperating or Wikipedia, basically coming down to "if others are not civil to me, I will not be civil to them." I do not wish to block this editor but I get the idea that they do understand the community guidelines, they do understand the ramifications, and they just do not care. Can someone please give this editor (or me, if I'm in the wrong here) some neutral feedback so they can understand how important the community process is? Triddle 15:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:JTBX disrupting PlayStation 2
- I have put warning on his page that he should not post NON-neutral viewpoints. - He just keeps erasing the warnings. - In addition, he keeps trying to add "most successful console" WITHOUT any citations. - .... even though he's been asked by the other editors to stop doing that & stop adding non-neutral viewpoints. - Thus his additions have gone from merely "non-neutral" to annoying & repetitive. - i.e. Vandalism.

I've had enough of his refusing to listen. - Theaveng 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: Title changed from "I'm reporting User_Talk:JTBXJTBX for disruption of PlayStation_2 (see history)".


 * Theaveng: This does not appear to be a Wikiquette issue. Judging by the edit history, this is purely a content dispute, and one where it's pretty clear that the person involved is not abiding by WP:CON or WP:NPOV.  I don't see evidence that this person has been attacking anyone or being uncivil to them.  This would probably be better reported to WP:AN/I. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum to Theaveng: I'd just like to add that you should remember to keep your cool as well. I realize it's frustrating to deal with a stubborn editor, but don't fall into the temptation to start becoming uncivil and start making personal attacks against him - that will likely only inflame the situation and make it worse.  In situations like this one, you have good reason to stop assuming good faith, since you've already warned the person and he's continuing to go against consensus.  That's when it's time to report the user to the Admin Noticeboard. :)  Just keep your cool, though, and you'll do fine. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He's back. This time he revealed my personal info (real name) on the Talk page. Also it appears he may be using a sockpuppet (Ciao90) but there's no way for me to know for sure. - Theaveng 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you suspect sockpuppetry, take it up at WP:SSP. As for your real name, that's a matter for WP:ANI - although it appears to me that his usage of it in this case was pretty innocent.  The warning you gave him was quite proper, and unless he persists or reverts your deletion or something, I'd suggest you let that slide.  It's your choice though, of course. Sarcasticidealist 14:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani
Skipping boring background... i'm making a huge effort to work with said user but the interaction has gone so wrong that i'm posting here.

A little while back he asked i find the "book of hebron" ("Sefer Hebron" request - I added here, 17 Sep.). At first he accepted the source (and even reverted it back in (1)(2)), but later he started objecting to information from the source being put into the introduction in what seemed to be a response to my rejection of jewsagainstzionism.com (about us), a website introduced by a POV partner, User:PalestineRemembered. later he cited bigoted explanations on how racist and criminal the people of Hebron are (7000 people) to justify his rejection and insisted either we accept both or reject both.

Despite him asking me to find out (and translate) material from the source (see here), he refuses to state acceptance of the source as valid on it's own - as is evident in this subsection.

sample diff: attempt at reconciliation - response.

--  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fascinating, Jaakobou. It's "bigoted" to claim that the Hebron settlers are "racist and criminal", but it's fine to call "the people of Hebron" 7000 people, in other words denying that Hebron's 166,000 Arabs are people. You don't even notice you're doing this, do you? &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 00:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This Wikiquette notice was notified to Nishidani out of respect for policy, not in order to give his friends excuses to troll.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (I had a response here, but Jaakobou reverted it on the basis of "trolling". &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 03:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Removing another editors comments by falsely accusing them of trolling is far worse than any complaint I've seen this editor make. --Cheeser1 07:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly Nishidani seems a bit hateful/rude in his communications. Is that not grounds for blocking? --Law Lord 02:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Another egregious case of time-wasting forum shopping by Jaakobou. I will not reply immediately to the absurd and distorting mirror of his synthesis, which gravely misrepresents key facts in a rather extenuating thread at this point, since I expect those who are keen to join in the proposed squabble will look very closely at the evidence and decide whether this accusation merits the attention it will certainly get from me, if a sudden consensus asserting I am a troublesome violator of netiquette does form. I will admit that, in an otherwise urbane tone, I have in one or two instances, used language which speaks the annoyance of exasperation at what, for want of a better word, I would call the obtusity of dialogic stonewalling exemplifed by Jaakobou, who, it strikes me, is a minute pettifogger on rules that serve his own pronounced and decidedly lob-sided POV, but at the same time, wholly nonchalant in attending to repeated requests by his interlocutors for closer definition of what he is trying to insinuate into texts.


 * There are far too many pages requiring serious editorial attention for me to jump into this kind of bickering, unless of course it assumes serious consequences, a bickering that distracts editors from the primary work of actually contributing productively to the drafting of decent articles. Please note, my page record (one inadvertent violation of 3RR, when I was still new to the rules, and was maliciously dragged into a trap) versus Jaakobou's impressive record for bunfights with other editors. I will wait to see how seriously this adventitious series of charges is taken by others in the community before mulling the option of analysing in detail the substance of Jaakobou's selective memory of what occurred. Serene regards to all. (And, regards to Law Lord. This is the second time in some days that Denmark has roused its native democratic spirits to intervene in a case involving Jaakobou, to support his interests. I have always admired Scandinavian culture, and I welcome your concern. Look closely and I feel assured that you will find here that the instances cited by our mutual friend are, as the Swedes say, prov utan värde) Nishidani 09:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - User:Nishidani is a first rate editor the project cannot afford to lose. His treatment by Jaakobou was already a disgrace before this action. Nishidani's thinking (as seen on TalkPages) shines with scholarship. He transfers that scholarship (both his own and the work of others) into articles. He has been generous of his time explaining his thinking in detail - to User:Jaakobou in particular. He has several times reverted me on things, but I have never so much as objected because his natural feel for writing encyclopedic articles is clearly so good. I have suggested and even pleaded with him not to allow Jaakobou to waste his time, with apparently little effect, as he has continued to be patient - even when, increasingly, the response to his carefully thought and well expressed paragraphs are insulting one-liners. (Later - this is how Nishidani responded to first hearing of this "Book of Hebron". The behavior of a real scholar - lets count ourselves privileged to share a little bit of work-space with him).
 * Meanwhile, User:Jaakobou is a serial complainer who has wasted (and is wasting) a huge amount of the time of good-faith editors just with his complaints, never mind the damaging effect he has on articles. It's only 4 days ago he was found to have been "Forum Shopping" with his nonsense. He promised to stop doing it. Instead of which, he's simply transfered his unwanted attentions to another victim - and this time to the even more clear detriment of the project.
 * Anyone who might be startled by what I've said should examine Jaakobou's diffs. Nishidani was positive to the expensively produced web-site of the Hebron settlers until it sank in just who they were and what they're up to. It's no exaggeration to call them a lot worse than US neo-Nazis. Have a look here or here to be horrified - or even feel physically sick. PRtalk 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As a note, this dispute also seems to be occurring on ANI  here. -- B figura (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through as much as I can of this and I believe this is a frivolous complaint, stemming from a content dispute. I'm marking this as referred elsewhere, since there's an ANI going anyway. I believe that there are alot of issues going on here that are way out of bounds for the WQA, and I was going to toss my opinion out there, but I realized that it's really not something I want to touch with a 10 foot pole. I will say though that this, for example, demonstrates the fact that this WQA complaint was not made in good faith, and appears to be inappropriate. --Cheeser1 07:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i'm terribly sorry to re-open this, but this has absolutely zero to do with User:PalestineRemembered who's under observation by the community for an impressive track record of policy breaches (and is under forced mentorship). i've opened this because i'm having serious difficulty in discussing issues with User:Nishidani who at first requested this book, and won't agree to it based on (1) a grossly false comparison with jewsagainstzionism.com and (2) because of his concern that he can't read the source and thus will be rendered at a disadvantage.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  07:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The reliability of a source is in question, as a part of a content dispute - a very large content dispute already under scrutiny at the AN/I. If you really want to talk sources, try the reliable sources noticeboard. If you want to discuss the content dispute, do it on the article's talk page. What you've just explained above may be (1) a bad analogy and (2) an issue of reliable sources and verifiability, but it's not a Wikiquette issue - disagreement is not incivility. I see nothing here that demonstrates incivility on Nishidani's part. In a contentious content dispute like this, it's not unheard of or out of place for editors to say that others are advancing a particular POV, and often they are right. It does not constitute incivility, especially given the fact that you've been just as uncivil, if not more, even in this WQA. Unlike saying "POV," removing someone else's comments on a talk page is never allowed unless it's vandalism, and frivolous accusations of trolling/vandalism do qualify as incivility. --Cheeser1 08:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nishidani: It seems clear that this case in far more comprehensive than I had thought. I will recede and refrain from further comment. --Law Lord 09:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your reflection and the generosity of replying to my remarks, which contain an innuendo I now readily withdraw. Regards Nishidani 09:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou (and N) -- Yes, I see that you both are having difficulty discussing your content/source dispute. But in terms of user conduct, I don't think either of you have egregious conduct. (Well, you both sometimes resort to unkind etc. wording, but not so unusual around here.) Your biggest problem is that you tend to over-react to tone and process, rather than stick to the subject matter -- e.g., the source, WP policy and the like. You distract each other. In article Talk, stay on topic, and bring up you process/civility concerns on a different page (your Talk pages or another User page, for starters, else maybe MedCab?). Then, edit down your article Talking to keep it strictly on the subject, no ad hominem comments, no tit-for-tat accusations, etc. If you guys can't exercise enough self-discipline to disattend the "static" (or deal w/it via another page, as I've described), then how can you claim to be qualified and capable of editing such disputed pages? Thanks. HG | Talk 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

comment by thread opener: this has nothing to do with the ANI, however, the RSN might be a better location to pursue the content dispute - i see, issues of civility mean nothing in this place.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  07:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You may think there was incivility, but you certainly didn't provide any diffs to explain what's going on here. The evidence I've seen suggests an ongoing content dispute in which Nishidani appears to be very firmly sticking to WP:V. You have disagreements about what is verifiable and what is a reliable source. Nothing you provided at any time in this dispute constitutes incivility, although this response and this edit are actually quite inappropriate. The fact that you edit other people's comments is inappropriate, for starters, and if you ask for a third-party to intervene or comment on a dispute, when people don't disagree with you, insulting them will get you nowhere. --Cheeser1 07:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding a rude editor
This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.188.24.125 has been insulting me nonstop despite my trying to calmly explain something to him and I'm just wondering why such a rude person is allowed here to begin with. I'm not the first person he's shown a bad attitude to. He's very egotistical, ill-mannered and obviously lacks the ability to show common courtesy to others. Wouldn't it be better for the site if he was permanently banned? Bokan 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Bokan
 * In general, IP's are only banned in severe cases due the risk of collateral damage (i.e., if the IP is dynamic, innocent bystanders can get whacked). That said, I'll leave a warning on the talk page. -- B figura (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone is allowed here - even anonymous people who are rude. Until they are banned, they are still welcome on Wikipedia. This user seems extraordinarily disruptive, and may require more banning - possibly: it may be difficult or inappropriate, since it's an anonymous IP contributor (which might ban more than one person, even innocent parties who share a computer). Based on the conversation on his/her talk page, the editor may have no intention of obeying WP:CIVIL, so I don't know if we can help. If the user vandalizes any page or does anything else actionable, you may request administrator action at the administrator's noticeboard. However uncivil his comments here might be, please keep in mind: (1) your edits are original research and actually don't belong in that article and (2) you brought up his/her past editing history (which may not even belong to the same person) as a way of discrediting him/her in the content dispute - this is actually a violation of etiquette guidelines. Clearly this user has a history of incivility, and has made no exception with you, but responding with incivility back-and-forth isn't going to help. --Cheeser1 02:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Everyone is allowed here so you better don't mind him or just ignore him. users or members or even a guest or visitor here in wikipedia are always welcome. They can talk or write what ever they want even they are in bad manners but still they can freely express there thoughts to anyone and everything in here. Users can also be banned but in reason if they violates the policies here in wikipedia but we don't know if they come back as a new user then he repeatedly insulting you, so then you better calm down and just ignore anyone who's insulting you. Just keep your mind relax and be a professional.--Oliviatrolles 15:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Use of sock puppets to evade bans is explicitly prohibited. The Wikipedia community has ways to identify those who create new accounts to evade bans. Your username goes here 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Yitzhak Hudas
Above editor has accused me of "whitewashing" antisemitism on the Dalit Voice page, where you can see the history. Also said I had been "whitewashing" on the Antisemitism page. I take strong exception to this accusation. I also believe this editor to be a sockpuppet of User:Hkelkar and have reported this. As instructed above, I went to his talk page to warn him. I was not as polite as I usually am (I spent hours discussing patiently with Hkelkar before he was blocked and turned into a prolific sockpuppeteer and also was polite to his alter ego User:Nahartasanhedrin, who was blocked as an alternate account without being formally linked to Hkelkar). I do not want to spend any more time on what is essentially feeding a troll. I need some advice on how to deal with this quickly without tacitly admitting to antisemitic beliefs that I emphatically do not have. Itsmejudith 21:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's been a fair amount of discussion on the article's talk page (here), is there still an issue that needs to be resolved? Best, -- B figura (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes because the talk page discussion is quite rightly about the article. This is about this "user". I've just noticed that I completely messed up my attempt to have him blocked as a sockpuppet of Hkelkar but I need a quick solution otherwise we're all wasting our time with what is basically just trolling. Itsmejudith 06:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs of edits that you consider to be uncivil or personal attacks? Thanks. All I'm seeing is a content dispute, and honestly, if you appear to be removing legitimate claims about anti-semitism, then you are whitewashing - that's what the term whitewashing means, and if that's what he thinks you're doing, then that's what he's going to say. Now, is that really what you're doing? I don't know - I'd assume that's not what you're doing. But it's not like he called you a "big dumb nazi jerk" - not that I can see. So please, provide us with some diffs. Thanks. --Cheeser1 07:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Angry comments / edit wars on two Anti-semitism-related AfD's
I'm not sure what exactly is the locus of the dispute, but these AfDs seem to have led to an extremely heated discussion and accompanying edit warring right on the AfD pages.

Also note the accompanying talk pages.
 * WP:AFD/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)
 * WP:AFD/The Jewish Bolshevism

Someone with a strong stomach should wade in and try to sort things out. (As a side note, I'm not convinced that the whole AfD thing was necessary, since it seems more like a merge proposal, but whatever.) &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at the first one ("Protocols of Zion") and see if I can ask for calm on the talk page. -- B figura (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

These seem to have calmed down some. It's not quite resolved, but the heat/light ratio seems to have settled down. (And resolution should come when the AfD's close. Marking as stuck for now. -- B figura (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Fabartus
If anyone wants to try and break impass, feel free. I've received a few messages on my talk page from in response to a content issue that seem far more aggressive and uncivil than necessary. I've requested that he stop posting on my talk page and discuss content on the article's talk page. Any other suggestions? Thanks, Chaz Beckett 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi ChazBeckett. Since I've been helped on this page I'm happy to try and look at issues here as well. Having skimmed over your talk page, it looks as though things got a bit overheated, probably because editors naturally tend to get defensive when an article they've worked on gets changed (WP:OWN). I'll look at the content page and in the meantime a little cool-off period may be best. Epthorn 09:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Chazbeckett, I tend to agree that made some remarks that are, at best, not constructive. I added a request to his talk page that he be a little more careful about that. Once thing to remember is that even though you are not required to note edits on the talk page and explain them, it can sometimes help. WP:BOLD is a useful guideline, especially with non-controversial edits... but can hinder constructive editing when people disagree. While I am not taking a position on the edit itself, may I suggest that you ask for outside opinions? Perhaps a good place to start would be Portal:American_football where you can ask for help or take a look at how other articles have been written. Then again, maybe after a little time both of you will be able to work together.I hope this helps, and feel free to comment back if you think the situation still is unresolved. Epthorn 11:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, Epthorn, I agree completely with your remarks. On my part, I probably could and should have better explained my reasons for reversion on the article's talk page. I have made several comments there since and hopefully that should encourage input from other editors. I'd like to think that any content issues can be worked out, I'm just not used to dealing with personal attacks. Thanks again, Chaz Beckett 11:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh oh, whenever someone completely agrees with my remarks it means I must have done something wrong. Epthorn 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying, Epthorn. I'm hoping that discussion on the article talk page can resolve the content issues, though the conduct issues may prove a bit more difficult. Content issues become exacerbated when incivility and assumptions of bad faith enter the equation. Anyway, I'll try to avoid Fabartus as much as possible; fortunately I don't think there's a great deal of overlap on the articles we edit. Thanks, Chaz Beckett 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good way to avoid problems. WP:MEDCAB is another non-binding method of resolving a dispute, but it too requires cooperation from all parties which I suspect would not necessarily be forthcoming. I'm going to call this dispute "stuck" for the time being. Epthorn 17:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Matter unresolved User believes he was in the right and rebuffed suggestions otherwise on his userpage User_talk:Fabartus; I believe he asserts that Chaz was uncivil by reverting Fabartus's edits. You can also see Fabartus' reply on my talk page User_talk:Epthorn. I have informed him of this dispute page if he wishes to make his thoughts known directly. If this continues to be an issue I am afraid something else along the WP:Dispute may have to be explored, although perhaps the two users (or one who chooses to be WP:COOL) should simply lay off the offending site for a bit of time and invite third party intervention in terms of content WP:RFC if the dispute continues. Epthorn 14:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:StevenBlack
When User:Butseriouslyfolks slapped an AfD on an article that was less than two hours old, went into a full-court press, removing and moving the AfD template multiple times, calling it "heavy-handed" and "bullying", and generally violating WP:CIVIL at every turn. Can someone with a little more distance from the subject step in and help this from getting out of hand? (I know nothing about the subject, but I do know this editor from the Fox community, and don't particularly want to be at odds with him.) Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 05:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The AfD-moving came up on AN/I - it's the civility violations that I'm looking for help with.--SarekOfVulcan 05:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: For the record, I was unaware at the time about Wikipedia AfD protocol. I apologize unreservedly for first removing it, then moving it to the discussion page, then moving it to the bottom of the topic page.  I didn't know.  Mea Culpa.  But the besmirching of the credibility of a topic that was barely two hours old, this after it was unilaterally deleted with no recourse -- no way to even retrieve its contents from history -- I consider that to be heavy-handed, extreme, and frankly, odious.  You want respect?  Then show some basic respect.  I remind you:  I am here with my name in full.  All the people involved here are hiding behind nicknames.  Consider how all this might appear from my perspective.  I've been an active wikipedian for ages and I have NEVER been abused like I have been abused today.  KNOCK IT OFF and let me finish my work.  Then judge.  StevenBlack 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Steven - thank you for accepting responsibility for your mistreatement of the AfD tag. Wikipedia policies are extensive, and I doubt anybody is familiar with all of them, so we all make the occasional mistake, and admitting it is the only reasonable way of handling these.
 * I'm not going to deal with the question of whether the placement of the AfD tag was appropriate, because that's really not a Wikiquette issue. Instead I'm going to focus on the issues of user conduct that aren't directly related to the content dispute.  Here are some of my thoughts there:
 * While it is your choice to reveal your full name (I make the same choice on my user page), the fact that others choose not to do so in no way devalues their contributions. Pseudonymity and anonymity are both explicitly allowed by Wikipedia policy - it is inappropriate to accuse people of "hiding behind" nicknames.
 * I think that there have been violations of WP:CIVIL on both sides, albeit not critically serious ones (for example, this is inappropriately sarcastic on the part of User:Butseriouslyfolks, while this is slightly uncivil and fails to assume good faith).
 * Since this has gone to WP:AFD, the content dispute over whether or not the article should exist should be resolved shortly. Hopefully that will help resolve the civility issues, since the community will have determined whether or not the article should exist.
 * Steven, since there seems to be some resistance to having the article exist in its present form, you might consider developing it more fully in your userspace, and then posting the content to the article once it's fully-developed.
 * I hope this has been helpful to all those concerned, and I hope that the incivility ceases once the AfD process is completed (at the very latest). Sarcasticidealist 10:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the comment above about "hiding behind nicknames", StevenBlack ignores both that I have my real name on my userpage, and that he should have a pretty good idea who SarekOfVulcan is from previous off-WP association. Also, where does this diff fall on the "critically serious" spectrum?--SarekOfVulcan 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * CLARIFICATION: Note that I wrote Butserioulyfolks is acting like an... and not is an.... I stand by that.  In this case, Butserioulyfolks was most definitely acting abusively. StevenBlack 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good example of incivility, despite being totally correct. This user's conduct is inappropriate; however, I believe he is right. We can't seek out new pages and immediately AfD them while others are right in the middle of writing them (including adding the required references, etc). I believe such an action is also fairly disruptive (although incivility may not exactly describe it), and while I'll assume good faith, I'd say that in the case of this AfD, that assumption comes with some reservation. --Cheeser1 15:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * AGREEMENT: I can attest that a wholly premature AfD is VERY disruptive, besmirches the work, AND discourages otrher Wikipedians from contributing at the very moment an article is best subject of input and fleshing. In this case, it turned an article ABOUT Lake Ontario Waterkeeper into a battle to HOST AN ARTICLE ABOUT Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and that just isn't right.  Considering Butseriouslyfolks' standing here, I consider this an abuse of power and I am requesting a formal apology.  StevenBlack 16:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just by way of background, the article was first posted and deleted as a copyvio and per A7. When the article was re-created, a third editor prodded it, I prodded it rather than A7 to give the author a chance to fix the problems but the author removed the prod without fixing.  So I AfD'd it rather than A7 to give the author a chance to fix the problems.  Then the author went about aggressively removing the AfD template and dropping abusive posts on my user talk page and elsewhere .  I'm a patient admin, but I'm certainly not perfect.  I do try and rise above, but I do occasionally break down and defend myself. --  But | seriously | folks   15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks to me that he was in the process of cleaning it up and expanding it when you put the AfD on. It was just over an hour since his last edit when you nominated it for deletion. That's really jumping the gun, IMHO...--SarekOfVulcan 16:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, if it was you prodding it, why does the history show a different account doing it?--SarekOfVulcan 16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I'm wrong! Somebody else prodded it.  I fixed my comment above.  Also, the author had not been back to the article in over an hour, and I had no way to know whether he was coming back.  Stubs are fine as far as I'm concerned, but they still have to meet WP:N from the time they are posted. --  But | seriously | folks   16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The comments that ButSeriouslyFolks brings to light (those on his user page) are very inappropriate. StevenBlack appears to be overreacting to what was a poor, but I believe good faith (now that the back-history of this article was given), AfD of the article in question. Nobody makes formal apologies, nobody besmirches work, etc. It was a misunderstanding, and BSF should be more careful in the future, but Steven began dropping uncivil comments all over the place and removed the AfD template (which is not allowed, without exception), which I believe was disruptive. He could have civilly and calmly made his case at the AfD. --Cheeser1 07:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, nothing in the deletion policy gives a "grace time" to articles before they can be tagged with prod or AfD. Doing so might not be the nicest thing to do, but it is neither abusive nor rude. AfDs run for 5 days, and the article can be expanded during this time. The deleting admin is supposed to take into consideration the final shape of the article after the full course of the AfD, rather than the state it was at the begining. While BsF might have been nice and waited a few more hours before sending the article, he was under no obligation to do so (personally, if an article doesn't change for an hour, I believe the user has switched to something else). -- lucasbfr talk 12:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ferns

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyathea_capensis&diff=prev&oldid=166681442
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alan_Liefting&diff=166706471&oldid=166039490
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emesee&diff=166707458&oldid=166707081
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_24

User:Alan Liefting's actions seem like a blatant disregard of Revert, and don't seem appropriate. --Emesee 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on this diff you provided, it seems an explanation has been provided, although it should have been in the edit summary. I'll leave a nice note on his talk page saying as much (since I'm willing to AGF that it was an innocent mistake). Since this is already at CfD, I don't think more needs to be done at the moment. Best, -- B figura (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper Cornish?
Following the publication of advice from the Cornish Language Commission to the Cornish Language Partnership at http://www.magakernow.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=38616 on 13 October 2007, here has been some seriously unwikipedian activity at Talk:Cornish language. Any peace-making available would be much welcomed. Some blocks on unregistered users may be needed and at least one registered rhetorical user needs some firm advice. Until persistent vandalistic behaviour is reduced it will not be possible for the article to be properly updated to an encyclopaedic standard. Vernon White '''. . . Talk''' 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would favour protecting the article from edits by unregistered users. -- Evertype·✆ 07:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Still unregistered users can edit the articles. If they blocked by the administrator that's the way surely protected from unregistered users from editing.--Jeshermoza 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Stiletto belongs in any discussion about drag
Editor DeRahier, whose expertise is in putting funny marks on foreign words, is saying that a link to the Golden Stiletto doesn't belong and constitutes spam. The Golden Stiletto is a resource for anyone wishing to learn about drag. It belongs in this encyclopedia as an external link, at least. Here is the headline of the blog. *The Golden Stiletto Suisse Kelly and Elle Beret report on everything d.r.a.g. -- performance reviews, product, illusion, tips, interviews, resources, culture, sexualite, cock soup for the drag soul. The Golden Stiletto is dedicated to building and raising the art and execution of drag. The blog does not sell anything nor is it involved in any profit making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainoahemolele (talk • contribs) 19:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — Kainoahemolele (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Wow. Um, this page is about wikiquette -- and the core principle of wikiquette is to remain civil in your interactions with and comments about other editors; and your comments about  strike me as particularly rude.  Please take a moment to examine your motivations and tone.  Also, please note that "link spam" doesn't mean that the site being linked is commercial or trying to sell anything - it means you're "spamming" the article by adding an undesirable (in that person's opinion) link. Thirdly, please note that the preferred process to resolve this kind of disagreement is to open discussion about it on the article's talk page  — don't just jump straight to a form of dispute resolution without first trying to have a conversation about the problem with the person you're disagreeing with.


 * Regarding the link itself, although we typically don't comment on content here at WP:WQA, see the external link guideline, specifically the links normally to be avoided section, number 12. That guideline specifically states that blogs and similar sites are to be avoided as links unless they are written by a recognized authority in the subject area.  Since the site is hosted by blogspot.com, ergo it is a blog.


 * Someone obviously disputes that the authors of that blog are recognized authorities. If you think they are authorities that satisfy the EL policy, then you need to say why you think that on the talk page of the article, preferably with links to other sources that support your opinion - a news article that mentions the blog authors as being significant, etc. --Darkwind (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, you did not notify the user who is the subject of this alert as to its existence. I will do so for you. --Darkwind (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I'm spending my spare time to improve the quality of WP's articles, like reverting vandalism and inappropriate edits, I did find this topic concerning my counter-vandalism before I got Darkwind's alert. The tone of Kainoahemolele aka 66.8.205.91 about me makes me smile rather than offending me, I know better than that. But to the facts : this user anonymously added the same and dubuous external link on not less than 7 different articles, and added it back several times after they had been removed. This is spam and nothing else.
 * I wish WP having more vandalism-fighters and less abusers.
 * DéRahier 19:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting vlog but hardly worth including at this time. There are dozens of better websites that clearly are resources for those wishing to learn about drag minus the requirement of watching videos. Benjiboi 22:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the definition of a recognized authority in WP? Can someone provide the link? I was unable to locate it. Darkwind, thank you for coming down on the issue and citing specific provisions that that blog may have violated. The other editors didn't know enough to cite them for a single-purpose user. Also, Darkwind, you know should know that it was WP that said to start here first after a discussion with the recalcitrant editor. I had a discussion with him over the message system before there was a discussion on the talk page. I'll get better at this.--Kainoahemolele 17:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ciao 90 on the Playstation 2 page
Basically, he keeps rewriting the "consensus introduction" that everybody agrees with, and inserting his own introduction (thus deleting valuable info in the process). Our requests for him to stop have been ignored and he just keeps doing it. I've already issued a warning on his talk page, but he seems to have ignored it, and continued his behavior. - Theaveng 20:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the talk page, and I don't actually see that there has been a consensus. It would certainly be preferable for User:Ciao 90 to focus more on developing a consensus than on revert-warring, but it looks to me that the wording of the introduction is still an open question.  If I'm misreading this, could you direct me to the portion of the talk page where "everybody" (which I would take to mean you, User:Dancter, User:JTBX, User:Vdub49, and User:Silver Edge) agrees on an intro? Sarcasticidealist 20:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Theaveng claims false consensus and refuses to properly discuss on Talk page what I've made my statement. He also keeps warning me as vandalism not signing their posts on my talk page in avoidance behavior - he wouldn't want discuss and reach conseus, he's just forcing a revert war with insults, weasel words and emotional statements. --Ciao 90 15:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Haukaikela
I have currently had to revert edits on his/her talk page 2 times because he/she seems to be blanking the page in an attempt to hide warnings received. He/she blanked his her talk page again. VivioFa teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 12:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No policy that says a user has to keep or archive the contents on their talk page. The fact the user deleted it shows that it's been read. I further note you reverted the deletion and called it vandalism. That could be seen as a personal attack. Please read WP:VAND to learn what is really considered vandalism. Jeffpw 12:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Jeffpw 12:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that I really didn't know what I was supposed to do. VivioFa teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 12:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Chessy999
Although I have not been able to keep my temper under control at all times, this editor has been quite rude to myself and at least two other editors in a debate about the fate of Enemy (military), see here:,. I have advised them to assume good faith, apologised for any out-of-line comments I may have made and tried to assist them in improving the article. My comment on the editor's conduct was met with a personal attack -.

As well as this conduct on talk pages, the editor has also:
 * Removed a speedy deletion template -
 * Removed an orphan template twice -
 * Reverted a constructive edit, made by myself, though I was genuinly attempting to improve the article -  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidovic (talk • contribs) 13:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Response
 * Hello, Davidovic is doing everything he can to get my recently created article Enemy (military)‎ deleted. He insisted on posting a frivolous "Speedy Delete" +tag, which an administrator agreed should be removed and that was done.  Not satisfied, then Davidovic posted another frivolous "Orphan" +Tag on an article that was only in existence 10 minutes.  The article is now interwiki linked to many articles and the "Orphan" +tag has been removed.  Now the article is under AFD and once again Davidovic is participating to enhance the potential for article deletion by deleting information from the article.  Not happy still, Davidovic has posted this over-zealous wikietiquette complaint.  Based on the facts I believe that Davidovic has reflected that his/her statements are biased McPinions and the editor is a liability to Wikipedia. Thank you. Chessy999 13:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As user conduct goes around here, I do not consider the initial problems raised by Davidovic very much out of line. (except for the removal of the speedy tag by the author--that's never OK. ) What was a little absurd was a attempt to discuss on the talk page whether a speedy deletion was or was not appropriate. If there is any reasonable case made for keeping the article, it should go to AfD (which is where it is at the moment). Speedy is for unquestionable deletion, and another admin declined the speedy. Just discuss the article at AfD. The consensus will decide. DGG (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to leave the discussion on the fate of the article to the AfD debate, the reason I created this alert was because I think that User:Chessy999's conduct is poor. I have linked Chessy999 several times to the Wikipedia page explaining good faith, and I've tried to explain what it means. The editor has disregarded my advice and the advice of Wikipedia itself and continued to be impolite. I don't have a personal vendetta against the editor or their article, but I think that their attitude is out of line. If noone else sees a problem with their behaviour, though, I'll withdraw from this argument. Davidovic 14:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel David is out of line and made inappropriate comments, I attempted to help the User to become more professional, but the editor only keeps on the same path, if the administrators are in agreement, I would suggest this editor be suspended from Wiki-Cop duties for a period of time. Chessy999 14:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to weigh in, in support of Davidovic and to account for my own part in this. I can see that much of this dispute is my fault, and I am cincearly sorry for that. I feel that very early on in this dispute, Chessy999 resorted to personal attacks which were, in my opinion, unwarrented.  I do not feel that Chessy's actions towards me require a Wikiquette alert, however I can understand why Davidovic would do this, as Chessy999 has responded heatedly to both of us.


 * I feel that all parties involved may have become a little heated and argumentative. I do not think that Davidovic has done anything that makes them a "liability". In my opinion, Chessy has made some unfair personal attacks against this user. Lex Kitten 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppet allegation
In an edit summary, GreenJoe made the allegation that I am a meatpuppet. I take this claim seriously and have repeatedly asked GreenJoe to either withdraw the comment or present his evidence at WP:SSP. Thus far, all requests have gone unaddressed. The exchange can be found under the subject "Edit summary" at Concordia University talk page, GreenJoe's talk page, and my own talk page. Victoriagirl 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that edit summaries are effectively a write-only medium; it's possible to change them but not always practical. So, retracting the comment is not an option--certainly not within his hands as a user. I think an apology would have been a polite thing to do. It's not inherently incivil to not apologize, but it shows less than an abundant show of good faith in fellow editors.
 * That said, the comments are in his edit history, and should he start committing other acts of incivility or disruption, it would be weighed by the administrator determining how to deal with him. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I recognize that an edit summary might not be easily changed. In asking that the comment be withdrawn, I am not seeking a deletion or rewriting of history, but an acknowledgement the allegation is incorrect. That said, since filing this alert, GreenJoe has placed a post on my talk page indicating that he stands by the comment. I have responded by again asking that he present his evidence. Victoriagirl 19:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've chimed in on the talk page as well. This seems to be unfounded and in violation of WP:NPA, not to mention WP:CIVIL. -- B figura (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * GreenJoe has indicated that he will nether withdraw the charge nor present any evidence in support of the allegation. After mulling over the advice offered, I have decided to walk away from the matter and have written GreenJoe as much. My thanks to all who offered council. Victoriagirl 23:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably not a meatpuppet. Definitely a stalker with an agenda. Dominic J. Solntseff 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC) — Dominic J. Solntseff (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * While I usually ignore comments by, the irony is of such a level that it is worthy of note. Victoriagirl 18:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A typical non-answer answer by this dishonest and disingenous editor, who works so very hard to push an agenda on Wikipedia while trying to Wiki-fiddle her way into an admin spot. Dominic J. Solntseff 23:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide evidence of your accusations against Victoriagirl. We cannot help mediate this situation if we don't have anything to go on. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's "counsel", Victoriagirl, not "council". For someone who does so much wikifiddling, you should be more careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.167.209 (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated insults over a few months
User:Shabiha has insulted me over content disputes on multiple articles for almost two months, despite repeated warnings. This has gone on across the Deobandi, Barelwi, and Mawlid talk pages and also the talk pages of multiple users, and usually consists of calling me a Wahhabi, which I already explained to him/her is a derogatory term, in addition to other things. This has also been through multiple IP addresses signing comments as Shabiha during discussions on talk pages. This is what I dug up of personal attacks from just about two minutes of searching: And from my previous warnings to this person: I thought my second warning in particular got the point across, but apparently not. I found this while going to the talk page of a Wiki buddy: I tried my best to warn this person to keep discussions civil and about the subject matter, and not myself. I really, really tried. They obviously don't take this very seriously, and I resorted to WP:ANI, and they directed me to here, as I wasn't aware of this noticeboard at the time. Any help would be much appreciated, because the person almost seems to disregard any comments I make as "wahabi propaganda" making discussion of articles very difficult. MezzoMezzo 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 18:55, 26 September 2007
 * 19:02, 26 September 2007
 * 20:29, 27 September 2007
 * 23:16, 26 September 2007
 * 23:20, 26 September 2007
 * 22:57, 27 September 2007
 * 19:26, 29 October 2007

Leranedo
I am forced to re-state my original post here, as Leranedo does not thread his responses although he has been pointed to WP:TALK several times:


 * Now it is under it. See: Easy solutions. No need to bicker. Leranedo 07:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. So what do I do? Everything was replied to on the talk page already and I thought it finished already? Leranedo 06:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Replying again... Leranedo 07:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

's talk page is a collection of WP:FAC participants imploring him to remain civil, explain his commentary on FAC pages, justify his NPOV claims, explain his copyedits, follow the instructions regarding Supporting and Opposing, and follow talk page conventions. (Tvoz, Karanacs, Awadewit, Arcayne, Malleus, SandyGeorgia; samples only, there are more.) Several editors have reached out and tried to reason with him (myself included, he has exhausted my patience,  reached out and  gave him a Reviewer's award); several have issued warnings (myself included, worded as politely as possible).  His talk page is hard to read because he unthreads posts, chops up posts, and starts new headings. (SG)

Well, these were all replied to already, unless I missed a person's comment. I never check my watchlist so any comment or changes directed towards me would not have been received.

What more do you want from me? Are you trying to exhausted my patience? This is like a rerun of life. I'm not interested in that. My interest is stated explicitly on the user page. Leranedo 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, my talk page is perfectly fine. Starting new headings helps me reply as they become smaller. How is that a problem? Plus I had already addressed that and received no responds, but I didn't need for everything was peaceful. Leranedo 06:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC is not like an article or talk page where edits are buried in history; comments at FAC remain on permanent record in. (SG)

Then anyone can see my honest comments. I have nothing to hide. Leranedo 06:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be heeding anyone's commentary, no matter how helpfully phrased and in spite of numerous editors having approached him. (SG)

Did I not say "I will try to moderate my sharp and incisive remarks" or something along those lines. And many similar replies. Check the talk page, though not all replies are there, so look around. Leranedo 06:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Civility
 * Referring to others as psychotic humans in edit summary
 * Only brainless people fail to see that
 * Are you stupid? Are you insane?
 * Perhaps your Wikiname describes you well to WastedTimeR
 * Only brainless people fail to see that (SG)


 * All addressed a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggg time ago. Are we still with that? Leranedo 06:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For full picture, one would need to see the current status. I think I edited some of these, for better or worse, and there were replies afterwards. Leranedo 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Finished. Leranedo 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

.
 * FAC impacted
 * An example can be seen at Featured article candidates/Nancy Reagan (although hard to follow, Leranedo has deleted comments, moved comments, and has unsigned comments there). (SG)
 * This was deleted and moved, and I had already explained why I did it: The editor of the article did not like off-topic talks.
 * I sign almost all the time, sometimes I forgot. Not a remarkable deal for contention.
 * Finished. Leranedo 06:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Muliple requests on his talk page to please respect instructions at WP:FAC regarding declaring Support or Oppose for candidates there, as his commentary is hard to understand. (He declares articles "Passed" or "Rejected" which is misleading, and opposes on the basis of NPOV without giving examples of why he considers articles POV.) (SG)
 * You are misleading. It use to be No and Yes, changed along the way as the asking of people. Now, it's Reject & Oppose and Pass & support, respectively. Leranedo 07:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Multiple requests on his talk page and at FAC to explain his declarations of NPOV at FAC. (SG)
 * All answered to, and I did provide points, and will do so on any other opposes. Leranedo 07:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no problems in passing it as it is better than most articles on this sickening FAC page (SG)
 * That's not a personal attack; it's a view that I stated whenever that was written. Leranedo 07:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Supporting an article on the basis of the low standards it sets (SG)
 * Low standards are perfectly acceptable. The vote is valid. You don't even need a reason to support, but sometimes, I add a remark. Others, I think like adding reasons though. Just like many things aren't require for FACs, it's not require. Leranedo 07:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * removing others' comments at FAC (SG)
 * Is this the one about moving the comment up there which was already addressed on this same page. Leranedo 07:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You must be drunk or something (SG)
 * I had replied already. I seriously thought that person was drunk or something. That person was extremely annoying. Leranedo 07:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * AGF
 * Are you trying some FA quota at the expense of quality articles? (SG)
 * It was a question. Never received a response.
 * But I don't mind. It's OK. I don't even remember it.
 * Finished. Leranedo 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

His first posts as a newly registered user were to FAC statistics pages. (SG)

Oh yes, I remember that so very faintly. I thought it had to do with a infobox that was blocking the statistics so that I could not see. I moved it so it was above the data so the viewer may see both, but apparently, you, if I recall correctly, moved it back to block the view giving some kind of excuse, that we should leave it to be blocked until the infobox was formatted correctly. It appeared, though I do not know, that you work at wikipedia if you were stalking the "FAC statistics page" for no reason I could see. I was there because I wanted know but I couldn't because someone placed it in a way to prevent knowing. Leranedo 07:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Part I: I had edited extensively many articles varying in their respective topics, always anonymously for I saw no reason to create an account. I explored

Part II: So then,

Part III: Now,

Note: I'm finishing my replies. This is too much trouble. Leranedo 07:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Leranedo, this page is already a good example of the problems communicating with you. WP:TALK conventions have been explained to you several times, but you still won't thread your replies, so other readers will have a hard deciphering who wrote what.  This can no longer be tossed off as inexperience; you have stated on your talk page that you have read several times and understood WP:TALK.  These same sorts of editing techniques are making FACs unnecessarily hard to navigate and communication with you on talk pages time consuming. Each time one returns to a page, you've moved, removed, re-labeled, or altered comments without striking, and you don't thread your responses.  I have re-posted my original post to the top of this page in a cap; please do not alter it; that means anything up to and including my sig.  I have explained to you several times on your talk page that you should never move delete or alter other person's edits, just to make sure that we are clear. I cannot verify that any of the text outside of the cap is what I typed, because of the way you edit.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Leranedo, this page is already a good example of the problems communicating with you. WP:TALK conventions have been explained to you several times, but you still won't thread your replies, (SG)
 * I have no idea what you mean by "thread your replies." As I stated, I already went over that and it's not against this format of replying, which is also stated on the talk page, and it received no response. But now I'm confused. Leranedo 07:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With the amount of text altering and re-arranging, indenting and re-indenting, moving and labeling that I've seen you do in one week, I have a hard time understanding what is confusing you. You thread things on your talk page exactly as you want to, indenting and changing, so I don't know why you are confused.  Since you clearly know how to thread replies on other pages, and stated that you've read WP:TALK several times, it's hard to understand where the confusion is. It's simple: do not touch words you didn't type.  Put your responses below them, indented for clarity. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

so other readers will have a hard deciphering who wrote what. This can no longer be tossed off as inexperience; you have stated on your talk page that you have read several times and understood WP:TALK. These same sorts of editing techniques are making FACs unnecessarily hard to navigate and communication with you on talk pages time consuming. Each time one returns to a page, you've moved, removed, re-labeled, or altered comments without striking, and you don't thread your responses. I have re-posted my original post to the top of this page in a cap; please do not alter it; that means anything up to and including my sig. I have explained to you several times on your talk page that you should never move delete or alter other person's edits, just to make sure that we are clear. I cannot verify that any of the text outside of the cap is what I typed, because of the way you edit. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm finishing my replies. This is too much trouble. Leranedo 07:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lerandeo, this is about the fourth request (counting the ones on your talk page). Do not alter other people's posts.  This means do not change anything on this page unless it is something you typed yourself.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Give me a second. I don't know what you're referring to. Leranedo 07:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But the (SG) is so there isn't any confusion. What's wrong with that??? I already explained in the edit summary.... How's that not a good reason?? What more do you what.... Leranedo 07:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is my fifth request: if you alter my posts again, I will ask that you be blocked. I do not see what you do not understand:  it has been explained repeatedly.  Do not touch text that you did not type.  It's very simple.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was replying!! I will not anymore. Too much trouble. Leranedo 07:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Leranedo, multiple people have asked you to follow the FAC format for giving your opinion on articles, either Support or Oppose. but you continue to use your own version, rather than the guideline. As you've replied to most of these comments, it appears that you understand the problem but are deliberately violating the guidelines, with no explanation as to why. Karanacs 13:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have left a civility warning for Leranedo on his (my apologies if that should be her) talk page; Sandy has covered that, so I won't go back into the details—just mentioning for disclosure. What is perhaps the most troubling to me, is that Leranedo can be dismissive and will not engage in conversation. Often, when an editor stops by to try to help him adjust to Wikipedia culture, he will attempt to shut down the conversation, sometimes directing editors to the top of his user page, which says he is "averse to talking". For example, this reply to Arcayne, as well as his implication that we are wasting his time here. Discussion and consensus are cornerstones of Wikipedia, and I encourage Leranedo to fully embrace that.  Pagra shtak  14:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad Sandy has brought these matters to attention. In addition to all of the above, I have seen user Leranedo comment on scores of FACs in a day.  A good review of one candidate article takes sometimes 3-4 hours so it is plain to see he does not give the hard-working editors of these candidates the courtesy of even reading them.  He cannot even follow simple instructions of stating either oppose or support, and he comments based on his own opinions and not guidelines of what a featured article should consist of.  And giving him a review award is completely comical and beyond my comprehension.  IMO he is disruptive of the entire FAC process.  ♫ Cricket02 20:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am glad, too; I thought maybe I was just being thin-skinned about his (her?) behavior, which I found to be unnecessarily dismissive and rude. I cam into into contact with him via the Nancy Reagan FAC because I found his usage of Reject (in bold) and oppose (in plain text) to be misleading. As it's presence at the bottom of the page led me - who doesn't have a lot of FAC experience - to initially think that the FAC had not been successful, and had been rejected for Featured Article status. After closer inspection, I realized this wasn't the case, and asked the editor about it. He claimed that its not a problem, that he had been doing it for a long time without complaint,etc. - neither of which I found to be compelling arguments for providing misleading votes. He then moved the entire conversation to my User Talk page, which i didn't immediately have an issue with, as I didn;t think the page needed to be cluttered up with All The Drama™. In retrospect, i would have moved the conversation solely to his page and provided a short note in the FAC noting that the conversation about the incorrect and inappropriate usage by Leranedo could be discussed there. RL and other considerations crowded me enogu that i didn't do so, and wasn't more forceful in asking him to cease and desist with his usage of Reject an Pass.
 * After reading through his User talk, and the FACs of three other articles hes contributed to, I am struck by two things almost immediately: first, Leranedo is quite intelligent in his commentary when he provides it - and certainly smart enough to know that his alternative choices for voting are going to negatively influence other to vote. The second thing I've noticed about his edits is that he is exceptionally rude and dismissive, both in edit summary and in his actual posts. I have been contributing here long enough and have been dealing with difficult editors long enough to know the difference between a user who is just a sad little monkey using Wikipedia to find a place to vent their frustration and push everyone around with their 'great big brain', and someone who wants to change Wikipedia for the better but has little or no control over their level of sarcasm. Usually I can tell right off the bat which one is which, but I cannot tell this about Leranedo. In either case, his behavior is distracting, disruptive and corrosive to editorial cooperation and harmony. I wish I knew the magic bullet to set him a-right, as I think he has a lot to contribute to the community. However, i am unsure what to say to help this user find his politeness and conformity, and I see a sticky end if he refuses to even try to find it himself. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

user:Sarvagnya's deletion of my Talk:India posts

 * Earlier today I made this post on the Talk:India page about some potential problems I foresaw with the rotation of images being currently tried in two sections of the India page. (I had earlier organized the straw poll for/against this rotation here.)
 * Almost immediately after I made the post, user:Sarvagnya deleted it in this edit, with edit summary, "this is a discussion page. not a blog. blogs are free, go find one and record your idle musings about your "vivid experiences" with encarta or whatever."
 * user:Sarvagnya's edit was soon reverted here by user:Dwaipayanc, however, user:Sarvagnya re-reverted here with edit summary, "rv abuse of talk page. see WP:TALK and WP:NOT."

This is not the first time user:Sarvagnya has done this to my Talk:India posts.
 * He deleted my post there in late August 2007, (see here).
 * He then made a post in early September 2007 on the Talk:India page here, which ended with, "For now, I reject all of Fowler's filibustering as nonsense. Can somebody tell me why I shouldnt delete all his nonsense as rank abuse of a talk page?"
 * This in turn elicited a polite but firmly opposing response here from user:Abecedare.
 * However, when user:Sarvagnya persisted in the very next post here and, moreover, accused me of "defecating all over the talk page," he brought on a more aggressive response here from user:Hornplease, who threatened to report user:Sarvagnya to Wikiquette alerts.
 * I should add that user:Sarvagnya is less than forgiving when he is at the receiving  end; my edit once here that merely put his out-of-chronological order interruption in proper chronological order, elicited this response from him, with edit summary, "i will add my comment where I think fit.. stop moving other people's comments around!"

If user:Sarvagnya has some genuine complaint against me, he should pursue it in the relevant Wikipedia forums, but I am tired of his deleting talk page content. His general rudeness is one thing, but this is beyond the pale. Please advise! Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, look who's talking. Mr. Fowler, let's look at these Wikiquette (sic) edits of yours:
 * To User:Sarvagnya Perhaps you could return to the Karnataka article and start preparing for its next FAR and in your wake spin-off yet another generation of shimmering daughter article ... For an editor, such as yourself, whose ill-humored, carping, and nonsensical comments on these pages (including ones above directed at me), are a legion, it is presumptuous to decide what is nonsense
 * To User:Gnanapiti ''what the heck is the matter with you? what is illogical other than you knee-jerk tendency to revert; don't you have anything better to do
 * To User:Embargo don't know who you are, but you are a new comer to this page, which I am not (see talk page)
 * To User:Bharatveer you are pathetic! I wrote this article and knew him; you don't know the first thing about the guy, and keep wasting time with your precious little obsessions
 * To User:Bakasuprman what's the heck is the matter with you dude; read the discussion, there's a link to pdf whhich explicitly says he an athheist; hkelkar still pulling your strings?
 * To User:Nikkul Don't know what the heck you're trying to pull dude, but you're getting to be tiring...
 * To User:Szhaider ''If you can't write grammatical English, then don't.
 * To his so-called Indian POV warriors ''Apparently the Indian POV warriors can't write the English Language. May I suggest the Hindi wikipedia
 * To User:Nikkul Nikkul, you should be ashamed of yourself.


 * The reason these users have not pulled you to admins for the personal attacks above is that they assume good faith with you. The least you can do is to reciprocate that gesture. So stop feeling tired, pained and grieved if people return the above favour that you have been giving them.-- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 15:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left a | note regarding the refactoring of your comments. Best, -- B figura (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To user:Amarrg: I am assuming the links above are meant for me? Since this section is really about user:Sarvagnya's actions and not mine, you should really open a new case against me here on Wikiquette Alerts or on some other Wikipedia forum.  Meanwhile, I have replied to your post elsewhere.  I apologize to the Wikiquette Alert volunteers for replying here and adding to their work.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You are not immune from scrutiny here, and your comments to others are certainly relevant to the way others deal with you. --  But | seriously | folks   20:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am requesting user:Amarrg to open a Wikiquette Alert against me. I just felt, given what user:Bfigura gave me to understand in another context (about not increasing the volunteers' work), that this was not the best place for it, but if you think it is, please go ahead. However, please examine both the past and the aftermath of each of those incidents. As I say in my post, referred to above as "elsewhere," user:Nikkul was banned for sock-puppeteering soon after I made my first remark. user:Szhaider is still banned (although in fairness to him, he came around to see that I meant well, and when I later came to his defense, he awarded me a barnstar), user:Embargo was banned for a couple of months within minutes of that exchange, user:Bharatveer had an arbitration case opened soon after that incident; I don't know what happened, but he too has disappeared. As for user:Bakasuprman, user:Sarvagnya, and user:Gnanapiti, they were all three, but especially the latter two, playing the game of what I called "knee-jerk" reverts without any explanations whatsoever.

My point is not to attack the characters of these people, but to make the point that my words were (inappropriate to be sure) responses to their behavior, not vice-versa. That nevertheless doesn't absolve me of responsibility for those words, and for them I apologize unreservedly to my interlocutors. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS What I mean by the "past and the aftermath" is this: I am quoted above as saying, "Nikkul you should be ashamed of yourself." I did say those words, but what is not mentioned is that, I made a series of edits and a few minutes later my words looked like this: "Nikkul, you should be ashamed of yourself. After all you've been through on the India page, you go back to the goofy stuff. Why? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC) PS. Nikkul, I apologize for my choice of words. I didn't mean to be demeaning. You are someone who is clearly interested in improving the image content on India-related pages, and everyone can see that you have talent and drive, so why not use them more productively?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)"  The changes were made of my own volition, not consequent to a response from Nikkul or anyone else.  Here is the relevant section of the talk page.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS And now that old memories are being dredged up, an isolated quote from what I said to Nikkul doesn't say that I gave him the benefit of the doubt even after he had been banned for sockpuppeteering on the India page, when I tried to patiently explain to him how to paraphrase an article.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Forum-shopping at its worst. Noting what I have seen above:Gimme an H...gimme a Y....gimme a P...gimme a O...gimme a C...gimme an R...you get the point. Violating WP:OWN really accentuates your disregard for collegiality and your tendentiousness. I'm not a civil person myself, so I'm not going to delve into your rudeness, but coming on to this board to whine is rich. Baka man  23:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User WaltCip
In User Categories for Deletion, The discussuion of removing the category Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer was rather personal when User:WaltCip responded to my comment to "go ahead and delete the category but have you read previous debated archives dealing with this". I noted his first comment was a rather personal slight but I did not attack anyone personally. His next comment clearly equated my actions as similar to anti-semetism which is very offisive and highly personal as the subject at hand (surviving cancer like I did) has zero to do with religion. I ask that the volunteers review this discourse and rener any appropriate decision. Respectfully, Mikebar 07:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * His somewhat personal, sarcastic comment was more likely in response to this comment from you: "The zealots who cannot read previous archived discussions win." In other words, sarcasm begat sarcasm. The point of the analogy regarding anti-semitism had to do with deleting categories, not to call you anti-semitic. It wasn't the most prudent analogy, since it can be easily misinterpreted as a suggestion of racism. But it's possible to assume good faith about it. To me, it looks like just cooling down and taking a break from each other is the best solution. The etiquette violations are on both sides, and relatively minor (assuming he didn't mean to call you racist). Let the personal dispute go. Bsharvy 09:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with Bsharvy and would say that this is incredibly minor. Unless this incident has caused some sort of hard feelings or ongoing dispute, you both seem like you'd just as easily let it drop and never have a problem again. That's definitely the way to go. --Cheeser1 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like that is what has happened. Call this one resolved & thanks to both of you.  Mikebar 07:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. I've also agreed both of you guys. Well, For me we better ignore those minor concerns like saying "Do what you want" without directly hit your feelings but with in your senses. It's understandable that all of us have the rights of what to say or what to do but with the attitude without hurting anyone feelings or with no personal intention to hurt feelings. So we better ignore somewhat personal intention and it is just like a comment to accept and to response.--Hannahmarqueza 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I used to be one of these annoying people and have recently decided to stop being a detriment to such a useful tool as this website. My personal opinion is that someone needs to step up and get rid of the guy or ban him indefinitly. I believe this because your not going to get anywhere with this type of problem unless people that have authority step up to do something about it. THanksWeston 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)