Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive5

5 May 2006

 * Talk:ApeXtreme: User:Xino has turned increasingly abrasive over recent days, referring to his own arguments as "ownings", assuming ownership of pages that he contributes to, and attacking other editors . He has been subject of at least one previous Wikiquette alert, and User:Zikar has previously requested that he be investigated as a vandal. 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

7 May 2006

 * Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game): User:Xino has also been getting more and more angry with users here, too. In the past few days/weeks he has reverted legitimate verifiable information on the game several times, stating we should "wait until E3", rather than post information from a magazine containing advanced E3 coverage (which he declares "cheap shots"). Admittedly I didn't handle the situation initially the best I could have, but I have been watching him edit other articles in the Sonic Series for some time - and he usually uses the same pushy attitude there, too. He seems convinced other users telling him to calm down are "sukers" and doesn't seem very reasonable at all. 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

12 May 2006

 * On Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center, User:TruthSeeker1234 has repeatedly characterised my edits as vandalism, most recently in this edit summary: . Other examples are in the talk page archives. There is a fair amount of antagonism on the page. I would appreciate it if someone not involved could have a look. Tom Harrison Talk 18:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He has also since carried the accusation on to the Talk Page and has accused additional users as well.20:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison has repeatedly deleted my valid work, in order to push his personal POV into the article about the Collapse of the World Trade Center. Specifically, I have attempted to add material about molten metal, and metalurgical reports. This material is referenced to sources which Tom Harrison himself has agreed are "reputable", e.g. the FEMA report.

I hereby repeat and reallege that Tom Harrison has vandalized my work. I believe that his deletions are founded in bad faith, because Tom Harrison is evidently well aware of WP rules, specifically NPOV. I too would appreciate it if someone not involved could have a look.

TruthSeeker1234 05:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

13 May 2006

 * Might help to have an observer at Truth over the next few days, with regard to events beginning here. 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Problems with increasingly abusive replies on Talk:Aldershot to explanation of why their edits have been reverted. Suspect the editor to be using sockpuppets. 16:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Dispute over inclusion of opinion polls in Talk:People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report. 03:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

14 May 2006

 * Hi Docu and I (Wallie) have a different perspective on a subject. It is about the Swiss Federal Council. Docu wants each of the persons in the federal council in the category, Current National Leader. Wallie believes that none of these people is individually a current national leader, as defined in the category. For example, most countries, like the United States has one current national leader, George Bush. Switzerland has seven in that category at the moment. Docu beleieves each one of them is a national leader, and you would have to ask him as to exactly why. Wallie believes that none of them are national leaders, as individually they do not have that authority. It is a complicated problem. I think it would be beneficial for both of us to have a resolution one way or the other. We really need an expert on Swiss law here. wallie 23:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

16 May 2006

 * Stemming from an earlier dispute over the appropriate technical level for the article Truth (alert posted above, 13 May 2006), a new article Truth theory was created to cover the subject at a more comprehensive technical level. Would appreciate guidance about the proper use of Cleanup, Factual Accuracy, Merge, and OR tags.  03:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Relatively new user User:Robertsteadman. s/he is possibly a sock of banned user User:Robsteadman. His contributions include Lady Manners School where the other contributors include Robsteadman and various Matlock related edits including Matlock Mercury, which are all very close to Robsteadman's home world. What should happen now? Is this another Sock ? This user has apparently behaved impeccably since appearing at the beginning of the month, but the contribution history looks to be one Random Article after another. I fear this is an attempt to build a legitimate edit history. Perhaps I should just WP:AGF whichever way it is. 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

17 May 2006

 * User:Panem (talk • contribs)
 * This user is some kind of radical activist, i can only say threw his edits, persists on adding content to articles that are far from NPOV/POV and are vios of NOT, as fhr the specific parts of NOT i would say, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought #1,4,5, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox #1. The five articles that i have come across him on are,, , , and , and . The user has added inform that is hardly presented in a NPOV form, stating "the truth will make you stronger", several times he has made claims that are not V, and that some of the source that he has used are, impo, questionalbe at best. On at least two articles,Indina, Pennsylvania and Indiana University of Pennsylvania, the user has added information who relation to the article questionable. Attempts to either challange his edits, remov them on POV grounds, or improve them have been met with acusation of censorship. Apparently these are not the only articles in which this user has had  similar issues come about sue to his editing. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 04:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note, this editor i belive has also edited under ip of User:71.253.57.234 (talk • contribs). --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

18 May 2006

 * Talk:Bi-Digital_O-Ring_Test Problem regarding content of the page. Scientific evidence being ignored; group of editors ignoring rational argument with obvious major anti-topic biases: intention seems to be to use page as forum for dismissing topic rather than providing informatiom. All attempts at reason and balance being ignored and even 100% neutral information like when, what, where etc being automatically deleted counter to protocols. Discussion on what is scientific or not, etc.

19 May 2006

 * User:TruthSeeker1234 continually refers to other user's edits as "vandalism" on Collapse of the World Trade Center in both the edit summaries and on the talk pages. This has been brought up before on this page and he has been warned on his talk page. Today, despite all this, he refered to another user's edit as "vandalism" in the edit summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCAnderson (talk • contribs)


 * Who wrote this, and what do the below links have to do with me?TruthSeeker1234 12:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am a first time viewer of this site, and very dissappointed to say the least.

The writer of the aritcle linked below does the same thing as the post above me mentions (refering to edits as vandalism and asking to be able to freeze them out), and, well, if I am understanding the rules here, please just go to the following links and reveiew all of the notes. thank you. I will keep checking in for a reply.

The factual errors are serious and the writer's attitude disturbing. He appears to have a history of conflict on this sight and has been repremanded by editors for blatant bias and hostile language in his srticles, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.128.224.128

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katefan0#Remarks_from_User:70.128.224.128

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Hamer

21 May 2006

 * Desperately seeking constructive guidance at Philosophy of mathematics beginning here on the proper use of {Verify} and {Drmmt} tags, what to do about a user who automatically reverts or deletes new material before beginning his own edits, proper application of WP:VERIFY, WP:ATTACK, etc. 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum. I thought that a modus vivendi had been reached, but apparently not.  One user continues to act as the self-appointed judge and jury of every contribution, but mostly just executioner.  Some guidance, please.  Thanks, 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Update. Reference point.  Continuing personal attacks.  Nobody who knows my efforts in WP is justified in charging me with trolling or vandalism.  Please, help.  11:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article: Chigwell, Tasmania continues to have discriminatory remarks (calling the majority of the population of a lower socio-economic class), which are common beliefs outside Hobart's northern suburbs. I have edited this page twice, once wiping it completely (the discriminatory remarks were put back up) and the second time I have included facts sourced from people who have lived in the areas all their lives and the Council's Mayor.  It might not sound quite NPOV but it's far from saying it's the best place to live.  Please keep an eye on it to see that these discriminatory and small-minded remarks are not put up again.

22 May 2006

 * An article called Missing Protestor was created at approx 23:30 on the 19th. It was then 'prod'ed at approximately 09:00 AM on the 20th. user:Will Beback deleted the article, in breach of WP:PROD at approx 11:30 AM. user:Will Beback has declined to replace the article, also in breach of WP:PROD, despite being asked to do so.


 * Longview Baptist Temple continues to be edited by an anonymous user who alternately blanks out criticism and posts attacks of the critical viewpoints. Consensus has been sought on the matter and these edits have been reverted, but repeated attempts to contact the user and get this activity to cease have been unsuccessful. 22:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

23 May 2006

 * An article about Websites using the title Universe Today was vandalised by someone trying to monopolise the page. Nearly all references to other Universe Today sites was removed. I reverted the page back so it displays all the major domain extensions again. Attempts to contact the user have been in vain. I even tried leaving messages at his message board but was banned.

24 May 2006

 * An article about Arveragus, a character from The Franklin's Tale by Geoffrey Chaucer, appears to have been "abused" and displays a lot of misinformation, especially regarding the portrayal of the characters of the tale and their "distinguishing features". I thought it best to leave to someone with more experience.


 * The article about English Rugby Union player Martin Johnson has been re-vandilised by ADMIN duncharris. Duncharris has replaced a neutral description of a controversial issue with his own very non-neutral rendering of events and on the talk page described his edit racistly as reverting 'Irish Whinging' (the fact I am not Irish has apparentlu escaped him).

I have posted talk items to discuss this issue with Duncharris however as he seems to have a history of this sort of thing in many articles I dont hold out much hope of reaching an agreement. What options are open to deal with a wikipedia admin that routinely abuses his position

26 May 2006
On Talk:Mail-order bride, editors have been trying to decide whether to remove or keep two sections--Demographics and Personal anti-fraud measures, which appear to violate original research and other policies. A long dispute has arisen over the factual accuracy of the demographics section, but the entire dispute ignores whether or not the section is original research, which was the original question. A contribution from someone who understands the policy on original research would be much appreciated. There's a vote going on here.

27 May 2006
See: Talk:Memel (disambiguation): Should Memel redirect the main topic of the city of Klaipėda, or are its other meanings well enough known in English that Memel shoudl redirect to Memel (disambiguation).
 * Memel does not mainly refer to the town, as Philip Baird Shearer claims, but to the river, which is at least 50 km away, and described as a border in the Treaty of Versailles as well as in the ensuing Memelland crisis. Also the river is quoted in the German anthemn Deutschlandlied as an eastern border of German language, so redirecting to the wrong place would insinuate a claim for more territory by the German author than he actually intended (and did). I've discussued this issue politely since Philip Baird Shearer unilaterally moved the article from Memel to a mere, shortened Memel (disambiguation), have disproven his claims twice, and yet he is insisting on it. Judging from this, he either does not understand the geograpical and historical context, or he is intentionally trying to marginalize a German expression, trying to redirect it to one from other languages which at best covers half of its meaning - Klaipėda is hardly an english word, unknown to EB1911 and the expression used by Lithuania, the aggressor in the conflict of 1923. Naming the 1923-1939 Memelland "Klaipėda Region", as Wikipedia currently and wrongly does, is already very POV, and Philip Baird Shearer tries to push that even more. Memel (without disambiguation) deserves an article of its own at least like this. --Matthead 16:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

28 May 2006
Ace Class Shadow has been putting down other editors in his edit summaries and talk page messages. Attempts to resolve edit warring have gone unresolved, as most users that oppose this user decide to go on a short WikiBreak for things to cool down. Attempts to mediate disputes with the user have failed. Comments, please? 01:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

1 June 2006
George Money has been reporting hundreds of users valid external links and information on different pages he has bookmarked as vandalism. He himself has been considered a "vandal" and has been warned and banned several times from many organizations and sites. He is overall a "spammer" and needs to be stopped. Information and External Links that deserve to be displayed on the wikipedia sites are not being displayed to the public because of this user. Consider banning him from wikipedia permanently. [Examples of George Money being accused of being a "vandal"]

2 June 2006
Could someone please look at the problem on Laura Ingraham involving user Haizum? The history of the dispute is spelled out on the Talk page, as well as (unfortunately) my own User page, where Haizum has left several profane messages (now deleted but part of the history). On the Talk page, Haizum is attributing quotes to me which are false and defamatory. I have made thousands of edits on Wikipedia and have never encountered something like this. What can be done? Sandover 20:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

2 June 2006
Sandover is misrepresenting my comments and more importantly, POV pushing in the Laura Ingraham article despite repeated (and deleted) attempts to introduce context. I embrace his request to involve an Administrator. Haizum 21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record (from Wikipedia admininistrator Will ): "Haizum has been blocked for edit warring and incivility. If he isn't prepared to accept the subjects official site as a reliable source, it's teetering onto vandalism."  A big thank you to Wikipedia for resolving the problem. Sandover 06:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

4 June 2006

 * [User:209.125.200.34] (talk


 * User:209.125.200.34 (talk

This user has vandalized several articles with juvinile remarks and has intentionally submitted false information for three months. Some of the user's most blatant vandalism include edits to John Kerry's article, Homosexuality, Meat and BMW. That is only a small sample of the vandalism caused by this user. The user has been warned several times but the IP address continues go to unbanned. This is a serious offender who does not give impression of stopping any time soon.

4 June 2006

 * User:65.190.64.197 talk has engaged in an ongoing revert war for the last month on Longview Baptist Temple which has been interspersed with overt vandalism. Repeat warning have been issued on the user's talk page, but this has not solved the problem.  - 23:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

5 June 2006

 * John Obi Mikel - more eyes would be appreciated at this article, regarding the insertion/removal of claims with/without supporting references. More details on Talk:John Obi Mikel. Familiarity with WP:NOR would be useful as it may apply here. 11:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User_talk:TheCoffee
 * ''Before deleting an image, make sure of the following:
 * ''The uploader has been alerted on their talk page to the imminent deletion of their image.
 * ''Images cannot be undeleted, so be cautious about deleting.
 * True or false? 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lindsey Graham - Repeated POV insertions & reverts by User:72.242.65.58 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

6 June 2006

 * User:Swainstonation and User:Ceejayoz involved in a disagreement via talk pages, Ceejayoz wishes to disengage due to edits such as this when asked to sign posts but Swainstonation persists in talk page edits such as this. 14:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * At On the Jews and Their Lies, User:Doright inserted new material. User:CTSWyneken adjusted the note formatting, added a quotation, removed some seemingly POV and OR statements and generally rearranged the section. An exchange of reverts has resulted, including one possible personal attack. See Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies.14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * At Atkins Diet there is a user User:BrianZ who added his site Atkins All the Way to the Wikipedia. He had it removed by User:GraemeL and was told that his site couldnt be there because he was self promoting a site.  After a bit this user removed all of the other External Links under the guise of stating that he was removing Peta sites.  Since then he continuously removes the sites from the External Links section even the ones that are relevant.

I tried to talk to him. I tried to mitigate it through arbitration but nothing seems to work.

He tends to post smoke screens about the issue at hand and to be honest I think most people there are either sick of the issue or are just ignoring the whole thing which is what he wants.

He has lied numerous times and have personally attacked me on more than one occasion starting with an post of user GraemeL s talk page.

I am not sure who to contact with this. But would like someone to make a decision about this soon.

8 June 2006

 * Mwhs (who appears to also contribute as 70.152.161.175) has been adding disclaimers to the top of Mami Wata (an African goddess, though Mwhs disputes even this) essentially dismissing the article's anthropological approach to the topic and stating that "[the article's] overall depiction of Mami Wata known to those born and initiated and trained to serve in its priestess- hood is considered suspect." Judging by this image uploaded by the user, this person is apparently affiliated with a Mami Wata-worshipping group in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, who host the website mamiwata.com. I am sympathetic to the point of view of those who actually worship this deity, but all attempts to reason with this person are being ignored. See User talk:Mwhs for the discussion. Other users have branded this person a vandal, but I have been trying to reason with them. In particular, the disclaimers placed on Mami Wata seem to violate WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CITE. Help in getting this person to engage in a dialogue is appreciated, but if they refuse, administrative help would be needed (as an active disputant, I must recuse myself from administerial duties regarding this person). A similar notice has been posted at the Africa-related regional notice board. Thanks. 17:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * is adding dozens of links to Zoltán Buday in response to requests for verifiable sources (see talk page) and has referred to other editors as nazis (on talk page). 17:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A user at, and  has been deleting the article . They may be part of a political campaign. I can understand their interest in removing content that may be damaging to a candidate, but they have not responded to any attempts to contact them. Several other editors have been reverting the deletions which I think shows that there is no merit to deleting the article. I am not a registered voter but I did compose the original article, which is why I am dismayed that it is being removed without any constructive edits.

9 June 2006

 * Re: Alicia Alighatti (a porn actress) -- an anonymous user insists on placing a screenshot of Ms. Alighatti performing fellatio on the page. I don't think this is appropriate for WP.  Any thoughts? NawlinWiki 13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've already reverted it at least once as vandalism, and I suggest that you continue to do so as well. (Also although I clearly have no idea where the picture is from, and have no intention of finding out, it's probably copyrighted). --Bachrach44 14:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The image is fair use. No images are too offensive to be inappropriate for WP, as it has far more offensive pictures than that one that was uploaded to the Alicia Alighatti page.  It is not vandalism, and don't go to wikipedia if you can't handle it. Clever curmudgeon 18:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW I removed the unsourced and unsigned slander of this actress I found on her talk page, as per the BLP. - Merzbow 05:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Patter drill, User:Fahrenheit451 makes personal attack and refuses to understand an element of WP:RS which is pointed out to him  10:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

12 June 2006
The Kārlis Ulmanis article is pushing an Ulmanis apologist POV as explained in Talk:Kārlis Ulmanis. 18:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

12 June 2006
User:142.22.186.7 talk has a long history of vandalizing articles. Some edits of note include Mexican Cuisine, Michelangelo's David, Ant, Chinese Civil War, Seven Years' War.

The articles noted are only a small sample of the vandalized articles the user has caused since November 2004.. While the IP Address is a shared computer network those who choose to use the system to vandalize far outweight those who actually contribute. Please considering banning this IP Address. User:Throw


 * The Wikiquette Alert process can't impose a punishment. You should report vandalism on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Kickaha Ota 22:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

13 June 2006
Calgacus made several incivil comments in regards to people that have different opinion:   ::: It's a Polish nationalist masturbation, that's why. When another user commented his remarks he replied:  ''I don't think my comments in this respect were overly harsh. You have to understand that for eastern Europeans the English language is like a international ethnic property court, putting the name in one language claims ownership for that ethnic group, and gets one over their rivals. That's why all those Ukrainian nationalists want to rename the Russophone city of Kiev Kyiv on English wiki, but don't give two craps what its name is in other languages; and why the same people who were propping up the Polish name Władysław II Jagiełło were going around calling Vilnius Wilno.'' --Molobo 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL Molobo, you are the last person who should be posting here. To think I thought you'd changed. Sad day. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

13 June 2006
The dispute tag on this article has been repeatedly removed. The article's content is being disputed for accuracy.
 * No comment, but the link is Greg Bravo (Gary Scott). --02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

14 June 2006
A rude comment has been posted on User:Robert McGuigan by an unregistered editor, apparently someone with a similar name. Is there a recommended way to handle this sort of thing?
 * It looks like the problem comment has been reverted. Kickaha Ota 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Islam is currently undergoing a dispute over whether to include a section on Islamic terrorism or not. The discussion has been going on for some time, but my attempts today to actually insert a summary style section from Islamic extremist terrorism have been reverted repeatedly. I think the inclusion is important, but an outside opinion from people who don't frequent Islam-related articles would be useful. Thanks. :) Dev920 17:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

On Talk:Prussian_Blue_%28duo%29, a user by the name of Overthrow, in the course of an as-yet unresolved dispute over a claim in the article Prussian Blue (duo) regarding the band's Holocaust denial, has begun to make offensive accusations and insinuations against the other editors of the article. He has been repeatedly warned to remain civil on Wikipedia. His comments on the article talk page do not specifically target an editor but accuse all editors who oppose his views of "obsessing over these two young girls" and "cyber stalking" them. Overthrow has responded by insulting the editor who welcomed him to Wikipedia. I am in the process of composing a reply to his substantive points and have no desire to be put in the false position of defending myself or other editors against his odious insinuations. He clearly won't listen to me on the subject of civility. Could someone else please try explaining to him why ad hominem arguments are inappropriate here? Thanks, Kasreyn 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User 213.237.21.242 has taken over the Talk:Mormonism page with lengthy "rebuttals" of perceived slights. Attempts to answer the points raised have only led to more lengthy responses. Users have attempted to resolve the dispute and to continue the discussion on an archive page but nothing seems to stem the flow. Any help available? -- andersonpd 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

has performed several wholesale reverts of edits made by to article, violating the 3RR in the process. Aside from reverting edits related to an NPOV dispute and whether a section of the article is too detailed (currently being discuss on talk), Maddyfan has rolled back removal of uncited material and MoS/formatting corrections. She seems to have a misunderstanding of the WP:OWN policy, as seen by comments such as "We will boot your butt right out of here!", "please edit again, so we can just boot you", "You come here first, discuss and WE will decide what to do. Not YOU"; she has also falsely accused Extraordinary Machine of vandalism. Maddyfan is generally incivil, and personal attacks directed towards Extraordinary Machine include "don't be ridiculous" and "Get lost". Generally, she seems unwilling to work collaboratively with other editors. 18:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A heated discussion over the security of the networking application Hamachi has been ongoing at the Talk:Hamachi page. One editor is take a strong stand against the security of Hamachi on what could be seen as unfair grounds as his major concerns are not necessarily Hamachi-specific. The other editor is involved with the company developing Hamachi thus make POV balance tricky. A diversity of opinion would greatly benefit the resolution of these differences of opinion.21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

15 June 2006
Talk:Crimean War--- I was requested to render 3rd opinion in a dispute where one editor appears to be avoiding debate. WP:3O requires 2 people in a discussion. This issue appears to be wikiquette, not content so I referred it here.(If this is not correct please tell me proper location for this)Eagle talk

17 June 2006
Talk:United States men's national soccer team has an ongoing discussion on whether the number of consecutive qualifications to World Cup can be used to make a comparison between teams from different continents.00:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Programming language has active discussion with many people backing up their positions with general knowledge but reluctant to cite sources. 11:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Zer0fault's RfC is turning into an nonproductive, escalating war between two editors with no end in sight. I think this page, and the dispute over the Iraq war article in general, deserve more attention from the community.

18 June 2006
User:MerindaInfo is spamming Weblogs with links into their history; e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MeridiaInfo&oldid=59274662. I assume it's in anticipation of that page being edited away.

19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

19 June 2006
Ancient Anguish rapidly approaching a revert war. Two users (1 registered, 1 anon) have posted edits to the main article which are highly critical of the game structure and administrative policies. Two registered users have reverted the edits (or re-worded them to be more neutral) for not being NPOV. The first two have then continued to revert their disputed edits back, claiming attempts to exclude or reword their edits amount to "vandaliz[ing] by proponents of the game." A neutral NPOV opinion would be appreciated to prevent a revert war. Some discussion on talk page, although last revert by anon user was not discussed. 17:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

20 June 2006
User:Bank Action Group (account created today, and probably connected with anon edits under User:81.157.159.200) has been adding sections and external links to the following UK bank articles Abbey (bank), Lloyds TSB, NatWest, Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays Bank. The links are to the Bank Action Group website and the text details their standpoint in a relatively unimportant real world dispute over the application of the UK Consumer Credit Act. I feel that I have too much involvement in the subject to get too involved, but feel that these edits are very close to WP:AUTO and WP:EL, and perhaps give undue prominence to the issue. Opinions and suggestions welcomed. Many thanks 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Israel User:Tasc and User:TheYmode are getting rather agressive in discussion with User:Ariedartin over NPOV of the article (it has recently been delisted as a WP:GA for NPOV reasons). They also seem to be in a minor revert war on the article.02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Doright Has reverted three times in less than 24 hours. He continues to insist on adding a category to the Martin Luther category list that has been discussed and removed many times. This is a regular pattern of behavior. Invitations to discuss, and other such remedies have not proven successful. Many of the editors on the Martin Luther page are tired of the fact that Doright apparently is allowed, with impunity, to launch personal attacks and revert like this with impunity. Efforts to have admins deal with this have not produced positive change. A ban is in order. Ptmccain 11:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The place to report 3RR violations is WP:AN/3RR. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Cfvh causes disruption in his zeal to personal attacks, and attempts to influence AfD votes and processes with improper accusations, witness the freshest reasonoing of his for wholesale deletions: Articles for deletion/Scottish pedigree of Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar where Cfvh uses following reasons for deletion of article: "...was created by a user with a penchant for moving articles and creating peculiar redirects and articles...." In anyone's objective opinion, such accusations do not belong to reasons of AfD, and moreover are just personal attacks, but Cfvh has presumably recently found AfD process as his tool, apparently to insult other editors. A long block for Cfvh would be in order, so he can contemplate his behavior, style, and how disruptive such are for Wikipedia processes such as AfD. ObRoy 16:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please review ObRoy's edit history and moves in consideration of the dubious veracity of this alert. He has become a source of extra work for editors of royalty-related articles with his undiscussed moves and ill-thought articles and redirects. I feel, as someone who attempts to clean up the messes he creates, that this alert is merely a way for him to vent his personal feelings under the guise of a breach of etiquette. Charles 17:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Consider also: This warning, this accusation, this response to a just warning, this reaction to a reversion of his "work" and this act done upon a AfD entry, in retaliation to the nomination of his obscure articles (compage ancestry of Queen Elizabeth II). Charles 17:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All the above numerous replies from user:Charles just tell how intent he is on making personal attacks. Nothing of those are reasons for deletion, but anuway Charles tries to use them as such - actually, doing personal attacks. Charles has celarly not understood instructions how to make a proposal for AfD. Also, this Charles seems to edit warnings away from his usertalk page:, (Accumulated earlier warnings to Charles are not easy to dig, beceuse sometime two months ago he had had his user talk pages deleted, on pretext of "leaving Wikipedia" - which did not come to happen, the only that happened was deletion of the talk edit histories and warnings).  A long block for Charles would be advisable. ObRoy 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I am merely proving a point: You must be accountable for your actions before you can hold anyone else to be. I understand how to make a proposal at AfD. What you need to understand is that your work will be removed and edited if it falls below par, you will be warned for infractions on WP and you must stop holding double standards. Consider the things you have said about many fine administrators and editors. You are guilty of personal attacks but your victims can obviously handle it while you label constructive criticism and observations as personal attacks. It is understood between myself and other users that your work needs to be combed through and the many, many errors must be fixed. Many of these violations of basic WP "law" occurred after warnings for such (i.e, your undiscussed page moves). Maturity gains respect. Charles 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The "warning" by you is unwarranted, and something you are guilty of. The (late) warning by Shilkanni was for an extremely old page move done in the infancy of my time at Wikipedia. The latter is irrelevant, the former is absurd. Charles 18:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The complaints mad by Charles against ObRoy are absolutely justified - and not the other way around as ObRoy maintains. ObRoy has moved dozens and dozens of articles, leaving an absolute mess behind him.  Several editors, including Charles have asked ObRoy to cease and desist, but he just continues.  Now ObRoy has started creating a number of new pages which are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  When challenged, he claims it is a personal attack on him. Noel S McFerran 00:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think ObRoy's edits are as obnoxious as Charles claims. Nevertheless, the naming of European nobility is quite controversial here; probably more controversial than it in reason ought to be. ObRoy is relatively new, and may not realize this. While I sympathise with several of ObRoy's moves, they should not have been done without discussion, as many of them appear to be. I cannot hold Charles's words unwarranted: they serve to justify a collective deletion, and alert the rest of us to actions which may require consideration. Septentrionalis 14:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

22 June 2006
User:Aish Warya created an account less than two hours ago and has already reverted over twenty articles exactly twice, see here. When warned he has responded with incivility and personal attacks, see User talk:Aish Warya. 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

On Portal talk:Taiwan we are having a debate about calling it Portal:Taiwan or Portal:Republic of China. The mediator has suggested we have both portals but one of the participants is insisting we should only have one. 07:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

talk:truth is the subject of yet another NPOV dispute. It was over 200KB and was archived yesterday by User:Banno and today is again over 72KB, with no apparent progress towards resolution. Was the archiving inappropriate, is the NPOV issue clearly stated and what can be done to move the work on? 10:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is incivility occurring at Talk:The Spirit of Truth? If so, what could the editors on that talk page do to help things be more civil? 14:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Steven E. Jones. User CB Brooklyn is trying to WP:OWN the article, and he makes some interesting edit comments and talk page comments. Basically, he's telling me not to edit the article because I don't buy Steven E. Jones's arguments. That's like saying only Republicans can edit the George W. Bush article. Currently the page looks like the subject's home page, with links to the originator's original research, and every conceivable media link.--Mmx1 03:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

23 June 2006
JzG have deleted content and made unauthorized changes to my user page. After this he protected the page so I cannot undo his changes. I see this as a clear violation of user page guidelines. --Rdos 06:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also under discussion at WP:ANI, the content in question is a personal essay asserting that autism is the result of cross-breeding with neanderthals. It has been deleted from article space numerous times, but Rdos flatly refused to allow its removal from his user page, so I nuked it. Just zis Guy you know? 11:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal essay. It is a summary of the Neanderthal theory that is at my homepage. --Rdos 12:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ... and which you have freely acknowledged is unpublished original research. An essay, in other words.  Just zis Guy you know? 12:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * JzG once more violates policy. He removed the link to the theory, which is totally separate from the "essay" --Rdos 12:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No policy is violated when removing external links, unless they are reliable sources used in an article. WP:NOT a link farm. Just zis Guy you know? 12:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You must be kidding. I've nerver seen anybody remove external links from talk-pages, let alone in discussions that are about those links. Are you altering people's comments in AfDs too? --Rdos 14:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen links removed from pages of every kind. WP:EL refers.  And this discussion is not about the links, it's about your using user page as a soapbox. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User lostsociety has been posting profane and abusive posts, plus posting promotional language over and over again. Please see this and this as just 2 examples. User also has posted 10 images which had to be removed for false copyrights and continues to post promotional lanugage on the Bambu page. User is related to the Bambu company and therefore is trying to use Wiki to promote his family's product :( 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User warned. Please take this to WP:ANI if it happens again. Just zis Guy you know? 13:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over inclusion of an external link and appropriateness of an informal poll to try to achieve consent at Talk:Democratic_Underground 22:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Will nobody help out with this? 03:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

25 June 2006
and want to add information into the Deadhead article that is original research. For a comparison, see. I have tried to rationally discuss and quote policy as to why this can not be used in the Talk:Deadheads page, specifically Talk:Deadhead and Talk:Deadhead. I would like some outside assistance, preferably an admin or a well-versed user to evaluate my stance and please tell me if my actions are wrong so that we can move on from this debate for the good of the article. If this is not the place to bring this dispute, please direct to where it should go, since this is my first time seeking help in such a matter. Thanks! -- MOE .RON  talk  01:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, Waste Time R is now going to be using the Usenet rec.music.gdead postings as sources (Talk:Deadhead). I would really appreciate some input on this, since as it stands it is two-to-one against me. -- MOE .RON  talk  06:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

removed sourced material from Alexander Hamilton, alleging a pro-slavery POV.. He repeated on the talk page that was a pro-slavery editor.

The disputed text summarizes some of Hamilton's views, as expressed in this letter; Pmenderson/Septentrionalis does not agree with Hamilton, and has said so., last paragraph of diff. Jensen replied that pro-slavery agitators would have minimized Hamilton's work, so Septentrionalis must be one of them. .

This personal attack, by itself, does not warrant a Request for Comment, so it is here. If any light can be shed on the underlying content disputes, which are discussed at some length on Talk:Alexander Hamilton, it will be welcome.

27 June 2006
Anonymous user User:24.0.194.179 (talk • contribs) is adding to Supercomputer brief mentions about supercomputers that can supposedly perform a petaflop or better (making it the fastest supercomputer yet). He/she's adding these claims to the "Current fastest supercomputer system" section even though they haven't been tested yet, and some haven't even been built yet. The only sources provided are short, uninformative technology blog articles. Further, he/she at one point blanked out the entire section to mention a new (untested) Japanese supercomputer, and also removed my comments on the talk page discussing the edits. I would appreciate it if someone gave this user a stern talking to, or maybe even a short block. Thankyou. 07:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ardenn I feel is imparing me from contributing to articles by Reverting every article i contribute to and is making my time here on wikipedia Very frustrating Dr sean chronic RSX 03:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

28 June 2006
User:Churchh has been repeatedly and increasingly abusive on User talk:TheEditrix, Category talk:Roman era clothing, and more than a dozen other articles. (See contribs) 13:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For clarification, the discussion referenced by TheEditrix is being carried out at Talk:History of Western fashion. A categorization war between Churchh and TheEditrix is already being mediated there by at least two other editors, User:PKM (mainly) and myself.  Sorry that it spilled over here, WillowW 15:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Argument at Talk:Programming language over whether to include numerous fact tags or not. Editor is refusing to discuss and threatening to revert on sight. 22:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiarthurhu has become increasingly abusive and launching personal attacks on other editors who challenge him. He has "I dare you to revert that, unless you believe you are a more reliable source than Grumman's original test pilot"
 * dared editors to revert him
 * Made personal attacks on the qualifications of editors: "As far as I know, I have no reason to believe that you have even a bachelors degree, ever taken a course in writing or logic, ever wrote a computer program, or even held a job, let alone an IQ over 100, purchased, borrowed, browsed or even read a single book, magazine, watched any media or even visited an aviation museum exhibit on the F-14." . --Mmx1 04:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have also been involved in a dispute with this user, and it started when he debated with me on the issue of the Eagle Premier being the successor of the AMC Matador. During that debate, he called me a "menace" and "nuisance" (through one of his IP addresses), accused me and User:Bravada of vandalism when we had no such intent, and repeatedly added in unverified claims. He seems to have stopped after I performed a partial rewrite of the Matador article, though. Here are the related pages to my dispute...


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * I feel that this user can contribute postively to Wikipedia, but if he continues this abusive behavior, I'm afraid action will have to be taken, which is something I want to try avoiding... --ApolloBoy 04:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

5 July 2006
In my opinion, User:Quiddity has been harassing & libeling User:Chuck Marean verbally (see: User talk:Chuck Marean ) and by reverts ( for example, ).--Chuck Marean 16:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For more history, please review removed talk page content: . 16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

6 July 2006
User:Ste4k tried to | remove a valid link from the "see also" section of an article. Her response to the reversion of this was to | spam the "see also" section with irrelevent links. Her actions have been reverted by multiple editors, but she persists. 00:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user User:24.225.73.229 (talk • contribs) has been vandalising Jews sans frontieres and adding derogatory and abusive personal remarks to Talk:Jews sans frontieres. S/he has not edited any other article, does not sign comments, and has already been warned on her/his User Page. 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:24.66.94.140 Provocations and probing for edit war on Republika Srpska. Removing sourced material and adding provocative and discredited maps to the article. 04:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Darthkenobi Commonly makng joke edits and vandalising articles by adding made-up words to them. Has been commonly repeated and over many differant articles.

User:Sshadow has added links to a number of non-existent Greek-language articles. I politely suggested to him that the articles should exist before any links to them are created. His response is unfathomingly offensive and I've never seen anything like it on Wikipedia, writing: "Get off my face. Who are you spending your time snooping over our backs for misplaced commas and the shadow of pagan penises going all the way allah's rotten anus. Little snoop. Ha! I didn't know Wikipedia was turning into a corporation. . . a power structure with deadlines, übercontrol and the like. Oh I didn't know! Honestly". This guy has written some highly offensive stuff about Turks, referring to them as "oppresing pigs", with "furs", and their religion as "creed of backward imbecile sand-humans". I think somebody should have a word with him.17:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Panairjdde is amending articles for a long time, specifically removing redundant AD/CE tags, and uniforming the article where mixed AD/CE usage is present. One side-effect of this action is that, in articles where no years/centuries BC/BCE are involved, he removes all of the tags, according to Manual of Style, Eras section. User:Codex Sinaiticus wants to keep at least one AD (he is apparently interested only in ADs, not CEs) in every article dealing with 1st/2nd century. User:Crculver is simply reverting most or all of Panairjdde's edits on the matter. The Panairjdde/Codex Sinaiticus discussion is on Talk:Montanism and Administrators' noticeboard, the request for explanation of Panairjdde to Crculver is on User talk:Crculver. Would anyone mind to come and express a POV on the matter?--Panairjdde 23:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

8 July 2006
User:Krnc has deleted information on Tumen, Jilin and Talk:Tumen, Jilin (and it appears Korean Chinese as well) without comment, has chosen not to resolve the dispute on the talk page, and has left personal attacks on the talk pages of editors who disagree with him (e.g. "You japanese bitch. it is none of your biz." and "Fuck you bitch"). Assistance would be appreciated. 21:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

10 July 2006
admin user:Will Beback seems to think I work for him. Summary of what happened on the Talk:Climbing page and on my talk page. Would like to know if his behavior is inline with site guidelines. Thinredline 05:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. Suggesting an editor provide sources is standard. More on your talk page. WAS 4.250 15:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

12 July 2006
User:CAYA regarding edits and general attitude displayed at Foo Fighters over the past month. The issue was attempted to be resolved (Talk:Foo Fighters) and a concensus was reached, but the user refuses to acknowledge it, instead encouraging a revert war and making claims they don't seem to understand. Thanks. 19:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

13 July 2006
Some difficulties have arisen as outlined at Talk:British Isles - 08:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Nscheffey appears to have been stalking me with a personal issue since around the 5th of the month. Ste4k 00:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

15 July 2006
An edit war with little rationale and many reverts has erupted concerning the inclusion of two sentences in the article Vlaams Belang. A short outline of opinions and events is on its talk page. 16:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

17 July 2006
User:Ste4k is removing legitimate comments from her talk page. 07:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This issue is currently the subject of a Request for Comment. Kickaha Ota 22:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Francespeabody is making personal racial and political attacks on other users on Talk:Condoleezza Rice, including researching other users' unrelated activities and trying to reveal their true identities or activities outside of the Wikipedia universe in a threatening manner, and making potentially libelous statements. Said user has so far refused to accept suggestions of starting an RfC or other form of dispute resolution for his complaints and continues to soapbox. 03:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See also User Talk:Francespeabody 21:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This issue has now been taken to the RfC dispute process. See Requests_for_comment/Francespeabody 07:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

20 July 2006
Anonymous User:152.121.17.5 has been making edits to the Talk:Evolution page signing with the identity of other editors Arnoutf 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It would appear that the appropriate warnings have already been handed out, but I added notes to a few misleading signatures. Kickaha Ota 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

22 July 2006
I'd like to request independent review of Daniel.Bryant and his reactions to suggestions that he may have erred on RC patrol. Most recently and with the least justification or provocation, this exchange ensued: User_talk:Daniel.Bryant. I say most recently, because he has been notified before about the need to maintain a decorous presence on wikipedia (see User_talk:Daniel.Bryant/Archive/July_2006, and even here he attempted to resist the instruction). Perhaps someone could make the point a little more forcefully to him that doing RC patrol means doing RC patrol civilly, and if you won't do the latter, don't bother doing the former. 64.198.252.146 14:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

23 July 2006
Article Welf Herfurth seems to be a copyvio of some site, POV, and I don't understand if he is so important to stray in Wiki. 23:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Without getting into the POV and notability issues, it does appear to be a clear copyvio. I've tagged the article. Kickaha Ota 22:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

26 July 2006
User:MarkThomas was one of the main contributors to an edit war at Led Zeppelin and, even now that everyone else has calmed down a bit, continues to be somewhat hostile on the talk page. 22:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

27 July 2006
I think that the article I-flex Solutions looks more similar to an advertisement than to a wikipedia entry for a company. Can somebody give her/his impression about the matter? Thanks. --Cantalamessa 07:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

28 July 2006
The article about Mark Kirk keeps getting sourced content deleted by a numeric IP address. We've posted notifications to that he has broken the three revert rule. If he disagrees with the sourced material, he needs to make his case in the talk page. He does not respond to the talk page comments or our edit comments to that effect.

Request a third opinion on an edit dispute regarding the inclusion of the word "domestic" in the phrase "warrantless domestic spying program" in the article ACLU_v._NSA between User:Dredeyedick, who favors the inclusion, and User:SafeLibraries.org, who keeps deleting the word "domestic" from the article. User:SafeLibraries.org has previously been warned about coming close to violating the WP:3RR 3-Revert Rule with edits to ACLU, and admonished for editing with an "Obsessional point of view" on his talk page. Request outside view of behavior of User:Dredeyedick in this dispute as well. See Discussion in "Serious Bias Evident" section of article discussion page. Thanks.

01:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

29 July 2006
Talk:Sesotho language and Template talk:Languages of South Africa — Dispute between User:Dwo and User:Zyxoas that might have gotten a little out of hand. Requesting opinions on whether Wikiquette was breached by the parties involved. 00:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Solid Snake and User talk:Snake Liquid. User:Snake Liquid has repeatedly made personal attacks against User:RandyWang and User:A Man In Black regarding his talk page, and an edit war at Solid Snake. Requesting an outside comment on his behaviour. 03:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I object to this claim. I was not starting an edit war. Before I made any edits at all, and even now, I've been suggesting edits to be made that would make everyone happy. People's input on the situation was being ignored by User:A Man In Black, and he repeatedly acted as though he was the sole, elite administrator of the article. An example would be how he provided choices for people to make over what pictures they wanted to use, and then went on in attempt to control and tell them what choices they could and could not pick. Whatever edits I made were in favor of those who's inpur was being ignored, including my own, and I feel this is a one-sided complaint. Before any judgement is passed, I would recommend someone see how the debate went down for themselves, at the Solid Snake discussion page, starting with the category "Pictures?"--Snake Liquid 06:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is merely a place for users to post significant concerns over etiquette; the posting is one person's feeling, and is not "passing down a judgement" on you. This isn't really the place for discussion, though: As stated at the top of this page, if you wish for outside views of the situation, you may ask for them. Emufarmers(T/C) 06:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Cshay/Archive1 and AbsolutDan's talk page. User:Cshay appears to have entered into personal attacks on some other users. Outside comment may be required. 06:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

30 July 2006
Talk:Aquygen User:Vaughanwj has noticed that all information on Aquygen has been removed, for reasons unknown. Aquygen is an evolving story and should be in Wikipedia. I know that Alien Autopsy (a hoax) and Tylenol (a brand name) are both present. If the science is in dispute, then it should be debated in the article, but not removed altogether. 12:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel like User:Seabhcan is using Talk:2006_Qana_airstrike as a soapbox to compare Israel to Nazi Germany over and over instead of discussing the issue in the article. He is an administrator, highest of the high. I'm just an IP address, lowest of the low. I have a registered account but I get scared to use it when dealing with political issues because so much passion is involved. Maybe that was a mistake. I'm just looking for an opinion about the Wikiquette. I may be partly to blame also. 141.154.225.213 22:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

31 July 2006
In article Negombo Tamils an anonymous user using number of IP addresses has placed an Dispute tag but is unable to list out the disputes but may be indulging in personal attack. Want to de escalate the situation and resolve the dispute. Please help 16:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See article talk page for details


 * See escalation of personal attack

User:Snake Liquid has become less civil since his last Wikiquette alert, continuing to make personal attacks on his talk page, removing warnings from his talk page , and attacking users that attempt to warn him again. Requesting further comment here, since this user appears to be getting out of hand. 21:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above can be considered as a personal attack against me, if what I'm being accused of is considered making personal attacks. Get off my back Randy.--Snake Liquid 03:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is now an RfC on the matter; interested parties should turn there. --Emufarmers(T/C) 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

XLR8TION has (1) modified my comments at a CfD without acknowledging that s/he did so; and has (2) engaged in racist personal attacks. see [] Can an admin do something? 00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A small matter, I suppose, but... On my User Page I discovered that one of my "user boxes" (for Wikipedians who enjoy bicycling) was somehow replaced by a different one termed a "German Userbox Solution". I don't understand how this practice is taking root or why it's being done. From what I could tell, it looks as though this can happen with any of the user boxes people have put on their personal user pages.--Joel Russ 14:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Joel Russ