Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active discussions

Another User's Talk Page

On another user's talk page, there was a discussion about uncivil behavior. I made some comments, and the user made a couple accusations regarding me which I felt were unfounded. This user has then deleted my attempt to answer the accusation (telling me all future comments by me will be deleted). Then I tried to delete all my comments so that my views wouldn't be misrepresented. This was also reverted.

What is left now is the beginning of the conversation with the editor's accusations ending the discussion.

I know that wide discretion is given to people on their talk pages, but is there anything I can do to keep from another editor from selectively displaying comments I made? I would rather all my comments be shown, or none of them.LedRush (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Buehler?LedRush (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This page used to be more active.LedRush (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You open a topic without identifying who the user is or giving any diffs as to the comments. Do you expect others to search your contributions to figure out what you are complaining about? I started that process, and my assumption is you are upset about User:Fae and his not welcoming your comments on his Talk page, but I don't intend to go any further than that without more elaboration from you as to the problem. As you yourself acknowledge, generally every user has a right to control their own Talk page. (What does "Buehler" mean?)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wanted a general answer on Wikiquette, not an answer on how to deal with something specifically. While you are correct as to the precipitating event, I'd really like to keep this a discussion about general policy/wikiquette, and not get bogged down in my views of Fae's actions specifically.

Yes, I recognize people generally get to control their own talk page. My question is whether it is ok for them to edit threads to make it seem like a conversation has been resolved one way, or whether they can make accusations and then delete your responses, to make it look like you've accepted that argument. My other question is, under those circumstances, can I delete all my comments (meaning, if the user edits my comments, can I choose to delete all of my comments from their user page rather than allow the user to selectively display my comments in a way that I believe misrepresents my views.

("Buehler" is Ferris Buehler from the movie. It just means "is there anyone out there?" or something like that when used as I used it above.)LedRush (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

21 Jump Street film being changed improperly and improper conduct towards me

• Greenfrogreid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 66.215.204.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 21 Jump Street (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

21 Jump Street film. Rusted AutoParts and others (may be the same person) is all of a sudden changing “is a loose sequel” to “based on”. Both are true but they are saying that it is not a sequel of sorts, is just not true. If they would like to put based on it should not remove “is a loose sequel to” or “is a sequel to” to do so. It is an important fact about the movie that should not be removed. Keep in mind that the fact that the film acts as a sequel to the tv show may even mean there would be no need to put based on. It would be self explanatory.(I am not saying don't put it in) I would be all for it, if it did not remove important information. Rusted AutoParts Used the F word on me then issued me a warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenfrogreid (talk • contribs) 03:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. First off, the f word wasn't directed to you. Secondly, if it were a "loose sequel", then it would imply the TV series was a film and thus making this film, 21 Jump Street, to be called 21 Jump Street 2. A film can't be a sequel to a TV series. And lastly, you wre issued a warning because you chose to edit war and undo the change rather than bring the issue to the talk page. RAP (talk) 16:24 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute rather than a matter for WQA. I note there is no discussion at the article's Talk page regarding this matter. May I ask why not? Doniago (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

He decided to threaten people with being reported and reverting rather than do the sensible thing. That's why we're here. RAP (talk) 17:47 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That shouldn't stop you from at least trying to discuss it on the talk page. (Side note: Our article on sequels doesn't agree that a film can't be a sequel to a TV series.) --Onorem♠Dil 17:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The people changing the page to based from serves as a loose sequel were reporting us for vandalism and issuing us warnings before we could talk about it.

Well, if a character was returning from the tv show they were played yet again by the same actor as in the tv show. The two main characters are not the two main characters from the tv show. Michael Bacall. Johnny Depp, Peter DeLuise, and Holly Robinson briefly reprise their roles as Tom Hanson, Doug Penhall, and Judy Hoffs The story was they were revising the undercover program that was used in the 80s. During the TV show. This is a continuation to the tv show. The film is acts as a loose sequel to the tv show. How may we solve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.204.194 (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

User: Carptrash harassment of other editor

Please stop this editor from harassing me. I saw some pages had been redirected to a master article, and thought I'd try my hand at helping with the effort User:Carptrash seems to have started to restore the redirects to have contents. As a result, in addition to false accusations at my talk page, User:Carptrash has denigrated me for identifying that the master article for more than 1000 monuments will have about 5 times more display lines if the photographs are included in each row of the master article's table. (There are already 2 Wikipedia galleries for the images.) I think he is trying to discourage me from continuing my attempts at editing, and appreciate your assistance in this matter. 64.134.153.184 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)