Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Perusnarpk (talk | contribs) at 14:05, 28 July 2008 (→‎User:Mathsci). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    Shortcut
    Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
    Search the Wikiquette archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:


    Active alerts

    User:Romaioi

    Continued from archive page:

    Thanks for your support Jaysweet. I have made those modifications as per your suggestion. I am not afraid of appearing bitter as long as the truth has been highlighted. I don't look favourably on the kind of flippant behaviour that Noclador demonstrated, regardless of whether it was directed at me or anyone else.

    However, I do not know why this page has been archived as I do not consider it to be resolved - I have made several requests as per Ncmvocalist' comments and have not receieved his reply. I have made concessions and recieved none regarding the anti-User:Romaioi negative comments.

    Romaioi (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rolex is kind of spam

    Resolved
     – Nothing to see here, folks... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article Rolex looks like an adverticement of the rolex company. Perhaps, User:Ckatz believes that amount of the rolex clocks exceeds the amount of the rolex messages; but even in this case both meanings of the word (1.email spam; 2.Company) should be presented in Wikipedia. The way User:Ckatz keeps the discussion seems to me non-academic. Could any non-envolved user to read the history and express his/her opinion? Sincerely, dima (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see a wikiquette issue here, unless you consider overwhelming consensus against your move to be a issue of etiquette? --Onorem♠Dil 04:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    dima, as someone who has never looked at the Rolex article before, but has gotten plenty of Rolex spam over the past decades, I can say that your attempts to edit against consensus are highly disruptive. Please stop before you're blocked again. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear SarekOfVulcan, I understand your message, I stop to edit, and I collect cites:

    According to distributors of rolex and amount of rolex messages they send to me, I am great specialist about Rolex. If I am great specialist, then I should bring to the people my knowledge about the subject. From these "correspondents", I get the first-hand information: rolex is kind of spam, junk; it successfully competes with viagra. It is the main meaning of the term. As supporters of rolex delete the references I bring and promise to block me for attempts to edit "their" article, I qualify their behavior as misconduct and inform the society about this misconduct. dima (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait, so your argument is that because your spam folder is filled with advertisements for fake Rolex watches, therefore the Rolex article on Wikipedia is spam? Yeesh, I think you may be having a problem with Editorial Dysfunction. (Isn't there a pill for that?) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jaysweet, my answer is "no". My argument is that I am not alone to get rolex messages. As for the pills, to block an opponent, instead of to ask for the references, is Editorial Dysfunction. dima (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so which one of those sources says that people are now using "Rolex" as a synonym for "spam"? They all say that there is a lot of spam selling fake Rolexes, but that does not support your assertion.
    Also, please note that like a dozen editors have all told you that you are wrong about this issue. This leaves us with two possibilities: 1) you are wrong about this, or 2) Wikipedia is a secret conspiracy formed to oppress Domitori and to sell Rolex watches. Either way, you're not going to win this argument. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, a number of the links you provide would not even qualify as reliable sources even for your assertion that there is a lot of Rolex spam. The well.com link is a message board. The spamsafeemail.com link is a product pitch. Some of the others are highly questionable as well. Please read WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE, and then get back to me. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pwnage8 - Berating talk page editors

    Stale
     – Please don't bring month-old isolated incidents to WQA --Jaysweet (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no way of knowing whether a particular incident that caught my attention at random was in fact isolated or not. Please don't discourage people from making good faith alerts for the absence of knowledge that's not available to them. I get the sense I should never bring any concern I have over any aspect of the quality of Wikipedia's attention to anybody, at least on or through Wikipedia. I apologize for having raised a flag that ultimately led nowhere, but, please, consider the situation from a standpoint other than as a member of WP's elite. Unless you genuinely do want all legitimate criticism of WP to be published elsewhere on the web - if that's the case, kindly ignore my suggestion. 71.231.142.60 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Verbally attacked an editor to a talk page who had suggested the need for a neutral point of view in a particular article. The section descends into mud slinging by all parties. This detracts from Wikipedia's good(?) name, and does not help the article gain respect among the public. A new editor was seemingly driven from WP, and although he spoke rudely after a few replies, his ( or her? ) criticism was valid. That criticism will help Wikipedia raise the quality of the article to encyclopedic standards, and that's the point to all of this.

    When a long standing, ostensibly respected member bites the newbies with "This isn't your kind of place. Your first comment made that very clear. Tootles. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)" I feel this is entirely inappropriate, in appalling taste. Anybody of his standing should be expected to show a minimum level of grace, especially to newcomers.

    71.231.142.60 (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Christianity#Problems

    My initial comment didn't attack anyone. I saw the troll-like comments the anon posted, and simply said that yes, he shouldn't be editing, like he said, and pointed him to policy. Really, I acted like any editor would've in this situation. If I hadn't provided shortcuts, someone else would've. That's not where the problem escalated. Let's be realistic here.. when a new editor comes to Wikipedia to edit a controversial topic, they are most likely here to push their POVs. That's a generalisation based on what I've seen in my time with the project. That is not to say that there won't be editors interested in making articles more neutral/better, because there are people like that, but those are the ones that make sure to familiarize themselves with policy before they start editing. As Wikipedians, we need to assume good faith, but sometimes it's all too obvious what someone is here to do (vandalism-only accounts, for example). Ilkali even thought that the anon didn't raise "the issue in quite the best way". What escalated this is Andrew c's comment. For the rest of the "discussion" the anon tried covering his tracks, then he got mad, and was throwing personal attacks at me. His comment about Wikipedia is rather intriguing, and it indicates that he already was turned off by Wikipedia before he even posted. That would be a reasonable conclusion based on the nature of his first comment. So that's what happened, in short. I'm not sure why you're posting this now. It's been a month since it happened. Though I probably didn't handle this in the best way, I can learn from this so that it won't happen again. Basically, I ran into a troll who hates Wikipedia. Really, not much can be done about these people. He'll come crawling back when he sees how good the article is. I've moved it up my to-do list. One last message to all of you involved: don't whine about how bad the article is, just fix it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, why are we still talking about something that happened a month ago and then ended? I agree Pwnage was a bit WP:BITEy in that circumstance, and he acknowledge as much above ("I probably didn't handle this in the best way"). If this became an ongoing pattern, or if it had just happened an hour ago, we might have something to discuss. As it is, it's old news and not really a Wikiquette Alert. Next time, instead of this page, try here. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I brought this up, I feel compelled to answer the question. We're talking about something that happened a month ago because (1) it's not exactly ancient history, (2) it's still visible to all on the talk page, and (3) it's ended, but as far as I'm able to tell, not resolved. Having read the entire exchange, I feel that as a newbie, I should never improve any Wikipedia article, as that's just simply not allowed by the in crowd or page owners. The article in question was in desperate need of help. Pwnage chased one potential volunteer away, and seeing how WP is run, I fear the same, should I try to volunteer my time for the betterment of all mankind. Finally, (4), we're discussing this because on the talk page, another member left a link pointing here and suggesting that, if anybody felt it appropriate, the exchange should be reported. I felt it appropriate, and followed said advice.

    All I was hoping to achieve is to learn whether or not good faith improvements to Wikipedia articles by the general public are encouraged or discouraged. I've learned that they're discouraged, and as well that this alert system is a rubber stamp for some type of WP clique. I was hoping for a more positive end, but I've learned what I need to know, and won't bother you further. 71.231.142.60 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    :On 17th July User:Pwnage8 reverted edit by me on page Avenue Road with comment "Imao- who cares?". As a test I made a further minor edit with no edit commentary (added a space)- the user immediately reverted this. I then made a further minor edit (deleted a superfluous comma) with an edit summary and flagged it minor. User did not revert this. Ning-ning (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No longer relevant (last 50 edit summaries devoid of snarkiness) Ning-ning (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow.. the anon really does have a hate-on for Wikipedia. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The HAL problem still exists

    Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    I see the section Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Dealing_with_bad_faith_by_User_hAl I started above asking for help has been locked. The reason given is that it has been referred to WP:Suspected sock puppets. But I started the section, and I dont think the problem has stopped. While it is true that some users accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Referring them to WP:SSP does not stop the problems happening on HAl's talk page. I dont want to bring that problem here. I dont want to go into the reasons that one thing or another are not true. But I would like for someone to give me advice or help on ending the discussion that is going no place on hHAl's talk page. If it cant be done here, can someone please recommend a next step for me, not the other side, to take. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You could try WP:ANI. I really don't understand hAl's refusal to try SSP and insistence on blabbing on the talk page. If he's got a problem with the alleged socking, report it. If he doesn't have a problem with it, back off. Right? I just don't understand... Anyway, try WP:ANI. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this will help you understand his not filing a report a little better. In his own words. "We can´t report that one WP:SSP because you need evidence of sockpuppetingthen. We do not have that.". AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Adam sk

    Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    I don't particularly care for the tone of this posting on my talk page. I have done plenty of good work on areas all over the world, and I find it insulting to suggest that I should be editing only a certain area. Biruitorul Talk 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Biruitorul is, so far as I can tell, not anything remotely like an expert on Canadian history, and yet, he goes around unilaterally deleting section of articles on Canadian prime ministers without even letting people with knowledge of the topic discuss it first. I have absolutely no time for users who have a "delete first, ask questions later" approach to Wikipedia - I think it's insulting to all of the other users who put in tons of hours of time and effort only to have their work unilaterally deleted. So, quite frankly, I've seen the guy's profile - he's done a lot of good work on eastern European articles, and, more power to him: I'm all in favor of his adding to articles and improving articles in his field of expertise. But I don't approve of his unilateral deleting of entire valuable sections of articles way out of his field of competence and think he should confine himself to making creative contributions to Wikipedia and avoid destroying other people's contributions. Adam_sk (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Adam, he didn't destroy anyone's work. Your efforts still exist, and can either be restored or transfered to the Commons depending on the outcome of the discussion. Please refrain from using terms like "destroy", or from suggesting that other editors do not have the necessary expertise to question your edits. Your comments at Talk:William Lyon Mackenzie King were extremely inappropriate. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Godwin's law at Talk:History of Hinduism

    A some people might know, there was a recent edit war between User:Dbachmann and User:Thirusivaperur at History of Hinduism. Dbachmann became blocked for 24 h for breaking wp:3RR, whereas Thirusivaperur became blocked for "48 hours for ..[his] harassment of Dbachmann, in addition to .. general disruption and edit-warring." and also WP:DTTR. By the time another editor had started a section "I am concerned" on User talk:Dbachmann I was looking through the disputed revisions and found myself concerned about something else. I specified my concerns on the talk page of the article. After another editor was of the opinion that my concerns were unjustified I then got this reply from Thirusivaperur:

    "True Trips. But User:Zara1709 is appearently from germany, a country with significant nationalism and holocaust history. These guys usually blame all others to be nationalists."

    Dbachmann removed this wp:personal attack and informed Thirusivaperur AGAIN on his talkpage about our guidelines on this. However, on the discussion page, Thirusivaperur has refused to apologize and his other behaviour is not encouraging, either. Pending the question whether Thirusivaperur's proposed revision is acceptable, his behaviour hardly is. I would appreciate it if a few other editors could look at this issue, and, if necessary, help to apply Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Consensus accordingly. Zara1709 (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We generally don't force people to apologize :) You mention "his other behavior is not encouraging, either". Do you have diffs of problematic/uncivil behavior, other than the personal attack against Zara1709 for which he has already been warned? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Warren at Talk:Windows XP

    To be quite honest I was tempted to let this slide but User:Warren's language and aggressive attitude is making it hard to continue rational discussion at Talk:Windows XP, which is why I've chosen to list this.

    Some time ago editors agreed that certain images should remain in Windows XP after User:Warren had deleted the images. Despite my request for explanation of his reasoning[1] Warren never responded. Instead, on 23 July 2008, he again removed the images, ignoring the (albeit limited) consensus leaving an edit summary that contained a profanity.[2] After some discussion, in which he demonstrated aggressive behaviour in the very first line of one of his posts[3] and threated to "write me up" at Wikipedia:Copyright problems if I continued insisting we abide by consensus I made what I believed was a reasonable request to tone things down.(see last paragraph).

    After my request was made he responded with a post, the first part of which was completely irrelevant to the issue, attacking my editing experience and insinuating that he had far more experience.[4] And, of course, the language used was aggressive. For example "And yet, you tell me that I don't understand Wikipedia's non-free image policy? You have some damned nerve. You want me to be civil towards you? Start by not questioning my judgement on something you have absolutely no experience with! That sort of shit pisses me off."

    For the record, I have sought guidance on the use of the disputed imageas at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#"Overuse" of non-free images - need some guidance but this is not the issue here. My concern is that this user's agressive attitude and refusal to tone the language down is making this issue hard to discuss. While I believe that this user has misinterpreted policy and that we should follow consensus, I have not reverted his edits to the consensus version for now to avoid aggravating this person. I have no desire to get into an edit war but I would like to resolve the issue as soon as possible and I can't see that happening while the agressive attitude remains unchecked. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI AussieLegend, although usually it is not permitted to refactor another user's comments, I replaced one of your diffs above (the one where Warren says "fuck" in the edit summary while removing the gallery) because it was clear you had accidentally copy-and-pasted the wrong diff. If this bothers you, feel free to revert me :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually fixing it so there was an edit conflict when I tried to save. I hoped nobody had noticed so quickly. You were obviously too fast for me. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.158.239.106 / User:86.158.177.226 Attacks on other editors

    The above user is presently labeling any editor that undoes his unhelpful edits anti-islamic, islamophobic, anti-pakistan, pro-india. His comments can be located here, here, here, here, here and here. There are several others but I do not wish to overload the page with his viewpoints. Assistance with this as it is unacceptable to be falsely labeled by anon editors. Knowledgeum (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of Sourced WP:NPOV Archaeological Conclusions from the Bible

    I'd like to avoid an edit war about this, so I've posted this alert. One user, Blanchardb, who has already been warned about "willy nilly" deletions before by admin Shirahadasha, is repeatedly deleting sourced WP:NPOV archaeological conclusions based upon a WP:CONSENSUS discussion from the Bible article. See here for details. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I rest my case. -- Blanchardb  -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tony1

    Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    I noticed Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comments on the Australia talk page (Comments by Tony1 [5] [6] [7]), AussieLegend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comments [8] [9] and comments from myself [10] [11]. I feel that only an Admin can sort this out since I feel that if I comment any further that it would inflame the issue more then it is now. Bidgee (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    131.191.80.124

    Resolved
     – User advised. 09:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

    I tried to make Wikipedia a better place by reverting a personal attack [12] and I get chewed out by some loser [13] who just HAS to defend his right to the death to be a jerk on someone else's talk page.

    You can do whatever you want with this... I am DONE with Wikipedia. RainbowOfLight Talk 08:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I just had a look at this. The IP's comments were indeed rather out of line, and I left him/her a template on his/her page. But I don't see any need to further fan the flames. Rainbow, I suggest that this is just part of the rough that sometimes comes with the smooth. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now he has sent me a threatening email via my website which is linked in my profile. To where should I forward this email, headers intact? RainbowOfLight Talk 09:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is out of line. Don't reply to the email. (But don't delete it, either.) If nobody else comes by, I'm happy to follow up tomorrow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Best to send it to a member of WP:ARBCOM. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I have placed myself on Wikibreak because I've seen a lot of stupidity and rudeness around here lately (people getting irate because I revert their vandalism) and I need a timeout. I will be here to respond to this issue, though. RainbowOfLight Talk 09:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mathsci

    In the course of a dispute at the talk page on Michael Atiyah, User:Mathsci has repeatedly attacked me and other editors personally.

    For example, he stated: "... a number of Indian extremists have tried to disrupt this page". The dispute in question has nothing to do with nationality; I have never indicated my nationality and neither, to my knowledge, have other editors involved in the dispute. In my opinion, this extraneous mention of my presumed ethnic origin is tantamount to a racial slur. (What adds notability to this dispute is that just prior to this, User:Mathsci felt the use of the phrase `Eurocentric history' by another user was very inappropriate.)

    A second disruptive tactic that User:Mathsci has used is to repeatedly accuse me of being a sockpuppet for another editor User:Bharatveer. Although, there is no evidence for this, User:Mathsci has repeated this allegation here and here.

    Nevertheless, I feel that the second transgression is minor compared to the first one. I am new to Wikipedia, but I hope that it is not considered `civil' to introduce and insult someone's ethnic origin especially when it is completely irrelevant to the topic. - Perusnarpk (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no User:MathSci. Please could an administrator warn or block the above recently arrived SPA who, unable to insert libellous unsourced material into the BLP of Michael Atiyah (see the postings on WT:WPM, on WP:RSN and on WP:BLP/N), is going on a forum shopping spree across wikipedia. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He has now been given advice on WP:BLP policy by two administrators, User:Slrubenstein and User:Nishkid64. Hopefully the problem should now be resolved. Mathsci (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Mathsci appears to have been targeted for harassment by a variety of single-purpose, POV pushing accounts. No action is required here. Jehochman Talk 13:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, User: Jehochman's post above is not neutral. It is easy to verify that my statements above are correct. If User:Jehochman feels that it was appropriate under the circumstances for User:Mathsci to use the ethnic epithet "Indian extremist", please state so. Otherwise, I feel this is a violation of Wikipedia policies of no personal attacks.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=228393715"