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 alerts

User:Pwnage8

This user blankly reverted all my changes, that I, with some effort, had put into the Chris Pronger and National Hockey League rivalries articles. Among my changes were bypassing some redirects, unlinking dates, and merging identical references. His position - right or wrong - was that "August 3, [[2005-06 NHL season|2005]]" would be an appropriate link that should be kept. (And for that reason he reverted all my changes blankly.) My position - right or wrong - is that a calendar date obviously refers to a calendar year, not a season or a draft. Maybe this isn't the right place to resolve this dispute.

But what I object to is that he reverted all my changes, instead of - as I suggested on his talkpage - posting a (reasonably) polite message on my talkpage, explaining what he didn't feel was correct. An alternative would be that he himself re-add the specific changes that he didn't agree on. Instead he described my edits as "mistakes" and "unconstructive", and labeled me a "mindless busybody".

LarRan (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of the personal attacks? and notify the user of this alert as required. --neon white talk 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is his first revert of my edit to the "Chris Pronger" article: [1]. He reverted me once again in the same manner later the same day, but his revert has now been reverted by Orlandkurtenbach, and that version is the current one at present.

This is his first revert of my edit to the "National Hockey League rivalries" article: [2]. He reverted me once again in the same manner later the same day, and that version is the current one at present, since I don't want to engage in edit warring.

The invectives can be found on my talkpage, "Unlinking dates" section, second part. Here's the edit that added them: [3]

I have notified him now. Missed that.

LarRan (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I have not looked at the diff's related to article content: we cannot deal with that here, only incivility. I've read the entire page that you linked to related to incivility, and I have significant trouble finding what you call "invectives". The edit that you kindly provided the diff for includes the phrases "please don't engage in mindless busybodyism and ignore the details. It's up to you to go that extra mile and make the constructive change". Based on your response, I believe that this is the portion you're concerned about. Truly, this is borderline: he didn't call you "a mindless busybody", he suggestion you don't engage in "mindless busybodyism". In fact, he then went on to suggest what would make your editing better. Feel free to correct me or enhance my understanding. -t BMW c- 15:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

While I think it is useful, and would add to the article, to include a link to the seasons in the Chris Pronger article, the fact that they are dates does not make it absolutely necessary. This is why I have decided not to revert on that article again. However, the National Hockey League rivalries article uses season links to establish greater context, and should not be removed. I'm glad that LarRan has not reverted me there, and I would ask him to agree to keep the season links in that article. I don't think it should be up to me to fix the problems caused by his edits. Why did I choose to revert all his changes? As I said, I do not think I should have been the one to fix the problems caused by his changes, because I had other articles to get to in my watchlist, and because his other changes were negligible, as the targets redirect to the articles. Redirects are something I'm anal about, but in this particular case I don't think either version would be a substantial improvement for the article, and him removing the season links diminishes the quality of the article. Since he is making the changes, he should make them good changes, not drive by script-type. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You do have an obligation to at least keep or reinsert useful edits. If it was worth your time to visit and full-revert, it's worth your time to do a little help to the article. -t BMW c- 17:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note, that wikiquette alerts are not the place to continue a content dispute, do so on the relevant talk page. --neon white talk 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there has been worse behaviour than Pwnage8's, but there seems to be a pattern of him viewing himself as "presiding" over other editors' contributions, reverting others' edits at will with the comment "try again" if he does not approve of them. It (the attitude) can be seen both in his remarks on my talkpage, and on the edit summaries of his reverts. Also, other editors have recently complained on his talkpage about edit warring on dates, so this is clearly not a one-off.

Regarding his reason for full-reverts (he's got "other articles to tend to"), I think I value my time as precious as I guess he is valuing his, so that argument is invalid.

Finally, disguising invectives (albeit rather mild ones), in hypothetical expressions does not make them anything other than invectives. If that were the case, one could easily get away with "don't do this, or you're an idiot".

LarRan (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely, if there's such a "pattern" it wouldn't be too hard to provide extensive diffs? --Pwnage8 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that some of them have recently been added to your talkpage. LarRan (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Where did I revert people's changes with "try again"? --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, here? You seem to be reverting LarRan, replacing dates with old-style wiki-linked dates and changing proper-case ("Where they met in playoffs") to camel-case ("Where They Met In Playoffs").

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 07:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's already been discussed here, and that's one diff. LarRan alleges that there is a "pattern" of this happening everywhere. --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"not again" and "not again" (reverting removal of MySpace URLs). "why remove them?" (reverting removal of full-stops (periods) in an initialism). " lmao.. i'm sure it does. just about every article that isn't a GA does, but we don't see mass taggings of them" (removing a refimprove tag). "i can't believe someone tagged/removed this, considering all the ridiculous claims in this article" (reinserting an uncited claim). "how is this not notable? how are any of the other unsourced claims notable?" (...and again).

I don't know if I would agree with LarRan that there's a "pattern", but there are in a very short period a number of unhelpful edit summaries accompanying questionable reverts and edits. In particular, re-adding an uncited claim is bizarre - uncited claims can be removed at any time, and re-adding them is unhelpful. Reverting bot-edits that are consistent with MoS are unhelpful. Reverting the removal of MySpace links could be OK, but not with "not again" as an edit summary.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 08:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one: [4]. A pattern does not necessarily mean that all edits "everywhere" are unhelpful, or accompanied by questionnable edit summaries. Regular occurrences are enough to establish a pattern. LarRan (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Chris Pronger reverts have to do with linking season articles, not full stops or the like. I wrote "not again" as an edit summary because I had a lengthy discussion with Piano non troppo about official band MySpace links where he didn't address the points I made, and I was simply maintaining status quo because he didn't give a good reason for removing the links. But that's another issue entirely. Drive-by taggings are a disease, and I don't see how adding "refimprove" when it's reasonably sourced helps the article. In that case, it's much better to tag individual claims with "citation needed", although I couldn't see any that needed that. As for Rogers Centre, I didn't notice that the info that was removed was integrated into the article already. Those embedded lists have to go, and I'll be doing some work on that later on. The article does very much suffer from unsourced OR, and what I added was a factual statement. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

But you did revert the initialism, reinserting full-stops. It's already been noted above that it's incumbent upon you not to revert good parts edits, but instead correct the bad parts. That you had discussed MySpace links is great, but not at all clear to other editors - and status quo is not an acceptable reason for ignoring policy. Your views on what constitutes a disease are also not a good reason for removing tags (and you may wish to rethink your description) - particularly as one {{refimprove}} tag is often better (for readability) than peppering an article with {{fact}} tags, though I note that you didn't even do that - you simply removed the {{refimprove}} tag altogether. Not realising that an un-cited claim already exists in an article seems to me to be a bizarre reason for re-adding that claim to an article: that the article suffers from un-sourced original research is no excuse for adding yet more un-sourced original research.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having problems with him, too. The infobox on Korn had been duplicated a ton, and I accidentally removed them all, instead of all but one. He then decided to tell me that he reverted my vandalism and called me a "stupid vandal noob" (although that was my edit summary for said "vandalism" although I didn't vandalize in the least way). User:Green caterpillar came to my aid, and reminded him not to bite the newcomers (it would seem this isn't the first time, as Green dug up a lot of incidents of Pwnage biting new IPs or users.) I replied on his talk page and signed his guestbook, both edits to his pages reminding him of the "vandalism" hoax he is trying to pull. He removed my signature and comment from his userpage guestbook, which I wouldn't mind, but he called it "garbage" on my talk page and removed it saying it was vandalism, and added it to the number of times his page has been vandalized. He also called pretty much everything Green said garbage. I'm really not surprised that his name is already on this page, he is very abrasive and rude to newcomers like me. I would like to point out that I am NOT a vandal and never will be. My evidence for all of this is on my talk page, his talk page, and Green caterpillar's talk page Thanks, Winston^talk 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Winston and everyone else pretty much summed it up in my opinion. Can't think of much else at the moment. Green caterpillar (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't ignoring policy with respect to the MySpace links. We both have our own interpretations of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, and the issue hadn't been settled (and still isn't), so I was just upholding consensus (that they are allowed). I didn't put {{fact}} tags, because like I said, I didn't see any claims that needed them. Just about every article that isn't GA needs more citations, but nobody in their right mind will go out and tag them all. Agree? I fail to see how that helps the article. What I added to the Rogers Centre article is not original research and could easily be cited. I wasn't going to bother with that at that particular moment though.

Now, as for this situation with Winstonator, here's what happened... I came across the Korn article in my watchlist, and I saw an IP edit (an immediate red flag) and noticed it was vandalism (no surprise there), so I undid it.[5] Afterwards, I noticed that something was very wrong with the infobox. The image that used to be there was gone. I consulted the history, and noticed something very ironic. Winstonator's revision replaced the photo of the band with "erection development", which wasn't showing due to it being a "bad image" that is only allowed in relevant articles, and I found his edit summary quite intriguing because of this.[6] It was clear from this, that he had no idea how to revert vandalism, and I needed to consult him about the edit. I went to his talk page and added a tongue-in-cheek section about him being a "stupid vandal noob" (per his edit summary). I was expecting him to check the history and post on my talk page admitting his mistake. Two days later, I notice I have new messages from Winstonator and Green caterpillar. Out of my hundred or so edits in that timespan, Green caterpillar picked out three where he alleged I was making personal attacks and not assuming good faith. If one looks at this, I was removing an obvious bad faith edit. Also notice that I did not just revert the entire edit, but only the part that was obvious vandalism (a clever way vandals make their edits slip under the radar is to mix them with good-faith edits). This is a non-starter. And yes, when I'm accused of all these bad things in a warning template-style fashion I'm going to call it "inflammatory garbage".[7] Now, I know what's going on, so I really don't need to be bothered with this issue on my guestbook. It is not the place to post grievances about my edits. That's what the talk page is for. This is not what you do on someone's guestbook. Compare to this. Well, seeing how my post was taken the wrong way, I made a longer one explaining what he did wrong, and even gave him a link to Help:Reverting so that something like this won't happen again.[8] Today I noticed another post of his on my talk page, where he tells me to "assume good faith" and then proceeds to make bad faith accusations: "You seem to have an inflated ego, someone needs to pop that balloon. Green caterpillar is right, you're trying to make yourself look good by targeting innocent users like me."[9] You may not have wanted to vandalize, but you certainly did "f**k up the wiki", and all I wanted to do was make you aware of that. I also noticed that he posted a personal attack about me on his userpage,[10] which is a violation of the userpage policy. Per What may I not have on my user page? #10: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." I ask Winstonator to kindly remove it as soon as possible. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'll take it off my userpage. I didn't know about Wikiquette alerts so I tried to take things up on your guestbook/talk page, but then I looked here. As for the "erection devolpment" thing, I thought that was a concert picture or something, as they tend to have odd names. I could have sworn that the picture showing was the regular band picture as well. I just want you to put the "userpage vandalized" count on your userpage back to 4, as I might have attacked you, but that wasn't "vandalism". You call everything vandalism. You can't act like a victim, the sequence of events went as follows:

• I saw the problem on Korn with the duplicated infobox, and I removed them all, instead of all but one. The fault was mine, then.
• Pwnage attacked me on my talk page, and Green caterpillar on his.
• I took this to the Wikiquette alerts.

I admit that the fault was mine of not correctly removing vandalism, but one thing I will not stand for is being accused of vandalizing myself. I said some things I shouldn't have, but so did Pwnage. You look down on everyone, as if you're better. That's my problem with you. Winston^talk 20:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Whether or not you were violating policy by removing the MySpace links is moot - this is about civility. Your edit summaries for both MySpace reverts consisted of "Not again". Under the circumstances any reasonable editor would have seen a bot removing MySpace links, and an editor reinserting them with a non-descriptive, un-helpful edit summary. If I'd seen that I would have reverted you (and I note that you were, indeed, promptly reverted).
• You removed a {{refimprove}} tag without making any attempt to deal with the underlying issue because you didn't agree with the editor who inserted the {{refimprove}} tag. A civil response would have been to first discuss with the editor, or to insert {{fact}} tags where necessary and then remove the {{refimprove}} tag. You apparently did neither - you assumed the editor inserting the {{refimprove}} tag didn't know what they were doing, and simply reverted them.
• Just about every article that isn't GA needs more citations, but nobody in their right mind will go out and tag them all. Agree?

Actually, I strongly disagree. When I see an article that needs more references, I tag it. When I see a section that needs more references, I tag it. And when I see a claim that is unreferenced, I tag it. In each case I make some effort to verify the claim first. I'd add that, like your earlier reference to tags as "a disease", phrases questioning editors' sanity are unhelpful at best. Please be more civil.

• You added an uncited claim to the Rogers Centre article. If it can be, as you claim, easily cited then the correct thing to do would have been to cite it - not make a snarky edit summary about its removal. If you couldn't be bothered citing it then and there you should not have reinserted the claim - and you certainly should not have left a "How is this not notable?"-edit summary - unless you reference the claim how is any other editor to know that it's notable?
• This is not about content; I note that most of your edits seem fine in and of themselves. It's about how you deal with other editors. Those acting in good faith deserve to be treated with respect. Even trolls and vandals should be treated with courtesy per Don't Feed the Trolls - otherwise you're simply encouraging them.

Earlier you appeared to claim that you had made no reversions in which the edit summary consisted of "Try again" (Where did I revert people's changes with "try again"?). I immediately found one; another editor has found another. Edit summaries like this are precisely why I am concerned. Wikipedia is not a game; it is a collaborative attempt to build an encyclopaedia. Doing so requires courtesy and respect for other editors, and a level of discussion that transcends snarky edit summaries like "Try again", "Not again" and adding unreferenced claims with "How is this not notable?"

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've lowered the vandalism count back down to four, per Winstonator's request.

• Tagging is something that's arbitrary, and editors sometimes disagree about how and when it should be done. I did not see any reason for the tag to be there and couldn't find any claims that need sourcing. In any case, it's always helpful for the tagging editor to describe why they added the tag in the edit summary and/or talk page. It helps to avoid these types of cases.
• The Rogers Centre article needs a ton of work anyway, so anything that needs to be sourced (and there's a lot of that) can be done later. I don't see what's wrong with the edit summary. If you're going to remove that claim, then you should remove all the others because they have the same problem.
• Only two edit summaries that have "try again" in them does not constitute a pattern or problem that needs to be resolved here. I will keep it in mind however, that they are frowned upon. As for "not again", I don't really see the problem with that. I was upholding consensus, and I view Piano non troppo's MySpace removals as disruptive. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good enough for me. Thanks for taking the time to consider and discuss this, and working towards an amicable solution. Notwithstanding other editors' views, I'm happy with this outcome.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for lowering the vandalism count, I appreciate it. Winston^talk 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've decided to give my (real) two cents, now that I could think of something.

My greatest concerns are that Pwnage8 is biting the newbies and not assuming good faith. The edits I put up on his talk page that Winston described are examples where editors at least tried to help, yet were treated rudely by him, and this is the kind of behavior that drives away new editors. Everyone was new once, and if people are constantly insulted and ridiculed in the manner Pwnage8 is doing, how many will stay to edit? Probably not many, which is why I want this to stop. Green caterpillar (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, I don't like Pwnage8's apparent assumptions of bad faith and contempt of IP addresses, such as above, when he said, "and I saw an IP edit (an immediate red flag) and noticed it was vandalism (no surprise there)". Green caterpillar (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Three diffs = I bite newbies and assume bad faith? That's not assuming good faith. Although 84% of anon contribs are constructive, that still leaves 16% that aren't, which warrants every anon edit needing to be checked. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. Take it or leave it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I can bring up more if you want, and it seems that LarRan has already brought up a couple. When Winston told me about you, I thought maybe it was an isolated incident, so I looked into your contribs, and these were just some I found at the top of the stack. And apparently, yes, I think you are biting newbies and assuming bad faith, per what everyone (including me) has said. Seeing that there is a Wikiquette alert on you, I decided to look deeper, including at some more recent contribs. Here are a few:

• Unexplaned reversion of good faith edit: [11]
• Contentious edits: [12], [13] - I cannot find a single policy which says only articles are notable.
• Unnecessary newbie biting: [14], [15] - "nope" is not a valid revert justification
• and, the edits LarRan has discussed: [16], [17], which were somewhat of a violation of the reverting guidelines, where the page specifically says, "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, try to improve it", and "If only part of an edit is problematic, consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit", something which you apparently did not consider. Also, "try again" is not constructive and only serves to bite the user.

I am going to say this again. How do you think these users feel when edits they may have worked hard on are reverted with an unnecessarily harsh, unconstructive, or even no explanation? Do you think Wikipedia looks good in their eyes as a community? Probably not. This is why we have behavioral guidelines like WP:AGF and WP:BITE. I strongly recommend that you take a very good look at both of them, because many users can probably agree that you are violating them to some extent. It doesn't matter whether it's three edits or more; your editing behavior needs to change. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

On another note, this edit was not only a misinterpretation of H:RV, but calling someone a mindless busybody, as LarRan said, is a personal attack. It doesn't matter whether you phrased it differently either; according to WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Also, the wiki-cred comment on my talk page can also be considred a personal attack.

Seriously, please change your behavior. Per WP:NPA, your behavior could be enough to get you blocked already, per "...even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption". I am not just making suggestions anymore - this is a warning. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User Miranda is randomly removing legitimate references by Editor Jake Sturm

User Miranda has accused me of "spamming" because I have been adding legitimate references to the published work of author/journalist Kira Salak over the last weeks. As I have explained to her, I am adding references to works that I have read, and I have begun with the author Kira Salak. I am not "spamming" this author, I am simply adding references to Wikipedia from Salak's large resource of articles published in National Geographic and in her two books. To my knowledge, the user Miranda has not read any of the articles or books, and so has no knowledge as to whether they are legitimate or not. It would appear that she has arbitrarily decided they are not relevant and is removing them. As I explained to Miranda, these articles and references meet the critera for references according to Wikipedia guidelines. I had intended to move on and not go to the trouble of arbitrating, but then I saw that she added a comment into the Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Spamming books on Mali and other African countries) section accusing me of "spamming". I have tried every way I could to resolve this without involving administrators, but she simply refuses to stop. She has put me in a position where I can no longer add useful content to Wikipedia as she will remove it. She has also added inappropriate tags into the Kira Salak page (see discussion page for more details). She has removed entries of mine from Mali, Tripoli ‎, Leptis Magna, Huichol, Real de Catorce. She has also removed an entry that I made for West Africa when I forgot to login under IPaddress 69.202.73.21. Could you please review the references that I added, that Miranda has removed, and give a third party opinion as to their relevance. Thank you. JakeSturm (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You should first read instructions for pages before posting. Several points listed at #Procedure for this page were not met, including informing Miranda of this post. Regardless, she's not randomly removing legitimate references. You have not provided references. Please see WP:CITE as well as WP:RS. By our project standards, you are spamming. Miranda explained this to you. If you have questions about using references, feel free to ask on my talk page, but Miranda has not shown poor Wikiquette here. لennavecia 17:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this is 'spamming', spamming is done in bad faith and to accuse an editor of such is not assuming good faith. The edits by JakeSturm are clearly good faith edits that need to be sourced. Both editors need to use the talk page to discuss content disputes and to assume good faith. User:Miranda needs to be more patient, be open to compromise and help new editors rather than 'biting' them. --neon white talk 18:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a perhaps more important issue; conflict of interest. Though the credit has been removed recently, the Google cache for the official website kirasalak.com here shows "This website was created by Kira Salak and Jake Sturm". On this basis, Jake Sturm should not be directly editing material relating to Kira Salak. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read conflict of interest carefully. A conflict of interest is not the act of editing a subject one is involved with but doing so "in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups". On this point we must assume good faith. Involvement with a subject does not prohibit an editor from contributing to an article, it merely means they should be very careful, open about their involvment and accept more objective views. --neon white talk 12:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly these edits were placed to promote. Thus, spamming and COI, as is now revealed. In fact, if you read below, Jake Sturm writes, "I am fairly certain she has not read the book and has no idea as to whether it, or any of Salak's works, are relevant references." The fact remains that his addition of these books are not appropriate. They are not being used as references, rather he is simply inserting the information to advertise. Were it a reference, he would be citing specific pages to indicate precisely what information is being cited. Instead, he enjoyed the book, in the case of the Mali article, and wants others to read it as well. General references to books not used to write the article are not appropriate. لennavecia 04:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That isn't assuming good faith and that is very likely the reason why this ended up as a wikiquette alert. There is no evidence that this editor acted in bad faith. In future if you assume good faith and alert the editor to their mistakes in a helpful manner without resorting to unecessary bad faith accusations, you'll probably find communicating with editors a lot easier and less abrasive. --neon white talk 22:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate both of you responding to this. I did realize my error in including the Amazon references, which is why on my last addition to the Mali page, when I added "The Cruelest Journey" to "Additional Reading" I used the standard book tag. The author link part of the tag did not work (it displayed the link incorrectly), and so I put the author link outside of the tag. Miranda immediately removed this reference even though it was in the correct format as you suggested and is a legitimate reference for the country of Mali. She is just removing my references indiscriminately, I am fairly certain she has not read the book and has no idea as to whether it, or any of Salak's works, are relevant references. I will go back through my edits and remove any Amazon reference I put in when I have time over the next week and add in page numbers for any book references. I have tried to communicate with Miranda through her talk page, but instead of responding, she simply removes more of my entries or adds inappropriate tags to pages I have created. I did not realize that I was supposed to contact Miranda when putting the complaint on this page (though she did contact me when she put complaints about me on other pages), and I will be more careful in the future. But, I know she is monitoring every entry I make, so I am certain she is aware of it.

As for the conflict of interest entry, I will include here what I included on that page:I am a professional website designer and it is true that I did contribute to the construction of the Salak website. I found Salak's articles to be well researched, well written and informative but unfortunately, on the National Geographic webiste, only the first few paragraphs of most of her articles are available to readers. There was no place on or off the Internet to find the entire articles. As I believed that the articles should be available to the general public, as they are good references, I suggested that they be put on her website and I would assist her with this. Thank you for alerting me that my email link on the bottom of the Salak homepage was missing, I have reinserted it.JakeSturm (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you can provide the diff of this edit, secondly, if the articles on the webiste have been previously published in national geogaphic then it is acceptable to use them as sources and link to the full articles for verfiablity. --neon white talk 13:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. I don't see how she can be considered as a scholar if she visited Mali and took notes on people. Can "John Doe" go to Mali and take notes on the Malians and have his opinion placed on here by an associate who is closely identified with the author? No. We are promoting scholarly articles on a scholarly topic. I suggest to you, neonwhite, to take an article related to a place, country, and/or topic which has significant core value to the world, and add scholarly referenced material, instead of using one person's opinion, who has no scholarly knowledge on the field, and use that person's "knowledge" as a major source on this article. I suggest all parties re-read section 2 of RS. Thanks. miranda 00:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If John Doe has his work published by a reputable publisher (i.e. not a vanity press) then yes. Sourcing is not limited to academic sources as the term is purely subjective. Anyone doing a study can be called an academic. Wikipedia sourcing is based on verifiablity, editor's should not make personal decisions on whether they think sources are 'scholarly' enough. This is not policy here. It is not being used as a major source on the article and the .WP:RS is a guideline only (and a heavily disputed one. However, considering that you appear to be thoroughly familiar with it, you cannot have failed to noticed the line which clearly states "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications". Any article published by National Geographic passes all wikipedia standards by a mile. This isn't the first time you have misrepresented this policy. For now i will assume good faith and deem that you have not followed your own advice and re-read the guideline. I ask you again to step back and consider this objectively rather than allowing personal feelings about another editor to cloud your judgment. --neon white talk 21:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I agree with Jennavecia and Miranda. Whether the edits are good faith or not, and the sources reliable or not, Jake Sturm now has a disclosed conflict of interest - see WP:COIN#Kira Salak - and should not be making the call about inclusion.

I also agree with the argument that we should seek references that maximise accepted reliability. Reliability isn't just a binary issue (unreliable vs. reliable for all purposes); "horses for courses" applies. If we want a source about hands-on exploration, Kira Salak is an excellent source. But if we want one about, say, ancient history of a region, a scholarly source from someone with a reputation as a historian is much preferable. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Goodmorningworld

Resolved

 – Complainant unfortunately misread humour not directed at them. And the perp apologizes.

This user made this baiting comment[[18]] on a discussion about John Wilkes Booth. The comment doesn't seem troubling until one notices the striken out sentence at the end. That was perplexing since, 1. I'm male. and 2. That user had never commented on this discsuion before. I did not have any reason to believe that that user and I had ever crossed paths before, until I remembered that I made a comment here [[19]] on the ANI page a few days ago. I did not add anything further to the discussion, nor did I think that I was offending anyone. Apparently that user did not like my comment. Most likely using my edit history, he followed me to another discussion to take an opposite side. Although not exactly against policy, since wikipedia is open to all, his reasons for doing so seem vexing, based on the final striken line.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, that depends on who Ms Hutton is? A user? An outing of a user? A historical figure related to the article? Some other cultural reference? It was stricken out by the user because you're NOT supposed to delete comments from Talk pages - it appears he thought twice about his post already. -t BMW c- 11:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

GMW added it with the comment struck out to begin with, so it's not that he/she added it and then thought better of it... it appears GMW decided to put in something that he/she felt was maybe a bit cheeky or naughty, and to indicate awareness of such with the strikeout.

If it was an attempted WP:OUTING, it appears to have failed, since you indicate GMW got yer gender wrong :D I was expecting to find a Booth scholar with the name of Jo Hutton or something, which would explain the case of mistaken identity, but nada. The few "Jo Hutton"s that are out on the web, I have no idea why anyone would say "Eureka! That must be the person editing the John Wilkes Booth article!" So I'm kinda scratching my head...

Have you contacted GMW for an explanation of the comment? --Jaysweet (talk)

I have not had any contact with that editor. I decided that it may be best to just not say anything at all. I did this so that the situation would not get worse, but if you are recommending that I do contact that editor then I will.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is my bad. First, I failed to notice that the complainant did not try and resolve the supposed issue with the other editor (always the first step). Next, I did not notice that the complainant did not notify the other editor of this WQA complaint. As per the rest of the commentary, it appears that there was no incivility by any means. Marked closed -t BMW c- 12:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Umm, other than that how was the play Mrs Lincoln ring a bell? User was trying to make a funny. And indeed I laughed. Actually, its appearance here on WQA is pretty funny too. Eusebeus (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry!!

I had a hunch that I should be looking for something like this, and sure enough... I knew that it was in somewhat questionable taste, that's why the strikethrough and the picture of me with a band-aid covering my mouth (3x). It was nothing at all to do with Jojhutton's comment on a recent AN/I thread, I did not follow him around, I got to the Booth page via the Fringe Theories Noticeboard where I commented on Nov 11 (diff) , whereas Jojhutton's comment on the AN/I thread came a day later ([20]), also I found his comment there totally unobjectionable. I also apologize to the descendants of President and Ms. Lincoln. It won't happen again, I promise.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Calendar pages

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Editor is taking it to WT:DAYS

I am having a problem with the Calendar pages. The thing is on the page September 11, there are four items on the intro part, especially as one might expect, the WTC bombing. I place some important events on other pages, such as December 7 being Pearl Harbor, June 6 D-Day, etc. Another user has started reverting this. To my mind, we have to be consistent. Either we have intros, or we do not.

Comments please.

Wallie (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wallie ... as this really doesn't fall under the category of "incivility", I'm not sure what we can do in this forum. If you want to give me some better article examples on my talkpage, I'll have a look -t BMW c- 17:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to prevent it from coming to this stage (of incivility). Wallie (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Verbal removed my questions from his talk page

Resolved

User:Verbal had put a lot of alerts onto my talk page, but did not answer my questions about this his action. I also asked him to help me to understand his point of view. Than I wrote this message on his talk page but he deleted this my message. Is it civil Wiki work?--Tim32 (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to give Tim details of my publications. I have given him advice on various talk pages (specifically to start an RfC about his failure to accept consensus on the Graph isomorphism article). Removing messages means I've read them. I have not been uncivil in response to this users hounding. Note that this is a user who previously here called (update: or at least strongly implied that, see link below) an established editor of good standing a "racist" because he said some Russian journals during the cold war are not reliable sources. Verbal chat 16:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Where I wrote "racist"? Give a link, please!--Tim32 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

About publications by Verbal. Yes, I asked his to help me to understand his point of view. I wrote in GI talk page: "There is no attack. However, if you have printed any paper about GI problem or about graph's applications, please, give me a link - perhaps, it will help me to understand your point of view. For example, this paper helps me to understand some passages by David Eppstein. Thanks! --Tim32 (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)" Is it forbidden to ask help?--Tim32 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Racism allegations: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive52#Arthur Rubin. I will only respond on the article talk page to article related discussions. Verbal chat 19:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC) (link corrected [53/52] Verbal chat 19:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Your link does not work! Cite, please. I know I did not write "racist", moreover I wrote: "Very important to note, if I said that somebody words look like racism, then it did not mean that I think that he/she is racist, moreover, I do not think that somebody here is racist, I do hope that he or she does not understand his/her words, and does not understand why these words are so insulted for me." (Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive52#Arthur Rubin)--Tim32 (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Users can remove whatever they like from their own talk pages. Dismissing this alert without prejudice. --neon white talk 21:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

So, can I remove the alerts of Verbal from my talk page? Than he will set the same alerts and I will remove it again... But at the same time he must not answer my question why he did it. Very absurd strategy.--Tim32 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the individual to manage his/her own talk page as he/she chooses. If a user removes an alert or warning we assume it is recieved and read. It shouldn't be replaced. No editor is obliged to answer any personal talk page messages or questions. If you are involved in a content dispute use the article talk page to discuss it and dispute resolution is a consensus cannot be reached. --neon white talk 01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So, somebody can put a lot of alerts onto my talk page, but nobody is obliged to answer any question about. Is it right?--Tim32 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Verbal wrote here about me: "Note that this is a user who previously here called an established editor of good standing a "racist"", but he seem is not obliged to answer my question: where I wrote it. Is it right?--Tim32 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As i said no editor is obligated to answer any questions. It's their choice to either involve themselves in discussions or not. We cannot force anyone to. However if you feel that an editor is misusing templates then that would be an issue for here. Previous alerts have nothing to do with this one. --neon white talk 03:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well !! As you said: no editor is obligated to answer any questions. In this section Verbal wrote here about me: "Note that this is a user who previously here called an established editor of good standing a "racist"", but he seem is not obliged to answer my question: where I wrote it. So, for example, may I say that you called me a "racist"", and I would not be not obliged to answer any of your question? Or, for example, may I wrote that you are "racist" etc.? It would be absurd anyhow! --Tim32 (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As an editor, you can say whatever you like. As an admin, I have the technical ability to block you from editing. Other users have the ability to remove my admin tools. We are all of us free to act, and accountable for our actions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well !! As an editor, Verbal can say whatever he likes. As an admin, Verbal has the technical ability to block me from editing. Wow!!! --Tim32 (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. Let me try to put it more simply: On Wikipedia, we are not obliged to do anything, but we are held responsible for what we do choose to do. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Actually i may not have been correct here as Wikipedia:Etiquette lists "Do not ignore questions. If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate." as a principle of Wikipedia etiquette. --neon white talk 21:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This really isn't getting us anywhere. I'm not going to reply to questions about myself if I don't want to. I have already give Tim my advice about how to proceed on the article. This alert is down to Tim misunderstanding what removal of comments from talk pages means. I have fixed the reference above, which was an answer to a question, but it is irrelevant anyway. I'm sorry that everyone's time here is being wasted. I would like Tim to stop arguing from authority and questioning others credentials, and just to present reliable sources and justifications for his arguments, and if they fail to gain consensus create an RfC if he is unsatisfied. I should have ignored his initial post here, so sorry for not doing that. Verbal chat 21:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In my talk page you wrote: "This discussion isn't good for the project, so I suggest we stop it. I note now that you said Rasism not racist. Verbal chat 21:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)" So, I uderstand this as you are sorry for this your Defamation here "Note that this is a user who previously here called (update: or at least strongly implied that, see link below) an established editor of good standing a "racist"". However, you still did not answer why you had put a lot of alerts onto my talk page, one of them because I asked your help to understand your point of view. I agree that it looks like time wasted, but you, not me, selected this way: to put non reasonable alerts, defamation, keeping silence and so on. Perhaps, you will stop this practice in future? because such your actions obviously are not good for the project! Also, if you can say something useful for Graph isomorphism article, then, please, go on talking about the subject on this talk page, not about me... For example, in your alert you wrote "You haven't proved anything on this page" -- do you understand that you have to prove this statement, otherwise without strong reasons, this your statement is invalid, it is noice (and time wasted) only in GI talk page?--Tim32 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Can this be achieved please? It might diffuse this situation. Verbal chat 08:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Daphne-3 and her behavior

Resolved

 – The only Wikiquette issue I see here is the bogus sockpuppet case opened by Willking1979 --Jaysweet (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Daphne-3 has been questioning my intelligence and has been lying about my behavior. Here is my comment on the sockpuppetry page about Teleology:

• Just because it is a verifiable edit does not mean it is good for Wikipedia.

And here is what she said about me on the bottom of Talk:Teleology:

• In a subsequent exchange, the person "monitoring" this page explained that he deleted my edits because they were based on "personal opinion" and were not "good for Wikipedia".

The truth: the first quote was not necessarily about Daphne-3's edits. I was the one that reported the case, which is still open. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daphne-3 for more info. Notice that she has neglected to sign her own comments on many occasions.

Please investigate this ASAP. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is the incivility here? Can we have some diffs? --neon white talk 01:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through all of Daphne-3's talk space contribs, and I see no civility violations whatsoever. She appears to be critical of the Wiki concept, but that's just fine. She could probably use a little bit of coaching about the difference between truth and verifiability, but so could a lot of other new editors.

The only uncouth thing I see here is Willking1979's bogus sockpuppetry report. Daphne-3 was editing from an IP, then chose to register. She did not at any time attempt to conceal this. That is not sockpuppetry by any stretch of the imagination. I would caution Willking1979 to be careful of wikilawyering to gain leverage in a content dispute. It ain't gonna work.

Marking as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

/* User:AvatarMN*/

I am concerned about this person's comments about LGBT issues in Talk with other users. Perhaps I am incorrect, but there seems to be some personal attacks going on with this issue and several others in Talk pages. I also wonder about their motives and reasoning in editing others work, but that's a different issue. May I please ask that someone look at their Talk contributions, and let them know if they need to change their behavior? I don't really need an answer. Remaining anonymous as I do not want to be the target of this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.141.198 (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of personal attacks and also notify the user of this alert? --neon white talk 17:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we definitely need diffs. I did a spot-check of the user's contribs and found nothing untowards. (That doesn't mean there isn't a problem, it just means that in 90 seconds or so of poking around I couldn't find anything wrong) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User :Alex contributing from L.A.

Resolved

 – Seems resolved. See also ANI thread. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User :Alex contributing from L.A., a Romanian user who only cares for the Romanian etymology, is definitly uncivil.

He wrote:

No dickface, it's from Hungarian, then from Romanian, then from Latin. This is seen in the way the word changed forms. A is putting the smack down (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC) 14:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC) at [21]

Whenever there is a disagreement or a misunderstanding whith this guy, he will insult people.

Later he made some other changes and wrote in the edit summary, being uncivil again:

(what is confusing? are you a dingbat? the German word is directly from Czech, not from Hungarian. The Czech word is from Hungarian, the Hungarian word from Romanian etc. It is linear) (undo) at [22][[23]].

(His information is not entirely sure, because I also checked the word Palachinke’s (Austrian pancake) etymology, and the German etymology website states the following:

(sind was K.undK.-Österreichisch-Ungarisches. Der Name kommt aus von ung. 'palacsinta', das seinerseits den Umweg über Rumänisch und lat. 'placenta')

wich means translated that the word has a Hungarian origin, not Czech.

I am tired about uncivil editors who make Wikipedia into an unpleasant place to edit, and do so for many people I know or got in contact with. Discussing things whit people who use insults is not nice.

His personal interests and editing style after editing an article, often makes the article hard to read and understand, for other contributors and other readers.

For examle: the article looking like this [24] and after his edits looking like this [25], where the article has no lead section any more, which would explain what Palachinke is. It is also possible that he uses several accounts. (like user:Bogdangiusca)

Warrington (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note we cannot resolve content disputes here. You can use dispute resolution for that. There is clear evidence of some personal attacks and incivility by this user so i have posted a reminder about policy on personal attacks. Also remember to inform the user of the alert. --neon white talk 19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not want that you should resolve the content dispute. That was a minor problem, which probably could have been solved, if discussed in a civil way. His incivility was the issue. If you reminded him about that than I am very thankful for that. I find his behavior really unpleasant and disturbing. Thank you.

Warrington (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This user seems familiar. I wonder is he is the same person as user:Decius, user:Alexandru, User:Alexander 007, and User:Winona Gone Shopping (there's a confusing sequence of name changes, socks, page moves and deletions). If so, the user has been blocked indefinitely for incivility. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

On further research, it is apparent that this is the same user who's already blocked indefinitely. I've blocked the new account. If anyone sees a new incarnation please alert me or another admin. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If I make those clarifying changes I made before in the Palatschinken article and a new user will revert it or change it, than that user will probably be him again. (The change is by no means incorrect, it was just disturbing him for some reason, probably because I edited his edits.)

Warrington (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Manipulation and Editing Control: Alastairward (talk · contribs)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Please reach consensus on article talkpage

The archive can be found here. I guess out of all reactions presented in this discussion, Anthony Cargile's points that he is clearly the only person that truly understands South Park and its cultural influence on the general public. One of the cornerstones of Trey and Matt's sense of humor is poking fun at those who need guidance to understand the obvious. I'm not going to back up my "speculations" with any cites right now - this is not what this post is about. As I already wrote to one of Alastairward's accomplices, it would take a Tibetan monk not to recognize Michael Jackson in The Jeffersons or Sally Struthers being Jabba the Hutt in Starvin' Marvin in Space. As Anthony stated numerous times, this information is vital to South Park fans and removing it hinders everything South Park stands for, as far as the fans (without whom there is no South Park) are concerned. Therefore, I firmly believe that the sentence "rules were meant to be broken" applies here. The "no original research" ground rule exists to prevent ridiculous crackpot theories from being included in WP articles. However, if it looks like a duck... you know. Some things are universally recognized, which is a cite for itself. Moreover, parodies do not really need citation as they were meant to mock a certain piece of artwork by mimicking elements - which are, again, universally recognized and therefore, constitute a cite for themselves. I would like a response from an administrator, since users such as Alastairward are much like a cop that would fine a ragged beggar for jaywalking and arrest him if his loose change is insufficient to cover the ticket, using "reasonable violence" if needed. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Checking the archive linked to above I quote, (neon white) "Alastairward's edits seem to be in good faith so i fail to see an etiquette issue here. It's a content dispute use the dispute resolution."

Further to that (and if you really want to bore yourself silly) you can read another Admin's comments here. The Admin overlooking the article's talk page at that time didn't see a problem with what I was doing either.

NotAnotherAliGFan and I were both blocked for 24hrs after an edit war broke out over the article About Last Night... (South Park). After that, I consulted an Admin and went with their suggestion that I try a third party to give a point of view and ask NotAnotherAliGFan to discuss the issue. They (AliGFan) haven't really done that, I'd be happy to discuss this here if it's appropriate. Alastairward (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tried discussing, but you seem to duck my main question in an utmost professional manner. I await your response - you know perfectly well what I am talking about. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left links to wikipolicies and my own points of view on our talk pages and on the talk pages of the articles of which you disagree with my editing. But since we're here on the Wikiquette page, why don't you point out what you want me to stop doing and why you think I should stop it.

"Some things are universally recognized, which is a cite for itself. Moreover, parodies do not really need citation as they were meant to mock a certain piece of artwork by mimicking elements - which are, again, universally recognized and therefore, constitute a cite for themselves." An Admin disagreed with this, having sought advice from Jimbo Wales and other Admins.

Since I have nothing to answer for here, I'm wondering what the point of this nomination of sort is. Is there a specific question you have in mind? All your accusation was based on was the point of view of another user. Alastairward (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's take one step at a time. Please supply a simple yes/no answer as for the Michael Jackson and Jabba the Hutt issues. I'm urging you to be honest - remember, no playing dumb... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You have asked me not to "play dumb" and linked that to WP:Civility. Does that mean that if I disagree with you I am not being civil? I think you misunderstand that policy.

In any case, what you seem to be suggesting (that you have seen two characters in two different shows and believe one to be a reference to the other) goes against WP:SYNTH unless you have a cite to show the intent of the show's creators. Alastairward (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is still not an answer - you seem to have invented the Chewbacca defense! NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignoratio elenchi; "presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question".

Please explain why this does not address this issue. WP:SYNTH advises against the suggestion you make. If you'd like a specific quote; "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article".

You suggest something basic along those lines, two characters appear (in your opinion) similar, therefore one must refer to the other. I disagree, as the onus is on you to prove what you assert, as suggested in WP:PROVEIT.

I'd also like to know why I am accused of manipulating and editing articles, isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Alastairward (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a parrot, please don't make me repeat my question. Just try giving a simple, honest answer. Re-read my original post and find the question, as I'm already starting to grow tired of asking. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have given a simple honest answer, with my point of view, WP:Policies I have read stated and a link to some opinions given by Admins.

If you are tired of asking, why do so? Why did you open this discussion here in this part of Wikipedia? What Wikiquette have I broken?

To counterbalance things, do you see any WP:Policies I have gone against, any that might apply to support your argument? Alastairward (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, as you wish. I was asking if "it would take a Tibetan monk not to recognize Michael Jackson in The Jeffersons or Sally Struthers being Jabba the Hutt in Starvin' Marvin in Space" makes sense to you. By the way, I've backed up Jabba the Hutt by finding a reference on Comedy Central's website - I hope Your Majesty approves... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Strangest thing, that article has been tagged since Feb 2008 for not having adequate cites. And yet it's only now, that you're trying to put me on the spot for asking for a cite, that you come up with one yourself. Hey, I don't mind, if it gets you to cite something, let's continue!

I don't mind saying I have a fondness for the geeky references in South Park, not one bit. I can laugh at them as much as anyone else. Thing is, if you want to share them on Wikipedia, you must be able (and ideally willing) to provide a verifiable source for that information. It tells you so just above the edit summary box each time you go to add or take away something.

So, not a perfect cite, but a heck of a lot better than adding and running. Now, have you got one for the Jeffersons? Alastairward (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow... even Comedy Central, the company that owns South Park's franchise, is "not a perfect cite" for you. Additionally, I've found a cite for Michael Jackson on IMDb. Still, it is not the issue - why do you keep failing to admit the obvious? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, without getting into the merits of the debate, I can say that this is not a wikiquette issue (although I note that NotAliGFan's tone is descending into regrettable snideness (I hope Your Majesty approves) which he would be best advised to curtail). You should take this back to the talk page of the article in question. You may find it agreeable to try some kind of informal dispute resolution or post this at the South Park project for more eyeballs. Either way, this is not an appropriate venue and comes across, unintentionally although it may be, as forum shopping. Eusebeus (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User restores unsourced claims in an article, does not explain and reverts "disputed" tag

Hiberniantears restores controversial information in article Roman consul [26], which has been tagged for lack of reference since at least July 2007 and does not explain his edits. He also removed a "disputed" tag from the article [27]. He accused me in vandalism, sockpuppetry and placed a "last warning" on my talk page [28], accusing me in "original research", so I think he will block me if I make any edit on the topic of Roman consuls. I requested a third opinion and another user fully supported [29] my cause. This was not very helpful though. --Dojarca (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly notify the user. The last warning is claearly inappropriate, it should not be issued until other warnings have failed. After reviewing the discussions on the page. I recommend Hiberniantears be reminded of the core polices of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:CONSENSUS and the principle of assuming good faith. It doesnt seem the user has much respect for any of them. Also recommend that all parties continue the discussion and dispute resolution and do not edit the article until a consensus is reached. The third opinion has remarked on the etiquette issues and i suggest that they should continue to 'mediate' things. --neon white talk 02:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

He's a sock who just enjoys playing various editors off against each other. See User:Certh. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the case? --neon white talk 13:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not filed a case because it was obvious and that is the one point that both Dojarca (currently) and Certh (in October) have not argued with. Were it untrue, I would suspect one of them would have raised the issue. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What about User:Certh? The general policy with accusations of sockpuppetry is, to put it bluntly, "put up or shut up". To put it more tactfully, you are expected to substantiate any claims of sockpuppetry or trolling that you may make, rather than throwing around accusations. In many circumstances, it is appropriate to withhold labelling of sockpuppetry and/or trolling, even though you may feel such accusations are justified. In these circumstances, it appears to be an assumption of bad faith on the part of the person who you are accusing, and we do try to avoid those. Comment on the content, and not on the contributor. — Werdna • talk 10:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith?! You guys are getting tooled on by this guy. If I'm a bad admin for not letting an editor try to reestablish the Western Roman Empire in the middle ages, than this place is a joke. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Although this is not really the place to discuss content disputes, it seems to me that Dojarca is backing up facts with sources and attempting to discuss this properly whereas you are stating a personal opinion that you believe to be true without backing it up with sources. As you well know this is not how wikipedia is sourced and i don't need to point to the quote concerning "'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information" by Jimmy Wales on WP:V. Please remember that there is no 'truth' when it comes to historical events, there are only theories and often they will disagree and change over time so we must represent all views equally and in proportion. It may well be the case that something you learnt as the 'truth' years ago may not now be the consensus amongst historians. The third opinion has also seem to agree with this. --neon white talk 13:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny. I've only removed uncited (and incorrect) claims, and you accuse me in "re-establishing Roman empire". Very funny.--Dojarca (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct Dojarca that this is extremely funny. It is largely why Wikipedia isn't taken very seriously in the academic world. You did not just remove unsourced material. You removed material that is unsourced because it is commonly accepted and replaced it with an alternate view of history which is entirely valid and open for debate, but which is supported by sources that only work when taken out of context. I first encountered this issue over the summer when the subjects of a large number of articles on nobility in Medieval Italy started entering the ranks of the ancient and defunct cursus honorum. Now, I understand that an extreme take on policy guidelines means that all unsourced material can be yanked and replaced with sourced content. However, if the new "sourced" content contradicts the views of mainstream history, I do not believe that I, acting in the role of an administrator, am out of line for trying to enforce the status quo in an article when edits are made that I know to be tendentious. In October a number of neutral editors weighed in on the topic and gave constructive suggestions which were incorporated into a variety of articles related to the debate surrounding the parameters of a "Roman consul" versus a "consul" who happens to be in Rome. That was in the debate with User:Certh, who based on a very casual review of editing topics, content, style, and method will demonstrate is an obvious sock of Dojarca. Dojarca stayed out of the debate over October, and in fact did not edit until Certh got himself blocked for some bizarre edits to John McCain. Later that day, Dajorca came back, waited a bit, and then jumped back into the Certh style of editing. Yesterday, in a belated spirit of good faith for an obvious sockpuppet, I even left a note at the Wikiproject for Classical Greece and Rome requesting the opinions of editors more expert than I am. I am wholly cognizant that the Byzantine Empire is in fact the Eastern Roman Empire, and that this fact is the connection Dojarca and Certh are using to indicate that various people in the middle ages are Roman Consuls. As I argued, and as other editors also agreed throughout October, these "Roman Consuls" are something different than the office of "Roman Consul" that is described in the Roman Consul article, which is a part of the Cursus Honorum. There may be a factual cut off earlier than what even I have suggested as the offices of the Roman Republic were neutralized by the Principate. However, people that were declared Hypatus during the Byzantine era, or who were proclaimed, or claimed the title of, "Consul" while living in Medieval Rome are not part of the continuity of the title as it relates to the Cursus Honorum. I am open to debate on where to draw the line, and am actively seeking the facts. With all of this in mind the short term solution is not to create an alternative history of Late Antiquity, nor is it to take pot shots (some of which are surprisingly personal from people with whom I have had no prior interaction) at me for defending the status quo view of history found in any reputable source. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing unsourced info is not an 'extreme take on policy', it's a fundamental part of verifiability policy. "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source", "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". --neon white talk 21:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And I have since removed it. Once again, I will point out that that line of text is not what this issue is actually about. It just happens to be that I reverted to a version with that line. It was not my content. I did not add it. I simply caused it to go back into the article whilst rolling back the content which is actually at the heart of this issue; what constitutes a Roman Consul. Admitting my mistake, I have removed it. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Provide a source that "modern history" believes that after 476 (or 480) only one consul was appointed each year as yiou claim. As I know (and as say sources), modern history believes just an opposite thing: for most years until the reign of Justinian there were two consuls, and Decius Paulinus Iunior was the last consul in the West. Or in your view Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius is something different than Roman consul? This is original research. If you believe it, you'd need not only change this article, but also many other articles in Wikipedia to push your claim. There are many sources that he was a Roman consul of 510 and himself wrote a book about life of Roman consuls. His sons were co-consuls in 522. Learn history first.--Dojarca (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not the argument here. Nor are any of the other "provide a source why you think x y or z" responses you make to every reasonable explanation I make. The problem is your definition of Roman Consul, not whether people had the title, or how many there were at any given time. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You insert the controversial passage, not me. Can you provide ANY source that after 476 there was only one consul each year? I already gave you many sources that there were two consuls.--Dojarca (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at this list of consuls for example: [30]--Dojarca (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this is not the place to resolve content disputes, this is for commenting on etiquette issues and incivility. There may be serious problems with Hiberniantears's arguments but that is an issue for dispute resolution. All we can really do here to ask that Hiberniantears respects the consensus when it is established and the third opinion already given on the talk page. --neon white talk 21:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved

Not resolved at all. This issue now also entails the total lack of civility shown to me by Werdna and Neon White. If you are going to just relentlessly criticize my actions take the time to educate yourself on the larger issue being discussed. The sockpuppet issues are central to this problem, as is the fact that this has been going on since October. My reversion of the article was just back to another version; neither my version, nor my preferred version, just one that is less fantastical. My actions over the past months, which you are so clearly ignorant of will demonstrate that I have sought a better definition of how to historically discuss Roman Consuls. In fact, despite your disrespect here, I am still seeking additional editors to weigh in on that discussion. Even more in fact, I have previously asked for a neutral admin to step in and help out, a request which went without answer. Werdna was a driveby, and I can overlook that, but I take serious exception to the attitude shown by Neon White. Consistently dismissing my explanation while passive aggressively discussing my actions as though I am not present in this thread are contemptible. I am uncertain if you were just getting your rocks off pushing me around, or if you actually believe that you are setting an example of "Wikiquette" that is better than my own. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa now, please read the top of the page where it says "If you're filing a report to complain about a WQA editor who responded to a previous WQA alert, please stop now, and think. If you were contacted by a WQA volunteer based on a previously filed alert, they were acting as a neutral third party and probably have no interest in personally entering into a dispute with you." ►BMW◄ 22:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We cannot resolve content disputes here, so there is nothing more to say really. Persue dispute resolution. --neon white talk 23:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Decline the opportunity to apologize. Agree to take it elsewhere, as I had originally suggested. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts are for the purpose of commenting on difficult communications with an editor. Your allegations of sockpuppetry seem to be a major part of the difficulty (which is now being compounded by personal attacks on the commenting editors). You really need to either post a sockpuppet alert and resolve the matter or assume good faith. You cannot continue to throw around allegations of sockpuppetry and refuse to discuss a dispute properly. "seeking additional editors to weigh in on that discussion" is a bad idea and may be interpreted as canvassing. Dispute resolution is underway with a third opinion already offered. Continue to persue dispute resolution. --neon white talk 23:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Still haven't done the background reading, have you? Hiberniantears (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No background is needed, we have all the necessary info concerning this alert. It is a concern that so far you have expressed no interest in improving the civility points mentioned. --neon white talk 04:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is it polite to use such expressions in edit summaries: throwing Dojarca a bone.'[31]. Am I a dog or something?--Dojarca (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: To throw a bone is an idiom for an altruistic act for a colleague's benefit. I'm not convinced the cited edit summary was intended to be offensive. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It was not meant offensively. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:TehFreezer

Resolved

 – User was blocked 24 hours. If it starts again, warn and then consider reporting to WP:AIV. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lazylaces&oldid=252461114. Lazylaces (Talk to me 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't so much a "Wikiquette" problem as it is outright vandalism of your user page. The user was blocked for 24 hours shortly after the edits in question (I personally would have blocked for longer if I were an admin, but hey, what do I know) so this is more or less resolved.

If this user pesters you again, issue a "final warning" to his talk page and then report it to WP:AIV. In cases of blatant vandalism like this, you can get a much faster response by posting to WP:AIV. Thanks, and good luck! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

user:Theplaintruth

Resolved

 – User is clearly a revenge sock, but he/she only made one edit. It is up to Magnificient Clean-keeper whether he wants to report the sock.

What to do with such [32] behavior? I don't even know what edit and talk page s/he is referring to since I didn't make any edit that would fit in his/her criteria. FYI, the Youtube link is about Obama and taxes.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Egads, what a piece of work. Well, since that was the user's only edit, you can probably ignore it. You could also consider reporting to WP:SSP, since the user is clearly a sockpuppet being used in order to threaten you.

Do you have any idea whose edit you reverted? The reason I ask is because the user's main account should be blocked too for abusing multiple accounts.. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I couldn't care less about those kind of "editors" while on the other hand, who knows what else s/he is doing. By now I have a clue who it could be and will search a bit around (with more time on hand). If I find him/her I might go to the "hassle" and file a report. Again, thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

user:Eklir

I tried and failed to explain user:Eklir that his actions against some fellow editors are causing more harm than justified, and on course it turned out that he insists to have a right to remove content from other people's talk page at his will, namely he declared that he is going to remove any non-english comment from the talk page of the editors he opposes [33] [34] [35] (user:Doncsecz and user:MagyarTürk seem to be in this set). Discussions (history is broken because they were copied 3 times by him): here. His actions are clearly violating the user page policy and not meet any reason to intervene based on Talk_page_guidelines (especially the section on user talk pages). I am not sure he is not involved in stalking, but I do not want to judge him in this way. I repeatedly requested difflinks to support his allegiations which he neglected to provide. I would like to know, however, who is right, and since I strongly believe that it is wrong to mess with other users talk page without explicite request to do so (and in this case the opposite is true, as he was asked to stop it) I'd like to persuade him to stop these actions immediately and avoid them in the future, and maybe stop reverting edits of the editors in question without inviting neutral third parties in the discussion. Thanks for your insights. --grin ✎ 21:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It is true that users are asked to communicate in English only: Transparency is critical to the Wiki concept, and since this is English Wikipedia, communicating in another language means that your conversation is now secret from the vast majority of Wikipedians.

Whether Eklir's actions are justified or not depends a whole lot on context. If the users in question have been disruptive, colluded during edit warring for example, and they have been asked politely to communicate in English and consistently refused, Eklir's unilateral removal could be justified. Do you know if there has been a dialog about it at all? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)