User talk:Squinge

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Squinge. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. My name is Howicus, and I've been an editor here for some time. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

If you're working on creating a new article, you should take a look at this page on your first article. Also, this page has instructions on how to cite sources, complete with videos.

If all this Wikicode is a little overwhelming, WP:Cheatsheet may help untangle it.

If you're looking for a tutorial of sorts, The Wikipedia Adventure is a good option.

And if you need more help, I'd recommend getting live help at the Wikipedia help chat channel: click here to join. Additionally, you could ask me on my talk page, try the Teahouse (a help page for new users) or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, welcome, and have fun editing! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Squinge (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Squinge, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Chamith (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Squinge (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Beintehaa has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Beintehaa was changed by Squinge (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.959689 on 2014-11-22T22:07:37+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a false positive, but the page to report it just gave me a screen full of programming errors. Squinge (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New message

I will change my changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hs17596 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you will STOP your changes. Squinge (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting consecutive edits

To revert consecutive edits more quickly, you can compare last good and last bad versions and then click "Undo". It does not make a pre-generated undo summary, so you can write in there something like "Revert consecutive edits by Example (talk)", followed by a summary. Also, you can try Twinkle or other anti-vandalism tools, or prove yourself worthy of rollback flag. Thanks! --Nick the Red³⁷ (Talk | Contribs) 13:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks - I actually have a multiple-undo in the history, but I had no idea how I had managed it :-). It looks like I need to be autoconfirmed to use Twinkle, so I'll try that in another day or so. I've also reported the vandal at WP:ANI, because there hasn't been any response at WP:AIV for several hours. Squinge (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that vandal stopped - there is no edits for almost 15 minutes, even if that user is not blocked yet. --Nick the Red³⁷ (Talk | Contribs) 14:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe eased off for now, but he's been doing it for days so I'm sure he'll be back. Thanks for your help. Squinge (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And he's blocked now. Squinge (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm Owais Khursheed. I noticed that you removed a PROD, from Asadhya Aliya, and I wanted to let you know that I have replaced it. Please don't remove these PRODs from articles unless they contain at least one reliable source or were created before 18 March 2010. If you oppose the deletion of an article under this process, please consider adding reliable sources to the article or commenting at the respective talk page. Thank you. Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 12:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was *NOT* a BLP PROD it was an ordinary PROD, and the article is about a film and not a person. All I need to do to contest a PROD is remove it, and you are not allowed to reinstate it - if you disagree then you need to go to WP:AfD. I will re-remove the PROD and if you reinstate it I will seek admin assistance at WP:ANI. Squinge (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i have not said that it was a BLP PROD, plz see the text above. TW has option of only BLP PROD but I changed the text the immediately. Thanks Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 13:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you forgot to wipe some more nonsense from the above.[1] Your message read "don't remove these PRODs from articles unless they contain at least one reliable source or were created before 18 March 2010", anyone who has spent 3 hours in patrolling new articles would know that you are referring to the article about a living person that has no citations. It is almost necessary to add citations on the article about a living person, but not any other subject. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle does not only have the option of BLP PROD, it actually offers both PROD and BLP PROD, and your reasoning was not applicable to ordinary PROD. Squinge (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROLLBACK

Squinge, I added rollback to your account; given the kind of edits you make, you look like you could use it, but please do look at the policy linked above and use it appropriate. You will find it a powerful and helpful tool. Now, a few other things, if you don't mind. I noted your "Have you heard of collaboration?" comment, addressed at ANI to PamD: please don't talk like that to a long-time user in good standing, like she is: I am sure she has heard of "collaboration". Also, I saw a couple of reverts you made to editors with names like "Thepowerofpoop" and "Ginger69"--I have blocked both editors, the first because of the user name and their only edit being vandalism, and the other for being a vandalism-only account. If you're not already familiar with WP:UAA and WP:AIV?WP:VOA, please have a look. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC) [apparently I forgot to sign...][reply]

Good going Squinge! Bladesmulti (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. Squinge (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hepplewhite

Dear Squinge, I hope this reaches you as I'm not sure about the route! The changes I made to the Hepplewhite page are not my opinion, though they are constructive. The fact is (as recently established by the Yale University publication which I cited in my changes) that the Wikipedia entry is sadly out of date. I have no axe to grind, but I have read Robinson's excellent book, and I thought maybe Wikipedia would rather publish the truth rather than the myth? Best, Eastwood farm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastwoodfarm (talk • contribs) 11:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. The trouble is, while most major sources are still telling the traditional story of Hepplewhite, I don't think Wikipedia can go on one new book and take only that one as the truth. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should only be changed in this fashion when the new claims have been widely accepted by the experts and by other published sources. Maybe the article should be updated with a section about the new claims in the new book? I'd suggest you open a discussion on the article's talk page and seek a consensus on how to proceed. Squinge (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I've now forgotten how I wrote to you, so hope this reaches you too.

Thank you for your reply. There are of course 150 years of books all saying Hepplewhite was a great designer, but they have now been conclusively proved wrong! I know it's only 1 book, but as it comes with the authority of Harvard, under the imprimatur of the pre-eminent art publisher Haven, and researched and written by the leading authority on the subject John Martin Robinson (44 books and still going), I do think you might consider whether Wikipedia really wants to perpetuate a discredited myth rather than acknowledge modern scholarship? I think the key point is that neither Hepplewhite ever claimed to design furniture! When Mr H died, Mrs H found these drawings among his papers, and opportunistically but legally published them herself. Crucially, she specifically did not claim they were his designs. That was a mistake made long after by later compilers /commentators with no one left to contradict them. Enormous strides have been made in the last 50 years by art and architectural researchers thanks to improved access to, and curating of, archives long left unexamined in country houses and local authority libraries. One theory is that Mr H worked in the London workshop of Gillows, for whom James Wyatt made very many documented and acknowledged (in their catalogue) designs, many of them identical to the "Hepplewhite" drawings. This would explain how the drawings came to be among his papers, but as this is not certain, I did not refer to it in my editing of the Wikipedia entry. I know that the John Ford editor in 'Liberty Valance' said "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." But surely that is not the motto or purpose of Wikipedia? I doubt a debate with other users would be much help. This is a very arcane subject, but for that reason, one in which I feel Wikipedia should take a lead in accuracy. Otherwise, why bother? Eastwood farm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastwoodfarm (talk • contribs)

I understand and sympathize, but I think you have one thing wrong when you say "I feel Wikipedia should take a lead in accuracy". As an encyclopedia and what is known as a tertiary source, that is absolutely not what Wikipedia should do. What an encyclopedia should do is summarize the balance of reliable secondary sources and what is stated by Wikipedia should only change after new information is accepted by mainstream academia - an encyclopedia is a follower, not a leader, of updated truth. Whether the new book does or does not disprove conventional opinion remains to be seen (I've read a review that only uses the word "probably"), but it is not for Wikipedia (or Wikipedia editors) to make that judgment. It is for academia to analyze the issue and make a judgment (and that judgment won't be based purely on the authority of Harvard), and should mainstream opinion change then (and only then) should Wikipedia be changed to reflect it. As I suggested, at this point I think the only thing Wikipedia could do is include a short note on the new book and how it casts doubt on the whole thing. Squinge (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raja Amari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tunisian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Squinge (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New message

Hi Squinge!

Just noticed you reverted a couple of changes I made on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos. I don't want to get into any kind of edit war (I've reverted them) so I thought I'd ask why. I edited MY's birthplace and added two of his books to his bibliography. Thanks! Gibbets (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)gibbets[reply]

Hi. The original info seemed to be properly sourced, but if you're sure of your new changes and their sources then I'm happy to leave them. Squinge (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great!

Just to let you know, the original source can't truly be counted a source at all, since it only includes the subject's date of birth; the second edit I made was an addition to the subject's bibliography citing the British National Bibliography held at the British Library in which I was adding and citing new material altogether... so the sources of the original info are kind of irrelevant. But thanks for keeping an eye out, Squinge! Gibbets (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)gibbets[reply]

Sounds good, and clearly my mistake. Squinge (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Noticeboard Incident 864 re user fleetham

Squinge, I saw you reverted my question/ call for admin input on the ANI page.

Here's our situation: A bunch of us, Ladislav Mecir, Mrcatzilla, Mr.choppers and presumably Fleetham are waiting for administrative input to resolve a longstanding aggravation. There hasn't been any admin input here. Our discussion was not closed, and there was no box around it prohibiting edits when I wrote. So if I made indeed a mistake (as twinkle appears to claim), it was innocent.

And here's your situation: I know that you are a brand new editor (<600 edits) and you are using twinkle, this powerful tool to "clean up", to enforce WP rules, and you mass-reverted edits on archive, without reading the edits, leave alone the complicated grievances, so I am not taking the revert personally.

I assume you want to be a helpful police person (remember: bobbies in Britain?), so I am asking you to be so kind to:

refer me to the rule that disallows editing after a certain ( what? ) period?
guide me where to legitimately ask the question you erased so we can resolve the case?

Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your addition to the archive, because archives are not supposed to be changed - and admins won't be watching them in order to help anyway. I think it should be OK for you to copy that section from the archive into a new section at WP:ANI and make a further request for help there. Squinge (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You forgot:

plse refer me to the rule that disallows editing after a certain ( what? ) period.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where there's a rule as such, but it's just common sense. Many admins (and others) are watching the WP:ANI page in order to assist people who ask for help, but few will be expecting such things to be posted on the archive pages (which, as their name suggests, are for archived material). So if you want a question answered, you need to ask it at WP:ANI itself and not on one of the archived pages. If you're wondering how long it is before a section is archived, it's done by a 'bot' - and as far as I can tell, once a section has not been edited for 36 hours it gets automatically archived. I suggested copying the section back from the archive to WP:ANI because I've seen it done that way by other people, and it seems to be accepted and effective. Squinge (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article

why are you messaging me for what you have done to Sivanathan Narayanasamy. Night Fury (Talk to me) 10:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just letting you know that instead of tagging it for "no sources" as you did, you should have gone for WP:BLPPROD. Just trying to help you improve your page patrolling, you know. Squinge (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, dont teach me, i tag the articles for maintenace so that the creater addresses the issue. Tagging articles for del. is easy then to built a great one. Thats my way of doing work. Night Fury (Talk to me) 10:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough :-) Squinge (talk)

Message

Dear squinge... Language evolves organically and based on use. This term is being used in London more and more. I would appreciate if you reverted the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego.philipps (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, your request is wrong in so many ways...

As it says at the bottom of AWD, "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title AWD", and what you added was not a link to an article associated with the title AWD.
Wikipedia does not write about new trends until they are sufficiently covered by reliable sources in a way that demonstrates notability.
Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.

So no, I will not be reverting my change. Squinge (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IT'S ALL TRUE THUS SMC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essexboy98 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

my pleasure! Dinu123 (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Squinge (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beg pardon. This is wiki, not the earth, I understand.

But, on the earth, if you were really came to know what the shit that page is about you would put it on fire, I guarantee! That was my fault any way. I'm sorry. I promise it will never happen anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinu123 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article is bad, I really don't know - if so, please do improve it using Reliable sources. Squinge (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dexter Fletcher

Squid the changes I made were true. Look at police records or at Bernard O mahony records on the subject of villains. This is true thus should be made public. (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essexboy98 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Message

Be concerned about your own edits and not others. Stop removing the facts if you don't know any. Loser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapoork (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it why are you changing the facts??? Where did this bananas come in from.???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapoork (talk • contribs) 11:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The need to provide reliable sources to support any changes you make has been explained to you, and your continued insults will not change that. Squinge (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just read for yourself what edits are you making...1st you've edited that she studied classical from age 12 till 12 yes and got married in London at 18???? So how did the 12 years come in ???? Do the math please. And let's not get into edit wars... Plus there are thousands of people by the same name,so my user name can be kapoork n it's not a crime that I'm commiting. If I say that I'm angelina jolie ,would u believe me????? No right in the same manner what ever links that you've given and what ever material is written there isn't right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapoork (talk • contribs) 11:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you really do not understand what I have already explained to you about the need for reliable sources, then I can't help you any further. Squinge (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and put new messages at the end will you? And sign them with "~~~~"? Squinge (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Hi Yeah it was just something I thought was missing My favorite piece of literature from Oscar Wilde after the picture of Dorian gray is the soul of man under socialism and I felt territorial when I saw there was nothing written about it. And I'm 15 so I kind of wanted to show off a bit! It's all good, no problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywilde (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Simplywilde: and thanks for the reply. It's good to have young people joining the project, and I hope you'll enjoy some productive time here. Squinge (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need for swearing in edit summaries.

No reason for this edit summary. Bgwhite (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right, sorry - I just woke up and I got annoyed by the other editor who apparently won't read my explanation and the policy link I gave them, and just wants to edit war to make the list a company directory. Is there any chance you could keep an eye on it too and perhaps offer an opinion on the talk page/explain to the new editor? Squinge (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see they're creating multiple accounts too (well, at least two) for no apparent reason. Squinge (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I know how annoying (to put it mildly) it can be with these types of people. Make sure you file an SPI report. Bgwhite (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do that. Squinge (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Squinge, just another reminder to please refrain from using swear words in your edit summaries (as with this). 842U (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If "bullshit" offends you then you really need to grow a thicker skin. Squinge (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I made a mistake on that article and reverted too much, sorry - I've reinstated your other changes, which I thought were good. Squinge (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

Hi Squinge, sorry, I'm new here. Can you please let me know why you edited my post? Sue Wallis is known for her fervent pro-slaughter (horse) activism; this is well noted. Do I need to add sources? My aplologies, I am VERY new!!! NotABreed (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)NotABreed[reply]

Wikipedia does indeed need sources for content, especially when it is contentious material about a living or recently deceased person. However, even with a source, Wikipedia does not describe people in sensationalist or evocative terms like "fanatical equine pro-slaughter activist" - it's an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper, and we require neutrally-written prose (see WP:NPOV for more information on that). Squinge (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I've noticed that, in some cases, you haven't notified users that you reverted their changes on their user talk pages. It is a good practice to leave notices or warnings on a user's talk page after reverting their edit(s), which is something Twinkle can easily do (there are multiple warnings and notices to select from). If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 20:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I appreciate Twinkle can do warnings, but the sheer volume of problematic edits and the limited availability of my time means that sometimes I prioritize. (I've also noticed that most of the time it's a one-off edit anyway, and they go away without any warnings being needed). Squinge (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings only take a few seconds to leave if you have Twinkle configured to automatically open the user talkpage of the target editor after a revert, and judging by the number of sections above that have new users asking for clarification of why you reverted their edit (specifically for edits you reverted because they were lacking a source), I personally could see most of those requests being avoided if the new users had a notice left on their talk page directing them to the proper policies on citing and verifiability, which are encompassed in the notices provided by Twinkle. I see, with you, a pattern of Bite-y behavior that I once had before realizing that we were all, at one time, new editors who had not much of a grasp on the guidelines. I'm just providing a little constructive criticism, take it or leave it. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 20:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I appreciate your friendly advice, and I thank you for it - but the above sections are mostly from people I did warn (and it's only a very tiny fraction of all my reverts). But anyway, thanks again for your help - I'll try harder to remember to leave warnings when appropriate. Squinge (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ownership of talk page headings

In this edit and its summary you seem to express the false belief that others may not change your talk page headings. I'm just stopping by to point out that no one can claim WP:OWNERSHIP of section headings. See the "section headings" bullet under Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others' comments. As for the particular edit you were discussion, I don't care either way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, thanks for the heads-up, I wasn't aware of that. Squinge (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, happy editing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

U can correct me anytime I am new at this and hope I learn how to type edits and I know what I mean to say on the work of my edits but. I have problems. On typing what I mean so if u can fix it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmaeverywitchway101 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I didn't answer you quickly, but I didn't see your message at the top of the page - it's best to put them at the bottom. And yes, I only reverted your change because you incorrectly changed spellings of a couple of things and inserted random characters in strange places. But it's easy to make mistakes when you're new. Anyway, I see you have an invitation to the Teahouse on your talk page - that's a great place for newcomers to learn the ropes. Happy editing. Squinge (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Squinge. You have new messages at Aulyp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for your good eyes, and follow through. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind, thank you. Squinge (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SITUSH!, MATERIAL SCIENTIST et Al

Squinge

I HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED HOW I CAN MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SITUSH AND CO BUT MY POSTS ARE CONTINUALLY DELETED? YOU AND YOUR PALS DO NOT OWN WIKIPEDIA. I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD (Andcarr (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not a "pal", I just happened upon the dispute accidentally and looked at it from an uninvolved perspective. Whoever is right and whoever is wrong over the content, you will not get your own way by calling other people wikiwankers. I've offered some suggestions over on your talk page, and I seriously suggest you rethink your approach to this - I'm trying to help prevent your account getting blocked here. Squinge (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I REPEAT FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME! I WISH TO MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SITUSH AND HIS CRONIES. HIS REFERENCES ARE NO MORE ACCURATE THAN MINE AND LARGELY BASED ON PRESS RELEASES. PLEASE EXPLAIN IN DETAIL HOW I CAN MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT? (Andcarr (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC))

If you want to raise a complaint about the behaviour of other editors, you can report them at WP:ANI. Or, as there is already a discussion at WP:ANI, you can present your side of it there. But do bear in mind that all sides to the dispute will be scrutinized if you do. Squinge (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The discussion is at WP:ANI#Attacks at David Ross (businessman). Squinge (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, title changed. HOWEVER WHY DO YOU NOT ANSWER

I REPEAT FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME! I WISH TO MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SITUSH AND HIS CRONIES. HIS REFERENCES ARE NO MORE ACCURATE THAN MINE AND LARGELY BASED ON PRESS RELEASES. PLEASE EXPLAIN IN DETAIL HOW I CAN MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT(Andcarr (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)) HOW Is it that someone, SITUSH, who admits to having only three days knowledge of the subject can wipe out a page completely and rewrite it in a biased light. Why is it that no one will tell me how to complain about this behaviour? (Andcarr (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andcarr (talk • contribs) [reply]

I've just told you how to make a complaint, up there ^, immediately after you shouted your question at me the first time. I've now made it bold to make it easier for you to see, so try doing a bit less shouting and a bit more looking and listening, eh? And please, stop the all-caps shouting here at my talk page - any further shouting at me will be removed without response. Squinge (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STILL EVADING THE QUESTION OF HOW TO MAKE a complaint against members of WIKIPEDIA establishment SITUSH.!(Andcarr (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC))I your acronyms are meaningless to me, give me an email address, or better still a postal address to complain to. SITUSH knows his way around your complaints procedure so the ANI board is useless. I WANT TO MAKE A FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINT HOW DO I DO THAT,? I WILL KEep SHOUting till you tell me. (Andcarr (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I'll overlook that shouting, but only this time, just to answer this specific question: I have no idea how to make a written complaint. Perhaps you could ask at the WP:ANI#Attacks at David Ross (businessman) discussion (and as for that acronym, it's a link so just click it - that's why people provide linked acronyms for you, so you can just click them). Now, all future shouting here will be ignored - and if you continue it, I'll add a complaint of harassment to the current WP:ANI discussion. Squinge (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please give me a postal address where I can make a formal written complaint about the behaviour of SITUSH et al on the David Ross entry.(Andcarr (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)) whisper, whisper[reply]