Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 125.19.3.2 (talk) at 11:39, 20 December 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Wikiquette alerts are an option for a streamlined way to get an outside view.

Procedure

At the bottom of the list, just post:

  • A single link to the problem or issue as you see it (for example, a single posting or section of a talk page).
  • Label the comment neutrally but do not sign and do not use names (type ~~~~~, which gives only a timestamp).
  • Please avoid embarking on a discussion of the points raised on this page. Carry on discussing it wherever you originally were — editors responding to posts here will come to you!

If you would like to get an outside view on your own behaviour, please post it here too.

Outsiders who visit the link are encouraged to make a constructive comment about any Wikiquette breaches they see. Postings should be removed after seven days.

Are you in the right place?

Archived alerts

Active alerts

1-December-2006

Thank you Stanlys212 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am an experienced editor with circa 3,500 edits, many of them in contentious articles where there is a premium on honest discussion and calm debate. I always try to practice good wikiquette, right up to the point where my good-faith is shattered. In this case, it didn't take long. Stanlys212 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is almost certainly a sockpuppet (or possibly mask). His report here, and his NPA warning on my talkpage here are spurous attempts to continue disruption. This is not a "new user", but an experienced editor who knows how to manipulate our policies and procedures. After all, how many newbies manage to post here and cite policy on their 9th edit? Doc Tropics 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2-December-2006

Note: I edited the above comment to remove personal info about a minor and correct the username link. I also reviewed the article history, and the majority of Caldorwards4's are productive contributions. This appears to be a content dispute which is being discussed on the article's talkpage. It's best to work with other editors towards a consensus on what material to include and to report actual policy violations at WP:ANI. Good luck. Doc Tropics 19:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a note on Caldorforwards4 talk page about wikipedia policy of participating on talk pages -- he has posted only once at Talk:Hypermarket but made a dozen edits to the article during the period of disagreement. I also suggested he use edit summaries more. I would have actually waded into the content dispute as well, but what is being reverted involves (as best as I can tell) changes in at least three different sections - and, of course, the talk page is not of much help in explaining what is going on; too much work/time. John Broughton | Talk 19:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I have summarised my point of view on the talk page and opened a new section. What should I do if he keeps on refusing to talk? Sprotch 11:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of options in this situation - I suggest taking a look at the "Content disputes" entry at User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia. And I've posted a response to your posting at Talk:Hypermarket; I suggest continuing any needed further discussion there rather than on this page. (I've added the article to my watchlist; you might want to give me a chance to respond first to the next edit by Caldorwards4 if it's not, in your opinion, constructive, particularly if he doesn't post to the talk page.) John Broughton | Talk 15:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4-December-2006

  • User:70.23.177.216 continues to insert a paragraph of text that pushes a racist POV on the Nadine Gordimer article. After the incident was noted on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment, that user added it back in, verbatim, with no effort to respond to the criticisms / commentary of the article. (The other two editors both feel the incident in question is not relevant, period; and support deleting it entirely, unless some non-racist rationale is advanced for its inclusion.) The user repeatedly responds with hostile language accusing the other users (and wikipedia generally) of engaging in "anti-white bias", "censorship", and "vandalism", and uses other strong invective to describe the actions and characters of the other editors. This user is a problem but any other suggestions for User:DianaW and myself would also be appreciated. --LQ 19:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be having a discussion and not a revert war, which is definitely a step in the right direction. As for the insults, the best approach is simply to point out to the user that he/she needs to cite policy where possible, although "relevance" is always subjective (WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV are better grounds for discussion, if any apply).
In general, I suggest looking for any merit in the other editor's arguments, or any middle ground that you can live with. Failing that, you're in a position (two against one) of being able to revert inappropriate changes to the article while not triggering WP:3RR. More constructively, you should suggest to the other editor that if he can't convince you, he should consider using a method listed at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes (of his choice) in order to get the opinions/involvement of others. John Broughton | Talk 04:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6-December-2006

Thanks for pointing that out; the vandalism was just reverted by another editor. If you still see it on the page, you might need to refresh or clear your cache. In future, you are most welcome to revert the vandalism on your own (please be sure to use an edit summary, to explain what you are doing and why), or you can report it here. Also, if you type 4 tildes(*Doc Tropics 05:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)*) after your comments on a talkpage , it will add your sig (in this case your IP). Thanks again for reporting this, have fun at WP : ) Doc Tropics 05:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Help:Reverting for step-by-step instructions, and keep in mind that it's not as hard as it seems. (And you can practice by doing reverts of the Wikipedia:Sandbox page.) John Broughton | Talk 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm new here, so sorry if i shouldn't write down my "alert" in this section. I was searching about egypt dance and i ended in "History of Dance", which had a strange sentence at the beggining , also, the discussion page was full with some sort of message or something like that (it figures in the history page of the disscusion page, "17:52, 5 December 2006 137.87.70.18" ). So, i delete it, but i don't know it it was alright. 190.40.48.122 06:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reporting that. There had been some valid discussion on the page before it was vandalized, so I restored that version. I appreciate you trying to help delete the vandalism, thanks for that : ) However, blanking a page is not quite the best way to do it; we can simply go back to the last version before it was vandalized. Thanks again for your help! Doc Tropics 06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See note about how to do reverting, in the alert just above this one. John Broughton | Talk 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, it seems like Itake has a vested interest in the Superpower Classic article and, given his behavior of reverting any critical additions, should be blocked from editing the page. It seems like you are acting in good faith. It also seems like Itake makes valuable additions to other articles, so he should not be blocked from Wikipedia entirely. I am not an administrator, though, so I can't make things happen :). Jonemerson 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:209.56.64.1 has been making "subtle-ish" changes to insert inappropriate content in many different articles (often referencing homosexuality). I reverted one such edit from the Tampa Bay Devil Rays article. A look at his history suggests this has been ongoing for quite some time (with occasional wholesale defacements. 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliver7 (talk • contribs)
I just noticed the user talk page for User:209.56.64.1 and found WP:AIV for guidance. 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliver7 (talk • contribs) [reply]

7-December-2006

  • User:HighInBC and User:Cyde are on a crusade to 'free wikipedia' of 'offensive user boxes' on my userpage. They've taken sudden interest in my page due to my involvement in a non-notable blog nomination right here and now they're determined to make me break some wikipedia rule in order to find a reason to ban me. Note to people paying attention to this, User:HighInBC voted keep on the article in question, so I have a feeling there is something personal involved. If this isn't the right place to report this, please direct me so at my talk page. 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a suggestion at the user's talk page that WP:AN or WP:AN/I would probably be the right place. John Broughton | Talk 03:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't personal, and it is not related to any AfD. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call me crazy, but I dont think that "tyler miller from nazo pa likes to have hard intercourse with chickens from the local farm" is appropriate information for a page about 1890.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.30.91 (talk • contribs)
This vandalism has been removed by another user.Carmela Soprano 06:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am having problems with user:Rhobite, who has violated a number of Wikipedia policies. He/she blanked a portion of Baked ziti with no explanation. He later stated the material should be removed because "recipes are not appropriate wikipedia [sic] content" without providing any reference links as to why this material should be removed, thereby violating the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers policy by failing to link the policy rationale. This user then made a number of incorrect statements about Wikipedia content and violated the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policy in the process. Rhobite then violated the Wikipedia's three-revert rule and reverted the article three times. The issue is no longer whether or not a recipe belongs in "baked ziti." The issue is user Rhobite's abusive behavior toward me and repeated violation of Wikipedia rules. I would appreciate some assistance with this problem. Carmela Soprano 06:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, there was no violation of the 3RR rule, which requires FOUR or more edits (see WP:3RR); Rhobite has done exactly three edits to the article. Second, the article DID violate wikipedia policy, because it contained step-by-step instructions for preparing the dish. WP:NOT specifically says Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Third, Rhobite did include edit summaries in each of the three edits, so no explanation is perhaps an overstatement. The explanations, including postings to the talk page, may have seemed inadequate, or delayed, but explanations were provided.
Since the core matter seems to have been resolved - the step-by-step instructions are gone - I suggest that this be considered closed. John Broughton | Talk 14:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone join in the discussion in Talk:Eye_tracking? Eye tracking has been having problems with spam and vandalism. Two new editors, with no other contributions to date, have joined the Talk page with accusations of bias. 15:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

8-December-2006

9-December-2006

  • I would like an outside view of my own role in the Talk:Conscientious_objector#Anti-war_template discussion and a suggestion about how to proceed. I brought the anonymous party to the discussion by consistently reverting a template removal from the article and placing a {{test0}} message on the various IP talk pages with a summary urging discussion. I believe I have consistently remained civil and on-topic throughout the discussion. Is there anything I could have done better? Was I too patient with this person? The next step I am considering is asking for the article to be semi-protected to halt the removal of the template but would like a second opinion or an alternative. JonHarder 01:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12-December-2006

  • Looking at User talk:Gene Nygaard gives a good overview of the behaviour of this user, especially where it concerns categorisation. Although from time to time he gives sound advice to people how to do it, there are plenty cases where he rather imposes his point of view on others, not always according to the existing wiki guidelines. But it is mainly his arrogant behaviour in doing so, and not showing any sign of wanting to improve, that I would like to suggest that he will be banned from contributing. --Tauʻolunga 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at his user page. Just one person's opinion, but he seems to be doing invaluable work in a lot of semi-technical areas, work that I (and I suspect virtually all other editors) neither understand fully or would be interested in doing. Nor did I see a lot of argumentative postings, certainly not a particularly high percentage.
I think it would help a lot if you would provide diffs of specific edits that you felt were very poor behavior (in your opinion). John Broughton | Talk 00:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following examples can be mentioned, they are typical, not exhaustive [2], [3], [4], [5] The issue is not so much whether his changes are right or wrong (and mine are wrong or right) but more the authotorian way he enforces them. Not only on me, but on others as well, and he has been accused of vandalism because of that before, as seen from his talk page. --Tauʻolunga 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That might have been a violation of Usenet etiquette, but not of Wikipedia etiquette. Your deletion of my comments has to stop. Alexwoods 15:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Libel is a violation of etiquette any time and any place. I suggest that Alexwoods should be given the choice of substantiating the "pedophile" charge, or going away and not bothering us any more. Prescottbush 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any claims that need substantiation. You need to explain why you pretended to be someone else and wrote a laudatory biography of yourself here.Alexwoods 15:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prescottbush has re-created a vanity page that has already been deleted once. He has also been systematically deleting my comments from talk pages and taking the vanity page in question off of the proposed deletion list. I think at this point we really need admin support to resolve this dispute. Alexwoods 15:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in getting into any sort of discussion with alexwoods. Prescottbush 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the prior article was deleted in March 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Broughton, which argues that this one might be better. On the other hand, I reviewed the external links, and not one of them establishes notability.
I didn't remove the speedy delete, but the issue of whether the page should be deleted can always be resolved by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which I would recommend to Alex (that is, withdrawing the speedy deletion in favor of a full AfD). That avoids an argument about whether speedy deletion criteria, and no admin needs get involved; it can also be taken as a sign of good faith that other editors should help decide the matter.
As far as systematically deleting my comments from talk pages, it would helpful to have a couple of diffs from Alex, and a response from Alex. Simply saying that I am not interested in getting into any sort of discussion is not a response to the charge; if you haven't done that, say so; otherwise, at minimum, apologize and state that you understand you shouldn't be doing that, and won't in the future. Normally the removal of comments by others is not acceptable (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines), but there are exceptions.
-- John Broughton | Talk 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (and no, I'm not a relative as far as I know -- it's not really that unusual a last name)[reply]
Thank you, John. I will do as you suggested, and we can have it out on the article's talk page. Alexwoods 16:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to consider User:Prescottbush's disclosure of my place of work as a personal attack and delete it. Alexwoods 17:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, given Alexwoods's history, it sounds very funny to hear him talk of personal attacks.
To address his accusation of systematically deleting my comments from talk pages: 1. I don't want his comments contaminating User_talk:Prescottbush. Does Wikipedia provide a more civilized way of getting rid of them than simply deleting them?
2. As for other deletions, it says at the top of the page, "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." I assumed that as a editor, I have some responsibility for enforcing this policy, and it was clear to me that the Robert Broughton page had attracted the attention of some sort of wild animal. (Apologies for the use of specieist language.)
Please note that Alex Woods has offered no evidence to support his accusation of pedophilia, and if he actually had such evidence, we would have seen it by now. His claim that he is unaware of his employer's involvement with Philip Morris (thus providing a motive for his anti-social behaviour) also has a ring of falsehood; all anyone has to do is look at XXXXX (personal information deleted by user:alexwoods) (scroll down to "Headline Cases") to obtain this information, and Woods, after all, works there.
You can also learn from User_talk:Alexwoods that Woods already has a history of personal attacks on Wikipedia.
And as for the "notability" of Robert Broughton, I'll accept that there are lots of people who have made more valuable contributions to society who are not listed in Wikipedia yet. I'll argue about this in other times and places, but one thing is certain: Alex Woods regards Robert Broughton as very notable. Prescottbush 05:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, I have to ask you again, firmly, to not mention my employer here on Wikipedia. The next time you do so I am going to petition to block you from editing. Furthermore, comments like those you made above belong on my talk page, insofar as they belong anywhere at all. Finally, please note that I am not accusing you of anything at all beyond not being a worthy subject of a bio page, reinstating a deleted entry, and hiding behind a sock puppet.
I'll address the notability of your autobiographical entry in the proper place - its AfD page. Please, do not post personal information about me here again. Alexwoods 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comments here are addressed to John Broughton, not Alex Woods. Prescottbush 04:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this "tacit admission on the Wikiquette page" that's referred to on User talk:Alexwoods? Prescottbush 04:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, some notes and suggestions.
  • First, I'm asking both of you NOT to post any (further) comments on each other's talk pages.
  • Second, I note WP:NPA - posting ANY information about another editor's identity, workplace, etc., is NOT appropriate for Wikipedia, and CAN be considered a personal attack. If that happens again, I suggest posting to Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard.
  • Third, while I understand that pointing out the motives of others may appear to make one's own case stronger, in fact Wikipedia processes are aimed at trying to be totally objective - motivation isn't important, reasons and citation of policy ARE. So I ask that you both stop talking about the other person and focus on the article and its merits or lack thereof.
  • Fourth, yes, it IS acceptable to delete comments of others editors that are posted to one's own user talk page (I'd personally leave a comment from an admin as is, or archive it per Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, but I don't think we've reached that point yet.) And it is acceptable to delete comments on other talk pages that violate WP:NPA (personal information) or WP:BIO, particularly negative unsourced information, but you should remove as little as possible, not simply revert entire comments by another editor. (I don't know what's been done; I've not looked, so I'm not taking sides here.)
I've read this, and promise to comply with what J. Broughton has said. I would like to hear this "tacit admission on the Wikiquette page" thing addressed, however. The only evidence I've seen from Alex Woods so far that I'm a "sock puppet" seems to be "because I said so", which, needless to say, doesn't carry much weight with me. Prescottbush 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14-December-2006

15-December-2006

  • For several weeks now, I have been having nasty problems with User:Goethean. I am a contributor to the beer articles. He is a home-brewer and American. I am neither. This began when another user and I tried to remove American-centric and home-brew-centric information from some of the beer articles. He responded by personally attacking me and another user (the other user has stopped contributing to WP as a result of harrassment by Goethean and an admin who is apparently a friend or acquaintence of his). If you look at User talk:Goethean, you will see at least three requests (including mine) to stop edit warring and several mediation requests.
You can find one example of personal attack here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_29 and another here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Belgian_Strong_Dark_Ale
You can find a sample of his edit warring and his American-centric action here Imperial stout. After saying in a discussion on the project talk page "'In general I think the Wiki Beer Project should be ruthless in trimming beer lists so that only verifiable worthy beers are listed.' This is a good point, and one that I agree with, because otherwise there will be more advertisements." He then reverted the Imperial stout page with examples of 12 US beers while all other countries (including the UK, where it was developed) only had two. I reverted, then he reverted.
Last night, very tired and frustrated, I wrote in a message on the project talk page: "And, in addition to this, Goethean persists in childish behaviour with not apparent purpose other then to be annoying." I recognise this was "against the rules", however, what do you now make of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goethean/Mikebe ?
There is little progress in the beer project these days and at least part of that is the result of Goethean's harrassment of editors and edit warring, while contributing almost nothing to the articles himself.12:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have also had problems with User:Goethean. First he just kept reverting my edits. Then he called in and administrator User:Osgoodelawyer who proceeded to accuse me of sockpuppetry without any evidence: [6]
I denied the allegation and guaranteed him that I was who I claimed to be. He refused to believe me - basically called me a liar and a cheat. He still refuses to apologise for those accusations and admit that he was mistaken. It´s because of the actions of these two users that I no longer contribute to wikipedia. You can see his "aplogy" here (he only apologises for not getting a checkuser done first, not for calling me a liar): [7]
Why are so few people contributing to the beer articles when they are in such a poor state and in need of much editing? It´s just too much work. Any changes that upset User:Goethean (basically anything that doesn´t have an American point of view) provoke endless arguments and revert wars. I´m sure I´m not the only one to have become totally sick of the bickering and just given up. I know of at least one other editor where this is the case. How many more are there?
I´m a serious beer writer and a member of the British Guild of Beer Writers. Doesn´t wikipedia want to encourage people like me to participate?14:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Patto1ro
I checked links in the second paragraph above (which, in fact, are to the same AfD). The AfD was initiated by Mikebe; the result was "Keep", and no other editor supported Mikebe. Goethean wrote, in that AfD, Afd is yet another product of a user disruptively confusing "real life" with his opinion. One could argue whether that is consistent with WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF (I don't think it is, personally), but it's not particularly strong language. My personal recommendation would be to shrug it off, and to focus on improving articles and categorizes rather than trying to get a Wikipedia admin to right this (perceived) wrong.
They are not the same AfD. The first one goes to the Beer Judge Certification Program. Secondly, I have shrugged it off and tried to improve articles, as you suggest, but come up against the revert warring by Goethean. I would also point out that in both links cited, rather than focusing on the question of the article up for deletion, in both cases, Goethean chooses to attack the nominator on a personal level. No, the attacks do not contain strong language but: a. why are they there in the first place and b. why can a user (Goethean) make public assumptions about the motivation of a user. Isn't there a policy here of WP:AGF? 15:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for that thoughtless error. All I can say is that one link was to the deletion log for a day, not to a separate AfD (though all AfD details are on the page), and I made a bad assumption. John Broughton | Talk 15:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the new page that Goethean is putting together, he's obviously collecting evidence of violations. For example, his first link is to an edit where you say Goethean persists in childish behaviour with not apparent purpose other then to be annoying - that's quite possibly a violation of WP:AGF. Such a page IS certainly acceptable while it consists of links, as it does now.
I personally think that everyone would be better off not ascribing ANY motives to each other, regardless of whether you think that explains their behavior to others. For example, instead of saying (I'm making this up, as an example) that "You persist in making this article too American-centric", say "I'm concerned that this article is too American-centric". The second sentence makes the same point without getting personal, which means that Goethean doesn't have to defend his behavior, which means that the two of you can work on improving the article even though you'd never be willing to sit down and have a beer with each other. And if one of you DOES say something personal, I suggest the other ignore it rather than responding.
Revert wars and false accusations are more serious, and I'll let someone else respond to that. John Broughton | Talk 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16-December-2006

That is because there was already debate over the timeline. When there isn't even a clear consensus to include it in the first place, doubling it in size isn't a good idea. There has been extensive discussion for days. To no conclusion on its appropriateness. Get a consensus for whether or not it even belongs before you begin expanding and making it a major focus of the article.--Crossmr 07:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've posted to a page intended for discussions of possible behavioral problems -- not different opinions about content. The diff that you provided shows (a) a very civil edit summary, and (b) addition of a new source (which presumably supports the revised text). This should be discussed on the talk page of the article; you might want to leave a note at the other editor's talk page that you'd like to do so, if you've not already. If that doesn't work, take a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which discusses a number of ways to help settle a content dispute. But DON'T go there until you've (a) posted to the article talk page and (b) waited a day or two to see what other editors might think. John Broughton | Talk 15:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [9] Being the featured article is bound to create some debate, but this talk page is getting out of hand. Who was in the wrong here? 23:21, 16 December 2006 Kesh
The talk page doesn't seem that bad to me. What section(s) in particular are you referring to? John Broughton | Talk 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:AlexCovarrubias has repeatedly deleted valid information and new charts added by User:Diegou without justifying his deletion even though we have repeatedly asked him to justify his actions, and that we are willing to discuss the issue. Three users have already reverted his "deletions", but he has "reverted" to his deletions 5 times in less than 24 hours (in between December 16 and 17 UCT). There has been no debate whatsoever on his part to justify him deleting valuable information to the article. --Alonso 03:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17-December-2006

  • Stephen Barrett could use the help of experienced, patient editors with the NPOV and BPL problems and disputes that have been going on since early last year. 04:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

18-December-2006

  • An anonymous user (IP 72.36.251.234) cannot accept that their blog is not a valid citation for some beefs they have with Digg.com. Nix the offending lines from the Digg article, under the section entitled "Criticism", and the user re-inserts them within hours, and has repeatedly lashed out at anybody who challenges their blog as a valid source on the Talk page. --01:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
i defend my actions and u call it lashing out and post about it here. u defend your actions and it just fine because your right and everyone who disagree with u wrong. u think talk page not for discussion - you think talk page soapbox for your sermons. your very name. lecorrector. it presume arrogance. but just because you call yourself the corrector no mean u correct anything. 72.36.251.234 02:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Following this alert, the user vandalized the Digg article by removing any passage that cited a notable or relevant blog, seemingly to make a point. --02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
u ignore points otherwise. u say "blog not citable" then selectively delete blogs with opinions u no like. u dont use talk page so maybe u use history page. u file Wikiquette alert instad of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. are your points so weak? if their too week to defend why u revert arrticle over them??? 72.36.251.234 03:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"just because you call yourself the corrector no mean u correct anything" I can see plenty of scope for corrections there. If you want to be taken seriously as a Wikipedia editor, please use correct grammar and spelling and respect Wikipedia policies. 13:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
more ad hominem. can u make logical fact not logical flaw??? 72.36.251.234 14:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


20 December 2006

There's a dispute in the page related to IIPM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management) where statements that are there on another page related to IIPM (titled IIPM Controversy) are repeated in the main page too. Request your inputs 11:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=95500629"