User talk:Worldedixor

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 4 months and 17 days.

fr-5Cet utilisateur parle français à un niveau professionnel.

en-5This user can contribute with a professional level of English.

es-5Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel profesional de español.

ar-5هذا المستخدم محترف في العربية

82This user has visited 82 of the 208 countries in the world.

This user has visited 44 of the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.44

Talk Page for Worldedixor

This is my opinion on MY Talk page. By reading my Talk page, you must agree NOT to use any of my opinions against me nor "assume that you know my intent". Otherwise please do not "read" my talk page.

Opinion 15 August 2014 – Improving Wikipedia - Standing up to flagrant injustice

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

Opinion 15 August 2014 – Evidence of double standards and selective enforcement of WP Rules by a biased admin Dougweller

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=621268671&oldid=621264331

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=621264331&oldid=621252396

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:P123ct1&diff=620619366&oldid=620348059

Admins don't get involved as Admins in content disputes. I took this to WP:RSN because I could not find the word 'terrorist' in your source. If you want to complain that an editor has broken 1RR then the place to report this is WP:AE. As the Secretary General has called it a terrorist group, we can add that. But not that the Security Council has designated it as a terrorist group without a UN source stating that explicitly. And the lack of good faith and the personal attacks aren't conducive to a collegial environment, which is what we want this to be. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You have just proven my point. Your recent actions show that you "did" get involved many times in content disputes the latest being today when I reverted a baseless revert. The record also shows flagrant bias, double standards and your and your pals' "selective" enforcement of WP rules. I am abiding by WP rules regardless of your digs and your false insinuations about me. All is documented and organized and can be verified. I don't see you send an "e-mail" like you did before about 1RR. I don't see you remove "personal attacks" against me when I asked you to. I am NOT adding well sourced content because it is tedious. 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)''

Opinion 14 August 2014 - Baseless Reverts and Incompetence

Utter incompetence plague WP. Impatient reverts of well sourced content and incompetence to do a very simple research make it tedious for "competent" editors to add well sourced content. What adds insult to injury is the 1RR restriction.

One of many examples is when it is a well known fact at the UN, that the Islamic State (and Al Qaeda before it) is regularly referred to as a terrorist organization in U.N. communiqués. Yet " a couple of editors" revert well sourced content because they are incompetent to read correctly and click on the hyperlink that leads to the UN list of terrorist organizations that included Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm

Also, a 2 seconds search returned this one of many reliable and verifiable sources, directly from the UN website:

7 August 2014 – As Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terrorists continue to overrun areas of northern Iraq...

and

“The Secretary-General is deeply appalled at today's reports of attacks by the terrorist group Islamic State (IS) in Kirkuk,...

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48439#.U-x-2Jp0y00

Opinion 14 August 2014 - One of many examples of inappropriate Conduct

This is an example of a "personal" attack enabled by a biased admin

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=620221827&oldid=620221746

This is an example of "request for removal of a personal attack" that was ignored "on purpose" and ridiculed by a biased admin

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=620247333&oldid=620247274

I reserve all my rights.

Opinion 14 August 2014 - My words are starting to make a difference on WP

In this journey of a thousand miles, my words have started to make a difference on WP. Even one of the grumpiest editors has started improving and "welcoming" new editors rather than removing their joy of editing Wikipedia.

Opinion 14 August 2014 - Instigating, Bias and Malicious Conduct

As explained below, according to WP Rules, admins, reviewer, etc... should NEVER EVER engage in bias, ganging up, vendettas, alienation, instigation, defamation, and willful malicious conduct. It is my very strong opinion that Wikipedia will start suffering from a number of lawsuits against it and against some of its admins and reviewers "personally"... IMO, this will be extremely life changing to the accused defendants and very bad for Wikipedia. The solution is very simple... ALL it takes is for Wikipedia to IMMEDIATELY fire admins and reviewers etc. who "choose" to be nasty and engage in defamation, personal attacks, or worse enable editors to engage in personal attacks against editors they don't like, and refuse to remove personal attacks brought to them. I reserve ALL my rights...

Opinion 12 August 2014 - WP Rules - Admin conduct

Admins are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, unbiased and civil manner at all times in their interactions with others. Admins are expected to follow Wikipedia policies particularly WP:Wikihounding. Sustained disruption is incompatible with the status of admin, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of admin status. Admins should exhibit standards of courtesy and civility.

Examples of bias and consistently or egregiously poor judgment by an admin

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=618871941&oldid=618863557

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DOwenWilliams&diff=621075333&oldid=621071651

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:P123ct1&diff=619683398&oldid=619472521

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worldedixor&diff=619694557&oldid=619690727

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worldedixor&diff=620617777&oldid=620617732

Note to self

When editing an article, – — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your posts on talk pages and Cite your sources: < ref>< /ref>

Also, to those "perfect" people who ask me to be perfect like them when I edit, they need to read WP:PERFECTION and learn why Perfection is not required in Wikipedia.

Opinion 11 August 2014 - The use of "mail" in WP:Wikihounding

It is my opinion that Wikepedia's mail should be employed in good faith and mail content made PUBLIC for the following obvious reasons:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=620766034&oldid=620764533

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:P123ct1&diff=prev&oldid=620766659

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=620786783&oldid=620784085

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&diff=620619709&oldid=620619451

Opinion 11 August 2014 - Wikipedia's Paradox

1. "الدولة الإسلامية‎" means "the Islamic State". This is a verifiable FACT!

2. If a thousand people on Wikipedia gang up and say repeatedly "الدولة الإسلامية‎" means "Islamic State" not "the Islamic State", that does not change the verifiable FACT!.

3. As an analogy, in Egypt, they write and pronounce the verb "park" as "بارك" which is written and pronounced as "bark"...

4. The thing is that if you spend a minute and tell an educated Egyptian woman that saying "park" as "bark" is incorrect, she would listen and thank you for teaching her how to say it the correct way.

5. That's not always the case on Wikepedia.

6. Ergo, I may teach someone ONCE in good faith. If they second guess me "baselessly", I just let them struggle in their self-generated drama, get some popcorn and watch the long discussions of what is obvious.

Explaining WP:Wikihounding

Wikihounding is the singling out an editor by one or two admins ganging up on an editor editing in good faith in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the editor.

Admins tracking an editor's' edits should always do so carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.

Evidence of WP:Wikihounding, flagrant bias and revenge, ganging up on me allegedly via "mail", and being singled out:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_Civil_War/General_sanctions&diff=prev&oldid=620623904

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=620737742&oldid=620733248

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=620247333&oldid=620247274

Opinion 10 August 2014 - My Favourite Quote of The Day

I don't have time to show more evidence on systematic and repeated WP:Wikihounding, so I will just share my favourite quote of the day:

"Quick to judge, Quick to anger... Slow to understand"

Opinion 7 August 2014 - Maintaining a historical record of the actions of Dougweller and P123ct1

Wikipedia is losing “highly knowledgeable” editors that could contribute enormously to many Wikepedia articles if not instigated and discouraged.

Supplementing more factual and verifiable evidence of WP:HA.

After several days of unilaterally avoiding edit conflicts and not editing articles, the persisting pattern of instigation, intimidation, discouraging me from enjoying Wikipedia, threats to report, flagrantly biased double standard, and repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, continue even when I have repeatedly removed changes by others to “MY” talk page and unwanted contacts by them, and even when I avoided direct confrontation with them.

The verifiable FACTS are summarized in the following edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=prev&oldid=620286649

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=620222113&oldid=620221827

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=620223264&oldid=620222113

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=620247333&oldid=620247274

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:P123ct1&diff=620217272&oldid=620210918

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DOwenWilliams&diff=621075333&oldid=621071651

I tried to point out the vicious personal attack WP:NPA to this admin directly and requested its removal to avoid confrontation and escalation of what is clearly my right, and this is the inappropriate "biased and unfair" response that I got from him:

“I was a bit miffed when I saw that edit summary, but I made my point - which in retrospect I do think needed making - and am happy to leave it at that. TBH, I think he is unbalanced and having more people on him will only make it worse for him and therefore for Wikipedia in the end, I think. Thanks as ever for being so solicitous about this. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. It is just one more thing that reflects badly on him and not on you. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to go on record that "I think he is unbalanced" is a personal attack WP:NPA and I ask for its immediate removal. Also, and admin should be unbiased not validate a personal attack with "that reflects badly on him". Worldedixor (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Go away or go to ANI. You haven't a leg to stand on. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)”

I reserve any and all my rights. Worldedixor (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

6 August 2014 My Favorite Quote of the day

This quote about whiners hits the nail on the head even when I don't edit any articles and have no contact whatsoever!...

http://deborahtindle.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/deborah-tindle-42.jpg?w=420

3 August 2014 WP Rules

WP:HA

Do not discourage other editors from enjoying Wikipedia and editing articles by making threats to report them, going on a power trip, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, intimidation or instigation.

Opinion 3 August 2014

WP:WIKIHOUNDING -- One of the "many" pieces of evidence of WP:WIKIHOUNDING is that I am not making any article edits yet someone is still "stalking" MY talk page.

For the record, to avoid edit wars, I have stopped editing an article even when I can see serious inaccuracies because of the "continued" campaign against me by Dougweller. I have not done any other article edits for days, and even though I am not editing at all, Dougweller continues to instigate me using any "pretext" he can regardless of the level of my knowledge and the enormous contributions I have and can still make to Wikipedia. I keep relevant information on the failure in "Editor retention" I choose to keep on "MY" Talk page, and Dougweller insists on instigating me including making baseless and false assertions about me that "he is not happy" without knowing what gender I am or how truly happy I am in life.

This is organized as a historical record. My Talk page reflects how good editors are driven away by admins who instigate them, and continue to instigate them even after they avoid conflicts and stop editing WP articles in which they have enormous knowledge and insight because they just don't want to be bothered by an admin who will do anything to prove that their "knowledgeable" edits are wrong. I will give a "general" analogy. It's like someone who speaks nothing but English and having difficulty understanding English discrediting a Chinese woman who is a linguist in Chinese and knows the ins and outs of China just because he is an admin.

NOTE: I include the definition of "two faced" which can be found at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=two+faced. I "correctly" used this term when I clearly saw one editor underhandedly "act a certain way in one place and act different in another" as if we cannot see what that editor's has written. This is FACTUAL. Lo and behold, this has been used by Dougweller as a "pretext" to paint me as an outcast.

You sure you aren't confusing me with someone else? Where did I say I'm not happy without knowing what gender you are? I could care less what gender you are, it doesn't matter to me. And I don't think I said anything about knowing how truly happy you are in life. Knowing how objectionable you find false allegations, can you please point me to where I said these things? Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:P123ct1&diff=619683398&oldid=619472521. Worldedixor (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Note the above link was added by Worldedixor, not clear why as it doesn't answer my request to show where I said the things he/she says I did. I meant to add that if you continue to attack P123ct1 - as you've just done again, I will report you to WP:ANI. And trying to prevent P123ct1 from removing posts that she/he had second thoughts about is not conducive to editor retention. I have not used my Admin tools on you so referring to me as an Admin rather than as an experienced editor seems irrelevant. And I suggest you read WP:WIKIHOUNDING more carefully. I am not stalking your talk page, I am responding to your attacks on me. If you think I am, why not report me to WP:ANI? Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The above link that "I" provided gives evidence of the FACTS. This is Dougweller talking about me by writing "he is not happy":

"Responding here.... I don't think he's happy. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)".

Your misinterpreting my documentation of VERIFIABLE FACTS as attacks shows the "continued" pattern of WP:WIKIHOUNDING and using ANYTHING as a pretext to instigate and bully me even though I am not editing ANY articles. I reserve ALL my rights including WP:ANI. Now, have a good day and consider CEASING and DESISTING. Worldedixor (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Opinion 2 August 2014

WP:ADMINACCT

I brought to the attention of editor retention Wikiproject my personal experience on Wikipedia. So, instead of validating my legitimate complaint and whistleblowing, admin Dougweller opted to make a false statement using another editor who had nothing to do with his actions initially as a pretext. This opinion documents historical events. Worldedixor (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Opinion - 30 July 2014

WP:ADMINABUSE

I will assert my unalienable right and openly express my opinion on my Talk Page for the record.

1. Without providing a list of names, last year, I was dismayed by the culture of a (very) small number of admins and their darling pets that are incompetent to understand what I write and misinterpret the correct definition of my words. They then apply rules selectively to instigate and also "fabricate" instigating rules along the way. Some admins are excellent and follow Wikipedia rules and try to keep people like me interested in donating time and money.

2. In short, with my wealth of knowledge, I have not made edits in many months until recently when I made a couple of quick and necessary edits backed up by reliable and verifiable sources.

3. Unfortunately, the culture that made me feel uncomfortable 6-7 months ago is still here, and a (very) small number of such admins used the "very" small time I spent as a pretext to instigate me. I can raise these issues with Jimmy Wales or one of the good stewards but I don't have neither the time nor the energy. It is my very strong opinion that Wikipedia is paying the price for the action of these (very) few admins and their puppets.

4. I will end this opinion and return to enjoying my happy and stress-free life in paradise.

Opinion - 15 November 2013

1. Wikipedia desperately, and I mean desperately, needs fresh minds to add content and complete the millions of articles created and are still incomplete. Otherwise, its credibility will continue to plummet.

2. It is my opinion that the biggest problem in Wikipedia are anti-social editors who, through their impatience and "selective" violations of Wikipedia's core principles drive good editors away, and rob them from any joy and incentive to "volunteer" their time and knowledge.

3. What I try to do is, instead of DEMANDING editors to perfectly adhere to WP policy in 24 hours after they create an article, I allow new and experienced editors to create and add new content and I assume good faith. I patiently wait 4-6 months so they and other interested editors can build the article they are all interested in and have knowledge in BEFORE I come with a little hard on and start reverting non-sourced content and bark at them WP policy codes to make them feel stupid. Worldedixor (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Opinion - 2 November 2013

1. When an editor does not know WP policy, it is understandable. I personally take time to correct their behavior assuming good faith, sometimes add a reliable source when I know their information is accurate, and, at times, I leave them a friendly message guiding them when I know how to.

2. When an admin does not know WP policy, it is NOT understandable but when they do not act on their misunderstanding against contributing editors or maliciously talk about them, then their is absolutely no harm.

3. HOWEVER, when an admin does not know WP policy and does not educate themselves on WP policy BEFORE acting in an adversarial manner towards an unsuspecting editor that they misunderstood, and try to negatively impact the good image of a good, knowledgeable editor who is contributing to WP in good faith, with accurate content and reliable sources, in areas most editors do not, then this is wrong and the admin must be held accountable!...

4. You are not allowed to misinterpret the intent of another editor or misrepresent other editors. You are also not allowed to threaten editors with "admins you know" or threaten to have them blocked for misinterpreting their intentions or for disagreeing with you.

5. Millions of editors edit on WP. I made hundreds of edits. My accurate and well supported edits are seen by hundreds if not thousands of editors. I personally do not willfully nitpick on good, contributing and knowledgeable editors.

This is my opinion on MY Talk page. By reading my Talk page, you must agree NOT to use any of my opinions against me nor "assume that you know my intent". Otherwise please do not read my talk page.

Reflections - 2 November 2013

This is revealing!... Reflecting on these articles... The decline of Wikipedia and Why does Wikipedia keep pestering you for money?

I Feel Good - 1 November 2013

That's all!

Bullies on Wikipedia - Opinion - 1 November 2013

It is widely known that the only way to restrain a bully is to stand up to them. It takes courage!... However, after they flex their internet muscles and throw their tantrums in front of a computer screen, they realize that they have no option but to learn how to act like a human being not just revert edits in a condescending manner, but instead assume good faith, ask for citations, perhaps add quick missing content, and, if needed, revert an edit with a respectful, non-patronizing explanation. WP benefits!

Competence is Required to Edit Wikipedia - Opinion - 1 November 2013

I just love this!...Competence is Required to edit Wikipedia

WP:Competence asserts what amounts to:

Where we very often see big controversies, though, is with editors (admins too) who are disruptive while trying to help. This is where we sometimes see a harmful side effect of our (generally quite useful) notion of assuming good faith. Many editors (and admins) have focused so much on this that they have come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor (and challenge the content of your edits). Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well.

Clearly, every editor is incompetent for some subjects, so it is important to know or discover your limitations.

Respectfully pointing out to another editor that they do not have sufficient knowledge about the subject of an article or their command of the language of the subject is insufficient to challenge your edits should not be taken as an insult.

Assume Good Faith - Opinion - 28 October 2013

It is my opinion that one should communicate with others on Wikipedia as if he or she is talking "face to face" to Queen Elizabeth with all the video cameras recording everything that is being said. Then re-read what he or she writes before communicating with others. This will go a long way as to increase the likelihood that what you mean to say to someone in good faith, in a silent medium where the tone of voice and non-verbal cues are non-existent, and what is perceived by others are exactly the same. My biggest disappointment with Wikipedia is the level of incivility and aggression on the part of some established editors and admins.

This is my opinion on MY Talk page. By reading my Talk page, you must agree NOT to use any of my opinions against me nor "assume that you know my intent". Otherwise please do not read my talk page.

Vision

I envision an improved Wikipedia where everyone strictly adheres to Wikipedia Principles without favoritism.

Assuming good faith is at the core of "el calor humano" between human beings.

I am well-meaning and I contribute in good faith.

If you disagree with my edit, or I inadvertently violate WP Principles, use my "private" Talk page to let me know in a respectful manner and I will be willingly responsive, as long as you provide me with the exact provision in WP policy that I violated, as well as state the policy. Let me explain:

1. As an example, deleting or changing an edit and just leaving a [WP:Other stuff exists] to show your superiority is very often seen as patronizing and "intentionally provocative".

2. By contrast, assuming good faith and saying: "comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes", please see [WP:Other stuff exists] is seen as "helpful". It only takes few seconds to "copy and paste" the exact provision in the humongous policy but it makes a world of difference in "human interaction" and "fostering cooperation between editors".

I am respectful and enjoy a civil, mutually empowering debate. I don't deal well with a hostile, chauvinist, pompous and patronizing approach. So, those who can't help it are better off asking someone decent to contact me on your behalf if you disagree with my edit. You will get what you want, conflict will be avoided, and Wikipedia will benefit. Worldedixor (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Opinion

[update: I am opting to go back to editing, and Wikipedia has admin m.o.p. and the other "unbiased" and well-meaning admins to thank]

I will recuse myself from contributing and editing and will openly express my opinion on my Talk Page for the record.

1. I am not known to remain silent when faced with injustice. It is my opinion that Wikipedia's duplicity inflicted injustice on me and on itself to protect and further "enable" a darling super-editor. I had NO idea that, in this day an age, I would be at the mercy of an insensitive "exclusive club" where my abuser is their "darling" and a flagrant policy violation is "endearingly" overlooked and left without sanctions.

2. I was verbally abused on Wikipedia. I felt violated after being humiliated, cursed and insulted in a despicable manner that is so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized society.

3. I felt so strongly about this personal attack, a flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy, that I sent a notice with a verifiable "strong and convincing evidence" of the abuse at [1].

4. I copied the notice below for easy reference.

5. In my opinion, my abuser walked away with a gentle slap on the wrist, and with a great sense of entitlement to continue doing what he has always done, and a flagrant and violent violation of policy and its supporting "clear and convincing evidence" meant absolutely nothing.

6. The lack of sensitivity, justice, equitable policy and care, even by the admin who dismissed my complaint was self-evident: "Yes, AtG can be a bit rough sometimes, and sometimes he sounds like a total asshole (note how carefully I comment on tone, not on editor! Bbb23 would be proud of me)". This is coming in the form of a public comment on my complaint of abuse from what is supposed to be an "unbiased" admin.

7. I received no protection for "whistleblowing". Retaliation by "the supportive friends" came within seconds of my posting the notice as can be seen below.

8. I copied the notice and all interactions/threat/evidence in its entirety for full disclosure.

Worldedixor (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a permanent block of user AndyTheGrump

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=578772290&oldid=578772135[2]

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

---

If at all possible, I respectfully ask for an unbiased admin who has had no dealings with AndyTheGrump whatsoever in the past, if that’s at all possible, and preferably who does not even know who he is, so that he or she can have a fresh look at this matter and JUSTLY adjudicate this matter without any conflict of interest.

I also seek protection as a “Wikipedia whistleblower”, if such protection is affordable, as one incident of subtle retaliation by an apparent "friend of Andy" has already occurred today, as well as a "restraining order" against AndyTheGrump and his future accounts, if such protection is afforded.

I sincerely thank Wikipedia in advance.

PREAMBLE

It is no secret that AndyTheGrump with his superior policy knowledge is the “darling” of many “well-meaning” admins in Wikipedia who may or may not know his dark side, and who genuinely try to remain unbiased, but their “soft spot for darling Andy” is unmistakable, and what may as well be called the “Blue wall of silence” couldn’t be any clearer after I saw the way my legitimate complaint was handled yesterday as no admin wants to be the one “incommodating Andy”…

I would genuinely like to think that Wikipedia is better than allow, and systematically “enable/give license” to super-editors like AndyTheGrump, who has been blocked more times than most (please refer to his block history), and has shown a systematic pattern of "selectively" using Wikipedia policy as a pretext to abuse and demoralize editors with a grumpy, trollish (instigating not vandalism), nasty, bad faith, uncivilized, antisocial, and passive-aggressive behavior, hinder their “good faith” progress with petty warring edits, badgering and nitpicking, frequently reverting edits seconds after they are made even when WP:BLP clearly allows the editor to insert an edit, and baiting them in a patronizing manner, knowing that they do not know policy well, and he has the edge, while knowing that he is the “darling” of many admins.

Such uncivilized, patronizing, indecent and abusive behavior is so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized society. It robs many well-meaning editors like me, acting in good faith, who just want to share their knowledge, edit in good faith and return to their normal lives, of any incentive to contribute to Wikipedia. Such conduct is also not in Wikepedia's best interest and is completely inconsistent with its CIVILZED culture of harmonious assumption of good faith.

I just want to edit in good faith. I come from a good, highly respected family and I deserve to ALWAYS be treated like an INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEING. I am not a street person to be called names, cursed and be the emotional dumping ground on Wikipedia for random super-editors to take their frustrations on me without even knowing me or my station in life. Most importantly, normal human beings have feelings and feelings are fragile. I can assure you that he would be completely different, probably act like a gentleman, had he being talking to me in person.

I must applaud the good admin Bbb23 (talk), who, albeit clearly having “a soft spot for Andy”, did the right thing by removing the personal attack by AndyTheGrump and “courageously” exposing the true nature of AndyTheGrump, acknowledging the futility of my patient and numerous attempts to reason with him on one particular edit dispute in a civilized debate and good faith:

• “I wouldn't continue the discussion with Andy on the talk page as it's not going to go anywhere. I've removed Andy's personal attack against you as it was truly nasty.” [3]

THIS NOTICE

A. Carefull scrutinizing AndyTheGrump’s dark record will reveal a mountain of evidence to justify the permanent block. However, for this particular notice, I will bring one strong and convincing evidentiary incident of flagrant abuse and complete disregard for the dignity of other human beings. He wrote this to me publicly when I pleaded with him to "treat me like an intelligent human being" after "patiently" trying to reason with him in a civilized manner:

I will treat you as I find you - as a clueless and obnoxious little shit, with all the psychological attributes of a two-year-old. Now go run to mummy and complain about what the big man called you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

[4] [5]

B. I will also disclose that even though I felt so strong about this matter that I brought it up to the attention of the good, well-meaning admin Mark Arsten who, in all fairness, has shown even-handedness previously, he did not block AndyTheGrump as not to “incommodate Andy”, and referred me to WP:ANI “if I'd like to seek sanctions against AndyTheGrump", and then “hid” my report that exposes AndyTheGrump. [6] [7]

C. For full disclosure, I will also expose AndyTheGrump's self-description that goes to shows where all such grumpiness and abusive behavior came from, and that is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia's harmonious and civilized culture and "try to educate" assumption of good faith, as widely displayed by well-meaning admins.

My Name is Andy, and I am a Grump. Well, you'll probably have figured that out from my username. I've not yet determined whether Grumpiness is an infliction or a Human Right, though I'm inclined to the latter view. As for further autobiographical details, I'll remain relatively anonymous for now, beyond stating that I'm male, old enough to know better (if not always wise enough), and educated sufficiently well to understand how little I can ever know. I'm also prone to writing over-long, unnecessarily convoluted sentences (with unnecessary parenthetical insertions and unnecessary repetition of the same words); often with dubious punctuation, which I'll leave for other editors to clarify, disambiguate, and otherwise improve on, while I concentrate on addressing the core of the topic in hand (if I can remember what it was by the time I've written this much...). I can sometimes write short pithy sentences, however. [8]

D. I just want to add that, in my opinion, uncivilized, indecent and abusive conduct by super-editors like AndyTheGrump are perhaps the main reason for the widespread Criticism of Wikipeda article and thousands of negative reviews all around the world at a time it is striving to establish credibility and make justifiable fundraising appeals to families like ours. [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldedixor (talk • contribs) 00:57, 26 October (UTC) 2013‎ Worldedixor (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Worldedixor (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

And yet you can't seem to be bothered signing your posts here or on Andy's page when you notified him.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mark Miller for giving one more evidence of what I stated above. But you are 100% in the right. Please forgive me as it was an unintentional error, and thanks to you, I just fixed it. have a blessed day... Worldedixor (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh....this is gonna be a popcorn thread I see.......--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I will deal with the substance of this later - if anyone shows any signs of taking it seriously after looking at Worldedixor's recent edit history (and not so recent - his/her edits at DHgate.com are as good an example of why Wikipedia doesn't need Worldedixor's 'expertise' as one could possibly find). Meanwhile, a couple of points for Worldedixor. Firstly there is no protection for 'whistleblowers' here - see WP:BOOMERANG. And secondly, if you are going to make allegations about "subtle retaliation" by others, you had damned well produce the evidence - I will freely admit that my behaviour wasn't at its best, but I see no reason why you should be permitted to make wild allegations about others without justification. Put up, or shut up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, Worldedixor, Andy was being perfectly civil with you until your umpteenth freak attack. I look at the fact that you have been arguing on the wrong side of policy up and down Talk:Aida Nikolaychuk, seem to exhibit ownership behavior on that same talk page, and based on this conversation seem to view your disputes with Andy as some kind of battleground. You seem in general to be extremely quick to accuse people of being mean to you when they have done nothing of the sort, for instance at Talk:Aida_Nikolaychuk#YouTube_links. Frankly, Andy is being more than respectful to you in that exchange.

What you really need to do is take a step back and chill. You don't know all the rules yet. Attempts to educate you on the rules are not an attack on your work - they are meant to help your work. Being a collaborative encyclopedia means that there will be disagreements and you won't always get your way. If that's not something you're comfortable with, it's your problem, not Andy's. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 'not knowing the rules yet', Worldedixor has been a contributor since 2006. [10] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Someguy1221 for giving yet one more subtle evidence. I think my intial statement gave all the verifiable facts. I only contribute minimally here and there to Wikipedia. I do not edit full time. Have a good day. Worldedixor (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm a little more sympathetic to Worldedixor's plight than others. At the same time, I don't think the content dispute belongs here, and I don't think Andy will be sanctioned for his comments. My suggestion is that the content dispute be resolved through the usual dispute resolution mechanisms (if Worldedixor clings to naming the son - regardless of who's right I think it's a fairly insignificant thing to get into a snit about), Worldedixor forget about the unpleasant exchange with Andy, and move on, hopefully with a little less drama and verbosity.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23 (talk) for being fair and just. I highly value your opinion but I respectfully disagree. Have a pleasant day, my friend. Worldedixor (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'content dispute', such as it is, was never really the primary issue as far as I'm concerned - it was more a matter of getting Worldedixor to acknowledge that the article had to be properly sourced and encyclopaedic. It is difficult to work alongside someone who objects to the removal of unsourced trivia about the name of Aida Nikolaychuk's dog, and the name of a friend (with no indication of why this friend was even of any significance). [11] And then there is the matter of Worldedixor contacting (or claiming to contact) the subject of the article. [12] (That particular diatribe was the result of me asking Worldedixor where s/he was getting information from [13]). I for one don't think Wikipedia contributors should be contacting article subjects - particularly contributors who seem entirely oblivious to the basics of how Wikipedia works. Right from the start, Worldedixor seemed to want to ignore policy and fill the article with unsourced fluff - apparently expecting hypothetical 'fans of Nikolaychuk' to do all the donkey-work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Worldedixor, please see AndyTheGrump's recent edit history, then see WP:NOPUNISH. AndyTheGrump, please try to work things out here, or else one or more of the administrators here may block you. Best regards, Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 01:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Epicgenius for giving such a threat and an evidence of all that I stated above. This notice is about much more than one edit dispute. It is about indecent conduct and much more. I refer you to my original statement to read carefully. Worldedixor (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Cut to the chase:

• Oppose - and suggest that the editor Worldedixor be blocked for disruptive editing for 48 hours, double the length of the block from the 24th that appears to not to have done the trick of preventing further disruptive behavior. I don't know if DR/N will accept this. Certainly not while this thread is open.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I respect "your support of Andy". However, please respect my wish delineated in my original statement to eliminate conflict of interest. Thank you for your cooperation. Worldedixor (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"Conflict of interest"????? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Do we really have to vote on this (sigh)? I recommend closing this topic with no action against anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Comment: Not something that the admins have to vote on (the one vote here is opposing the move (I mean the action (nobody seems to care anyway))). Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 01:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• No, Bb23 we don't have to....if you feel there is no need and wish to close this thread now, I will not object.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yikes, Worldedixor has been editing since 2006, yet they feel that the OP is somehow helpful, and they think Talk:Aida Nikolaychuk#Voting on the inclusion of the name of Aida's son in the article is reasonable. Andy's initial comment (in full) was: 'See WP:NOTVOTE. Content issues are decided in reference to policy, and after discussion. And no, Wikipedia is not governed by "case law" or precedent.' As normal, let's again thank Andy while asking that he bang his head on the desk rather than publicly flame out. @Worldedixor: Wikipedia is a project to develop an enccyclopedia based on certain standard procedures—please listen to editors like Andy when they explain those procedures, and ignore them when they flame out. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Johnuniq for making an effort to "show non-bias to Andy". I listened carefully to your respectful advice and will assume it was made in good faith, but I will refer you to my original statement. Have a blessed day. Worldedixor (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, close this complaint. And maybe, despite his long tenure at WP, it's time for Worldedixor to get a mentor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• This seems to be one of those cases that requires an admin to either take action or simply close as no action needed. I feel there is enough evidence that Worldedixor has continued disruptive behavior to boomerang for their own disruptive behavior coming off a requested unblock. It might appear to some that the unblock, while seemingly the right move from the fair minded unblock request was, in fact, too soon. Perhaps Liz is correct and a mentorship requirement instead of another block will do.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Griselda Blanco

Now that you've been unblocked, you need to spend a little time learning policies and guidelines at Wikipedia if you want to edit here successfully. I've taken the trouble to look at this series of edits you made to the Blanco article, and here are some points:

1. It's almost always wrong to use hyperbole in the lead of an article, even if there's some support for it scattered throughout the body of the article. Thus your addition of "powerful, violent and cruel" before drug lord should not have been made.
2. You added "She was known as the first Colombian drug lord to export cocaine to the United States, and the person who taught the minions of the seventies, after killing several rivals, even one of her own husband at short range." without any source.
3. You are adding bare URLs inside the article. At a minimum, they should be put in referenced footnotes. You do this consistently. Please read WP:REF.
4. You added a link to a picture right after "where a photo was taken of her." The source for the picture is unreliable, and the picture has zero context that it's even her or that it was the picture at issue.
5. You changed the language at the beginning of the death section. The details you added were unnecessary. It was well-worded before your edit.
6. You added: "According to a witness interviewed by The Miami Herald, the killer was a man in his 40s or 50s who was calm and composed throughout the attack. She was transported by la Unidad Intermedia de Belén where minutes later he lost his life." I see no support for that assertion at all.

I'm not going to revert your changes. Instead, I'd like to see you clean it up and then let me know when you've done that. Think of this as mini-mentoring. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23. I will respond line by line for your easy reference. 1. Please feel free to make the changes in your first point, I would genuinely appreciate it. Also, please free to write the article. I am fine with that.

2. I did use reliable sources. I invite you to read and listen to them.

3. Is it OK to build the article and then do the cosmetics? It takes a lot of mental focus to add reliable content in good faith. The bare link is less distracting than ref for me, and it helps stay focused.

4. Not sure how to deal with the picture. But that picture sure appears like Griselda. She was very well known.

5. I respectfully disagree. My edit is more detailed and sourced.

6. I provided reliable sources. I invite you to read and listen to them.

7. No, no more questions... I feel I adequately addressed your message. Thank you for your concern.

Worldedixor (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Let's put aside some of our areas of disagreement for the moment. I want you to edit the article and make the changes that either you agree are necessary or conform to Wikipedia guidelines (references, for example). It's not fair of you to expect others to clean up after you, and you need to learn how to do this properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome Bbb23. Will do. With all due respect, I believe that comments like "It's not fair of you to expect others to clean up after you" are unnecessary. Worldedixor (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the ref tags. Minor points. References go outside punctuation marks, and there should be no spaces between the punctuation marks and the references and no spaces between multiple references. Now let's go back to the remaining content issues:

• Point #4. The website you cite is not a reliable source. It's some sort of website about paranormal activity. You can't use it for that reason alone. The fact that you think the picture looks like Blanco is WP:OR, but even if you're right, as I said earlier, there's nothing to connect the picture to what the material in our article says. I don't see any gray area here. It has to be removed.
• Point #5. I don't want to argue over how much detail is too much detail. So, let's assume your added detail adds value. What you should then do is merge your revised sentence with the succeeding sentence about the drive-by shooting. Otherwise, it's weirdly redundant.
• Point #6. Please identify the source that supports the material you added.

Thanks for indenting here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Point #4. I can assume good faith and will concede and remove the picture reference.

Point #5. I respectfully disagree with you, and I feel that the paragraph "as is" is good, but I value your respectful disagreement.

Point #6. I have identified several sources that support the material I added.

J'suis sûr q tu causes bien le Français... ¿pero como está tu Español?

Worldedixor (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

My French is much better than my Spanish. Please just give me a link to the source, whatever language it's in.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand "one link to the source". It is all there properly referenced in the article. In an efforet to be helpful and patient with you, and if you mean the details I added to her death paragraph, here is the very highly reliable sources I duly included in the article as a reference [14][15]. If you need help understanding Spanish, please let me know as Google Translate is not always accurate, and I will help you understand in good faith.Worldedixor (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I translated the article, and nothing came close to supporting that particular material. I didn't listen to the YouTube, but you put it earlier in the paragraph, not after the material at issue. Does it support that material? Oh, lest I forget, going back to Point #2 above, there are no citations after that material. What supports it? In general, it should be clear from the citations what supports what.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to assume bad faith nor abuse of admin powers here, but, with all due respect, your statement "I translated the article, and nothing came close to supporting that particular material" is INACCURATE. You obviously do NOT have sufficient knowledge about the subject nor do you have command of the Spanish language. With all due respect, it is my opinion that an editor should only edit an article when they have sufficient knowledge of the subject of the article. Would you be editing an article about Assi El Helani when you do not have sufficient knowledge about him if it weren't ME who was editing it? I invite you to be helpful to me and recognize your limitations. Putting this aside, le me ask you a policy question. If one source is a reference for 40 statements in 10 paragraphs in the same article, is it WP policy to add it 40 times or more after each sentence, or is my understanding correct that once the reference is included in an article, it can serve as a reference for the entire article, and those interested editors who have sufficient knowledge about the subject and can understand the language of the subject of the article can easily verify it? If policy allows this, please copy and paste the "exact provision" and state the WP policy. I am trying to remain respectful and patient with you, and it is my opinion, and how I feel, that I am being singled out, for obvious reasons, by an admin acting as an editor editing an article of which he has no sufficient knowledge and his command of the Spanish language is equally insufficient. Worldedixor (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to help you and went to a lot of trouble to do so. Not that I think what you've done post-unblock warrants reblocking, but, based on your attitude, I fear you won't last long at Wikipedia. Perhaps @Master of Puppets: or someone else can help you. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I do have to say that I'm not quite impressed; @Bbb23: has been trying to help you learn how to edit Wikipedia without conflicting with others. Given the amount of friction he's getting in response, it isn't exactly a rosy picture.

Please note that Bbb23 has not done a single thing in his admin capacity here, so saying that there's admin abuse here is quite offensive. This is an editor attempting to mentor another editor - don't paint it as a power trip in disguise.

It's also rather insulting that you're critiquing Bbb23's grasp of languages or his knowledge, and the idea that everybody who edits Wikipedia should be an expert in their field is bizarre. If that's how we worked, we would be Encyclopedia Brittanica - rather, we rely on reliable sourcing and unbiased writing. If Bbb23 - who I know to be an intelligent individual - doesn't reach the same conclusion after reading your source as you do, how can we assume that other readers of that article won't misinterpret it either? Hopefully you understand why Bbb23's concerned about the source. Nobody questions your no-doubt impeccable knowledge of Assi El Helani, but we need to use sources that require very minimal, if any, interpretation.

It would be appreciated if you take some time in writing your reply, and ensure that you apologize to Bbb23 for your abrasiveness. After all, when somebody helps you out of good will, you do not throw it back in their face. There are other issues to cover, but I'd like to get these out of the way first. m.o.p 16:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

m.o.p., although it was my "opinion" that I was singled out, my statements were respectful, objective and were supported by verifiable facts. I made sure to say that I do NOT want to assume, my intent was not to rush to accusation, and I made sure to show respect so that there is no "assumption" of disrespect. Another admin has abrasively used the abrasive word asshole and no one ever pointed out to them that this was inappropriate and abrasive. I adhere to verifiable facts and when something is verifiably INACURATE, I say it is INACCURATE. This is a FACT not disrespect. The proof is that no other Spanish speaking editor who has knowledge of the subject has changed my edits in Griselda Blanco for obvious reasons, but to say "I translated the article, and nothing came close to supporting that particular material", is INACCURATE as I added specifically what the reliable sources asserted. A Spanish speaking editor who has sufficient knowledge of the subject will be able to read and hear the details "El Poblado", the "3:00 pm", etc... in the sources I provided. Please remember that it takes a lot of time and effort to find reliable sources and add content that you know for sure is accurate but you must support it. I think what I added in 12 hours to the Griselda Blanco article should be highly commended, and a little patience would have gone a long way towards allowing well-meaning editors like me to build the content, then later trim it down, and assure that the article looks decent and to WP standards as a final product and after other editors who have sufficient knowledge about the subject have added their input. I don't think there is a rush to do it in 24 hours. It can wait. I certainly meant no harm, far from it. There are millions of WP articles that need a lot of work, not only the articles that I edit. My edits have improved articles that I edited. I have already taken Bbb23's observations on the adding "ref" and corrected them, and removed "powerful", etc... as he pointed out. This is a verifiable fact. However, since I clearly disagree with his "edits of the content" of the article, I will simply take the high road and avoid editing warring, and I will no longer edit the Article Griselda Blanco even though I have sufficient knowledge about the subject. I have already helped in other articles that desperately needed help.Worldedixor (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're trying to be respectful, but it is not possible to say 'you don't know what you're talking about' respectfully. As I said before, remember that people can only interpret your words, not your meaning.

Thank you for taking a few of the things that Bbb23 has said to heart. But you will not get very far if you approach every content dispute with the mindset that everyone is wrong. Even if you believe that someone's view is incorrect, and even if you're being respectful, it's only fair to hear out the other side.

That aside, I would still like you to apologize to Bbb23, as I don't think your last interaction left a good taste in his mouth. I'd appreciate it if you made amends. m.o.p 23:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

m.o.p, to be fair, my record clearly shows that I CERTAINLY do NOT "approach every content dispute with the mindset that everyone is wrong". Worldedixor (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know. I did not say you do. But, as of now, you've clashed with multiple editors who've stated they do not feel they can reach compromise with you.

I am not saying this is your fault. I am not saying the other editors weren't partly to blame. My goal is not to figure out how to allocate blame or point fingers. Yes, I am aware that you've also reached happy compromise with some editors.

I'm just saying - Bbb23 tried to help you. You reacted in a way that I find concerning and that put him off helping you completely. As mentioned, this is not the first time that's happened. I'm pointing out something that I believe you should change, that's all. This isn't an attack - it's well-intended advice. m.o.p 00:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I will also add, being a good person, and even though I stated verifiable facts and no one should be forced to ever apologize for standing up for what is right and stating verifiable facts, I am sorry that the last interaction left a bad taste in his mouth, but it certainly was not my intention. Thank you for your efforts, m.o.p. Worldedixor (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to add in the above section but edit-conflicted with you - figured I'd include it anyway, just to clarify my intent. Thank you for being civil and cool-headed! You know where to find me if you need anything. Best, m.o.p 00:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, m.o.p. :) Worldedixor (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

An Example of a no-friction Civil Debate in Good Faith and Pleasant Interaction between well-meaning Editors

This example at [16] and [17] displays my vision of an improved Wikipedia where respect and cooperation are mutual. Something to ponder upon when we approach other intelligent human beings.Worldedixor (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for RM, sorry to disagree - also just a note that nominators do not normally "support" their own proposal, see other RMs, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, In ictu oculi, for your participation and your guidance. In the future, I will certainly follow your guidance, and not support my own nominations to change the name of an article. It sure is easy to compromise with me when you're this cool, human and respectful. And thanks a lot for the cookie. It is a much appreciated and welcome "calor humano".Worldedixor (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Laa mushkila ;). In ictu oculi (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Important Explanation to Self - Citation density according to WP:MINREF

Wikipedia certainly does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles.

Talkback

Hello, Worldedixor. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page.
Message added 21:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

My "opinion" on an Uplifting Exchange on Civility and the Status Quo that is Heartwarming

I chose to remove this for a reason!... I was wrong about the "heartwarming" nature of civility I saw, and someone misconstrued my "good intention" to honor what appeared to be "civility", and labeled it as bad for obvious reasons. Such moves make my "enormous contributions" to WP less enjoyable, even after I sieved through the to learn how to use reliable sources and references... Ah well, WP has tons of FREE CONTENT and I'll find other quotes. WP:Wikihounding

Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially.

Every editor agrees to irrevocably agree to a full release to whatever they write on WP.

Use of "terrorist" as an adjective

I'm sure you will, as is your right, remove this (indicating you've read it), but you should understand that 1RR is not a right, and continuing to add this when you don't have consensus is a bad idea. I am not going to nor have I used my Admin position in any of this debate, despite your claims, but anyone can report an editor for edit-warring. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I will not remove this. I will keep it for posterity. As I said, I will no longer participate in that tiresome article and now I certainly will not participate at all. I have a real "stress free" and happy life in paradise, and do not live life in front of a computer screen. So, be advised that I will no longer revert your repeated removals and I have already shared my observations with the pertinent parties. Have a good day. Worldedixor (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Islamic State

Hello there, Worldedixor! Just to let you know, I did check with an Arabic-speaking Wiki editor on that translation of the Arabic which you said was "The Islamic State" and of course you were right. I did suspect it when I saw the two Arabic versions you put on the page and the squiggle on the end of "The Islamic State", which was absent in "Islamic State". That squiggle I assume is "al", which I do know means "the". I can't remember now whether I compared it to the Arabic writing in the Lead, but I must have done. As I said, my query only arose because I had seen disputes about the name elsewhere. I never meant to insult you, but can see now how you might have taken it that way. My apologies to you. I don't know how you feel about it, but I thought it might be a good idea to call it "the Islamic State" in the article, but "The Islamic State" in headings and infoboxes. It would be nice to standardise it throughout the article, as it is chaotic at the moment, sometimes being called "Islamic State" and sometimes "the Islamic State". (In quotes from citations, we would have to stick to their version, of course.) What do you think? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I am no longer interested in that article at all. It is not worth my time. Enjoy doing what you enjoy doing in life. Have a good day. Worldedixor (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel this way. At least between us we did manage to get a terrorism reference into that article, which is no mean achievement, I think. Best wishes, P123ct1 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor, can you say what you mean by two-faced and racist, please? I have never in my life been accused of anything like that and cannot understand how you can say it. I was trying to find out about the Arabic because I was concerned that I had been wrong about what you had said, found you were right, and felt I owed you an apology. Sakvilian speaks both Farsi and Arabic - it says so on his user page, and that he is Iranian. (I do not know what nationality you are as your user page is blank.) I discovered this after an exchange I had with him about Wahhabism in this article. As for my other remark, you had been very hostile to me, and it was meant as a joke, nothing more (and in retrospect one in pretty poor taste, perhaps that was the trouble? It was made with no premeditation.) It was ill-advised of me and I wish I had not said it. I bear you no ill-will at all and am very sorry indeed that it has come to this. I very rarely fall out with people and this has upset me quite a bit. Please do not be offended, and I wish you would come back to editing the article, perhaps after a short break from it. It could do with your help. I was impressed with the effort you put in to get those citations, for example, and I appreciated your moral support at the beginning of that exercise. I cannot help feeling strongly about how the wording should be implemented and was extremely frustrated that I apparently could not get my point across. I can understand that at the moment you want nothing more to do with this article, but you may feel differently later. I do hope so. For the record, I have had my own frustrations with editing and felt like giving it all up, though I never had a dispute with anyone, so I understand how you feel. Wikipedia can be a rough place and I have seen what it does to some people. There is another editor working on this article I talk to who is going through a very rough time at the moment, for example. Please reconsider withdrawing from work on this article, and most of all, let us be friends again. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

PS I have removed my joke from Sakvilian's page and told him I have done so. I have read WP:PA you referred me to and am appalled now at what I did. It does say comments can be removed. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: Attempted withdrawal of the above message failed. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edit at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant‎ accusing unnamed editors of WP:OWN

That was completely inappropriate and I've deleted it. If you want to accuse an editor of WP:OWN then go to ANI, don't take digs at unnamed editors on the article talk page. I know you weren't referring to me but to User:P123ct1. Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF. This should explain it. Undid revision 620617022 by Dougweller (talk) -- undoing wrong assumption by an admin. There were no digs. Everyone is editing peacefully here. Briefly explaining WP:Own will lessen conflicts and the need for ANI. Worldedixor (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Your user talkpage is for communicating with other users. It's not for keeping a shitlist of people you don't like, or for posting opinion pieces on. Wikipedia is not your blog, and you have absolutely no "unalienable right to openly express my opinion on my Talk Page for the record"; your talkpage belongs to the project, not to you. There are many other websites you can use for such a purpose. This one is supposed to be an encyclopedia (god help us). Please remove the attacks on other users and the bad-tempered "opinion pieces" on this page, or I will. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

As you have been told before, WP:AN/I would be an appropriate venue if you think there was actionable misconduct (or WP:AE for issues related to arbitration enforcement). Your talk page is not. Huon (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

To: Bishonen. Admins are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, unbiased and civil manner at all times in their interactions with others. Admins are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. I am an editor with a wealth of information to contribute to WP, and as soon as I make a "well sourced edit" I get WP:Wikihounding. WP is losing valuable editors that you should be retaining not removing their joy of editing WP. You are "ganging up on me" (not the first time) and proving my points. What you are saying is a flagrant violation of my unalienable rights AND WP Rules that expressly "permit the compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process", etc. I am in the process or compiling evidence on MY talk page, as per WP Rules and would be escalating this chronic matter to James directly in the best interest of Wikipedia and its continuous improvement. If I win, WP wins. If I lose, WP loses. WP has already been suffering from lawsuits. Worldedixor (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You have no such inalienable right, in fact you have no rights on Wikipedia. It's not a guardian of you free speech, it's a private website, which you get to use on certain conditions. Using your talkpage for its proper purpose is one of the conditions. Abstaining from attacking others is another condition. As for your "This is my opinion on MY Talk page. By reading my Talk page, you must agree NOT to use any of my opinions against me nor "assume that you know my intent". Otherwise please do not read my talk page" above, that's absurd. Anybody is allowed to read your talkpage. That's the nature of the project; it's transparent. If your page contains opinions that "can be used against you", the solution is to not post such opinions. Again, a user talkpage is not a blog. It's for discussing improvements to the project.

Your "opinion editorials" don't go on your talkpage. Possibly on your userpage, provided they don't contain attacks on others. Please feel free to move the non-attacking opinion pieces there. But if you want to keep a grudge/attack list, whether for the purpose of making a complaint or not, you'll have to do it on your own computer. It doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia except briefly, on a separate subpage (and just as you say, in the form of factual evidence (diffs), while you work up the putative complaint, to "James" or whoever. Some of your attacks have been here for a long time, and they're in any case completely inappropriate on this page. Please begin making the requested changes soon, or I will.

Oh, and was your mention of lawsuits meant as a threat to instigate one? If it was, I will indefblock you right now. Please clarify. Bishonen | talk 17:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

I made no threat to instigate a lawsuit. Please do NOT put words in my mouth. Do NOT use your "wrong" assumption of my intent as a pretext to make unwarranted threats of indefblock. I was referring to current and previous lawsuits filed in one or more Superior Courts. Those are verifiable FACTS. WP Rules expressly "permit the compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process", etc.. I intend to use this compilation which has more than one actionable misconduct on WP:HA and WP:ADMINABUSE intra alia. You should be leading by example and behaving in a respectful, unbiased and in a civil manner, and enforcing WP Rules EQUALLY at all times, not removing the joy of editing WP when my edits are always well sourced.

I am discussing improvements to the project. Worldedixor (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I ask Jimbo Wales as well as an unbiased, uninvolved admin who is not a "pal or a biased defender" of any of the above mentioned to look objectively at the verifiable facts presented, and assist in a Dispute Resolution in this edit conflict and WP:Wikihounding. Worldedixor (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)