From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Замкадыши штурмуют столицу нашей Родины - город Москва.

Republican American hysteria

Deplorable edit[edit]

This edit is deplorable; I trust it will not recur. If we are going to have an interim form until consensus, it should either be the day before yesterday's text, or the last undisputed form, from August. (It should also not make an incomplete and inaccurate account of the extent of the dispute.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Pmanderson (Result:)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Triangle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 20:45

Comments:The previous version is itself a reversion, as the edit summary shows; this is only the last 24 hours. Except for the third, which added three words, these are exact reversions; the "new versions" above are in fact almost complete reversions (one did a move; the other readded the same text to a slight revision of my own. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


The hopeful edits of those who do not capitalize English correctly, however, do not constitute English usage in any sense, academic or otherwise. It may be a good idea to establish a Pidgin (Creole? Koine?) English Wikipedia, but this is not it.

Q1. Do you support replacing Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research with a single policy?[edit]



Q2: If there is a merge, are Wikipedia:Attribution (and its FAQ proposed as a guideline) adequate replacements of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and perhaps Wikipedia:Reliable sources.[edit]

Yes, it is good enough.[edit]

No, it requires significant changes.[edit]

Q3: If these policies aren't replaced, should Wikipedia:Attribution be kept as official policy:[edit]

Yes, it should be kept as official policy together with the current ones.[edit]

Yes, it should be kept as official policy, and the others should be explanations of it.[edit]

No, it should be made historical.[edit]

No, but it could serve as a summary of current policies.[edit]

Do you support Wikipedia:Attribution?[edit]

[i.e., Do you believe it can be useful in some form?]

If the pages are merged should they include:[edit]

[Vote in the appropriate section, "yes" or "no".


Wikipedia:No original research[edit]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources[edit]

Do you support the merger behind Wikipedia:Attribution?[edit]

Q1. Which of the following do you support?[edit]

[You can vote any of the options, or vote 1st option, 2nd option and so forth]

In the alternatives given below, the original pages means: those policy or guideline pages that, in accordance with consensus established in response to question 2, should be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution. WP:ATT is not everywhere verbally identical with its sources. Its supporters assert it makes no changes in policy, but is better phrased.

A. The original pages become inactive. Wikipedia:Attribution serves as a unified policy on their subjects.[edit]

B. Wikipedia:Attribution remains as the definitive policy, but the original pages remain active to describe the concepts in greater detail.[edit]

C. The original pages serve as the definitive policies (or guideline in the case of WP:RS), but Wikipedia:Attribution remains active as a condensed summary.[edit]

D. Wikipedia:Attribution becomes inactive. (Parts of it that reflect consensus are integrated into the original pages.)[edit]

Wikipedia:Attribution proposes that the current Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policy with the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline be merged into a single policy page. Do you:[edit]

[You can vote any of the options, or vote 1st option, 2nd option and so forth]

A. Support the merger of the three pages in the current form[edit]

B. Support some form of a merger, but not the current proposal[edit]

C. Support maintaining the current pages in their current form[edit]

D. Have some other opinion (just vote here, opine in the comments section)[edit]


Far more seriously, in the process of finding out what is meant here, I find that the following sentences are cut-and-paste directly from their sources, without quotation marks. (I have rewritten some; the original is in [brackets] below. Identical portions are in italics.)

This is unacceptable on three grounds:

  • It risks copyright violation. WP:IANAL, and I do not know the limits of American copyright law, which governs, but WP:COPYVIO is quite severe.
  • It is intellectually dishonest for Wikipedia to produce and disseminate other people's prose, even such humdrum prose as the list of elements in the CRC handbooks. Remember, our mirrors will broadcast this page.
  • It is an invitation to bad writing. The level of detail, and the emphases, appropriate to a different article, often with a narrower focus and a different context, may not be appropriate to us. Read; understand; write your own paragraphs.
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

Revert Warrior[edit]

User:Tony1 reported by User:Pmanderson (Result: )[edit]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported:

  • These are a typical 24 hours of Tony's editing; please note that he has reverted several different editors, often with different versions of the same issue.
  • This is as significant in WP space as it is in article space, often more so; Tony1 is claiming ownership over the whole MOS. If one revert-warrior determines that a guideline shall not change unless he is consulted first, the presumption that it is stable because it is consensus is damaged. Some of these are several independent editors making different edits in the same direction, all reverted by Tony1.
  • These are not all to the same basis; he edits himself, mostly without consultation; I have included only the complete reversions, and the edit reverted.
  • This threat of mindless revert-warring against me just puts the icing on the cake.
incredibly unprofessional and illogical and goes against every known published style guide

And so on[edit]

When looking, for other good reasons, at SandyGeorgia's edit history, I found the name of an article she had commented on the day before interesting, and commented on a related AfD, here. I have now received a warning claiming that this one occurence is Wikistalking. This seems to me a much tighter definition than the "following a user around Wikipedia" that WP:STALK uses; it has been combined with an undiscussed revert of a copyedit, here.

If it is consensus that this was stalking, I will apologize, and suggest that WP:STALK be reworded; but I don't think this was, or can have been, the intent. Good editors visit interesting articles which I did not know existed. I trust, on the other hand, that this is not an effort to use admin powers to gain an edge in a wording discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)