Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive37

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Cheeser1

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Obviously frivolous complaint regarding another WQA. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of frivolous complaints, bad editing history and alterior motives.[1] Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser's comments were in the context of discussing your behaviour, and followed quite bit of discussion. In that light, his comments - as expressions of his opinion of your editing style and history - were not in violation of any Wikipedia policy, in my view. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't normally say things like this on Wikipedia, but WTF? You don't get the response you want at the WQA and you file a WQA alert about it? Stop gaming the system. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record: Guido's block log, Guido forumshops at the WQA Guido files frivolous complaint at the WQA and at the ANI. Last time Guido filed a complaint here, he called the WQA completely useless. I wonder why he's back. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Good grief. They were in context in regards to your poor behaviour, and it is comments such as that that do not help out your situation. You've been through the rings of WQA before, all on the receiving end I should add. You didn't get the response you desired, so it is highly inappropriate to re-file a request against others. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

After numerous edit conflicts:

  • @Sarc: If he has issues with my behaviour, he should file a complaint and provide diffs. Not dismiss an alert about another user. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • @Chees(1): Typical. Again, you assume. No, I did not file this alert because you dismissed another alert. I filed it because of your accusations against me, which were totally uncalled for. If you think there is nothing wrong with OM's behaviour: fine, say so. But don't accuse me. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • @Chees(2): I see that you also repeat your ridiculous accusation of forumshopping. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • @Seicer: same wrong assumption. Is it really necessary to mob-jump the victim to such an extent that I can't even get an answer in? And no, you are incorrect, too, I have not been on the receiving end of any WQA's. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You clearly don't understand how the WQA works. If you file a complaint, your editing is just as much under review as anyone else's. You can't demand that we only examine one part of the bigger picture. And several respondents to the WQA report you filed marked it as obvious forumshopping. I was not the only one. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheeser, I'd recommend you step away from this one, since it involves you directly. I'll take a look at the history and see if it warrants further attention. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen any precedent for barring the user in question from commenting on his or her own WQA. However, since this complaint clearly has no substance to which I might respond, I consider my response to be complete and have nothing more to add. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Cheeser got it exactly right when he said "If you file a complaint, your editing is just as much under review as anyone else's. You can't demand that we only examine one part of the bigger picture." He was asked (by you) to look at a given situation, and it was his opinion that your own behaviour was part of what caused/exacerbated the situation. Saying so is entirely in keeping with how Wikiquette alerts work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

He did not look at the bigger picture, but skipped the complaint entirely and looked only at (imagined and unrelated) behaviour by me. Also, I did not ask him. By filing an alert, I asked for an uninvolved opinion. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily endorsing or criticizing Cheeser's handling of the particular alert (largely because I haven't read most of it). I'm just saying that, in the context of evaluating the behaviour of all involved users, his comments weren't a breach of any WP policy or guideline. I see User:KieferSkunk has jumped in to the above-alert, so I won't bother saying any more about it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Guido: I'm not necessarily endorsing Cheeser's response either - in this case, I suggested he step back since he's the one being accused of wrongdoing. IMO, it's better to have an uninvolved third party comment instead of you two getting into an argument here over who's right and who's wrong. But I do agree with Cheeser's statement that filing a WQA means that both the accused and the accuser come under scrutiny - if we only paid attention to the person that was being accused, this page would be completely full of frivolous requests, because anyone could accuse anyone else of anything under the sun with impunity. That's not how it works.
Cheeser's opinion, as I interpreted it, was that you were jumping the gun on the OrangeMarlin situation. There had already been a WQA against him earlier, the diffs you provided against OM did not appear to constitute a major breach of Wikiquette, and (as I also pointed out) you appeared to be working against consensus and putting yourself in a position where people would stop assuming that you're working in good faith. That seems to be the basis for Cheeser's saying you filed a frivolous alert, and frankly, I agree - your alert seemed to be much more about you not getting your way in the Fibromyalgia article and arguing with OM over that, than it did with any real abuse OM might have been engaged in. The comments he made toward you appear to have been provoked, so while they are still not in line with WP:CIVIL, IMO, you share some responsibility for them as well.
This is the part where I tell you all to take a step back and cool down for a little while, and come back to the table when you're ready to get back to the content dispute at hand. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the assertion that 'I did not get my way' is incorrect. Djma12's text was replaced with a much more balanced text by Dr. Anymouse. User:KieferSkunk erroneously attributed this version to Djma12; perhaps others have done the same. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul Newsletter Controversy

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Edit-warring isn't really going to get settled at the WQA. Referred to various other places. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you check the talk pages Talk:Ron Paul and Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 as well as there respective article's edit histories, you'll notice that there is a bit of a slow burning edit war occurring over the inclusion of material from and rebuttals to the recent articles concerning controversial newsletters that bear Ron Paul's name. While I don't think that anyone has broke any specific policy, the situation is slowly turning into a battleground with editors on both sides fighting to include and remove material instead of working toward consensus. I don't know if a few new eyes might help the situation, but if the trend keeps up, I predict that this will end in WP:RFAr. Burzmali (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the WQA is really able to address edit-warring, especial that kind of stuff. If there's vandalism, see the WP:AIV. If it's just a few people making a mess of things, but they want to discuss it, try WP:RFC. If they don't want to discuss anything, try the WP:DR or WP:ANI. If there is severe edit warning, I'd first suggest WP:RFPP for the anons and then WP:ANI. It already seems like there's a fair deal of administrator attention on the article though. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jdchamp31

I appear to have annoyed the above user because I reverted a change he made that was contrary to previous consensus. Since then he seems to be engaged in an ever increasing war of harassment. This has included more than five bad faith warnings posted on my Talk: page. I've asked him to be civil, it's not stopping.

This is continuing.

Can someone step in, please? --Squiggleslash (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had a discussion (albeit onesided) with this user and it seems that he has stopped his personal attacks. His posting was becoming increasingly disruptive and I will continue to monitor over the next few days to make sure this is, indeed, over and done with. Trusilver (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Hoffman

Could someone take the time to introduce the editors contributing to Talk:Steve Hoffman to our basic policies and guidelines regarding how to conduct themselves in article talk pages, as well as the purpose of article talk pages? A new discussion on the article talk page should be enough. Most are new editors and WP:SPAs. A number of editors, including myself, have tried to assist with the disputes there. Part of the problem is that most, if not all, of these new editors contribute regularly to forums where similar discussions have taken place. Simply put, they are treating this article talk page as if it were a continuation of their forum. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Irishlass0128

Could someone please look into this users actions on the following site [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Las_Vegas_%28TV_series%29#Discussion_regarding_infobox}. Their issue can be found under, Discussion regarding infobox. Their actions have been uncivil and there's grounds for a immediate block. I have warned all three users of this discussion, to no longer post uncivil behavior. However Irishlass has continued to be a problem and has continued a egg on another editor. I've addressed DJS24 not to say anymore, as he is trying to address his side of the issue. KellyAna and Irishlass have been very difficult, as a discussion page to prove points. Irishlass is to busy calling in admin. that she knows and KellyAna is to busy playing the rules/guidlines queen. You will see my comments, as they describe the entire situation. Please some admins. please respond... In Best Regards CARS! --CarsGm5 (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do, look into the discussion, you'll see I've been trying to keep the peace. I did, indeed, question someone who came in and immediately claimed to be a former admin. As is indicated on the page, I was under the, now apparently misguided, impression that it was okay to move discussions to a different place. CARS, is upset that I doubt he is a former admin. He claims I'm calling in other admins, I did. I did because he said he was so I believed that to be an open invitation for me to ask others to look at the situation. Although I certainly wasn't too busy calling in admins, that took just a few minutes. Why did I call them, because assuming good faith only goes so far. Asking people to assume a new editor is a former admin goes too far. I asked other admins, what I believed his former brotherhood, to look into the claim after Cars said that is what he was going to do. Not a case of "two wrongs" just a thought process that it must be okay since he was doing it. But I only asked they look into the claim of former admin, nothing more. The full situation is, two brand new editors have come in and started problems, one with immediate disruptive edits and the other claiming to be an admin. So, yes, look into the situation. I've only tried to help and up until I questioned Cars, he said I had been. IrishLass (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue has been addressed by Admin. User:MangoJuice. The discussion is still opened. However the discussion is finally moving in the right direction now that someone stepped in. Rather the user is blocked or not, is up to admins. In Best Regards CARS! --CarsGm5 (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not an administrative notice board. If you want admin attention, see the WP:ANI. Please do not presume that others are acting in bad faith, when they are simply following the manual of style, the community accepted guidelines for how our articles are written. I see no evidence of incivility or personal attacks, only a content/style dispute. If this has been overlooked, please provide diffs, like the instructions for this noticeboard ask. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:AuburnPilot

Fished for unreliable sources, in violation of WP:GOOGLE and refuses to work towards consensus.

On Theistic rationalism, I removed the unreliable sources and replaced them with fact tags, and noted in the AfD discussion as to why I did that.

Auburn reverted my changes and responded (on the AfD discussion), "I'm not going to read through everything you've written above, but I have read the sources and I haven't misquoted anything."

If he's not going to at least read my assertions, we can't work towards consensus, can we? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time responding to Zenwhat's continued unfounded accusations against me. Ever since I blocked him for violating the three revert rule, he has accused me of being everything from a POV pusher on articles I've never edited, to a single purpose account. He has no understanding of our basic policies, and demonstrates this through his continued misapplication of policy and bad faith accusations. Zenwhat is quickly wearing thin the patience of this community. - auburnpilot talk 05:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you please provide diffs where this user violated either civility or personal attack policies? People often skim or skip parts of discussions that they needn't address. This is not a breach of WP:CONS (which is not generally something this alert board deals with). --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Auburn: My past actions are irrelevant. I have demonstrated ignorance of policy in the past and it has unfortunately made me look like an imbecile (particularly my repeated assertions that certain users were admins when they weren't! ). Despite that, what's relevant here is the actual facts involved in this case, not attacks on my character.

Cheese: WP:Etiquette says that part of etiquette is working towards consensus. I thought this would be appropriate since if an editor is willing to revert but not read the justification for why that edit was made, consensus is impossible. I'd considered sending Auburn a message on his\her talkpage, but if he's not going to read my posting on the talkpage, would that do any good? Doubtful. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see some diffs as well. I've asked Zenwhat on more than one occasion to present diffs to back up his assertions, but I'm still waiting. I've never attacked Zenwhat, and you'll never see him provide a diff proving otherwise. - auburnpilot talk 06:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
That is true, but standard content disputes, sourcing disputes, etc are not handled here. Saying "I'm not going to read all of that" is not, by any stretch of my imagination, incivility. Perhaps I have a limited imagination, but I'm just not seeing it here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1, if you could please move this to where this dispute should be handled or let me know where I should go, I would appreciate it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is an issue about what sources are allowed or not, the WP:RSN might be a good place to start if you intend on escalating this dispute. However, the talk page of the article is generally where these issues are discussed. And please keep in mind that you should be assuming good faith on AuburnPilot's part. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Escalating"? That sounds like something a person would do in bad faith. You mean going to the next step in dispute resolution, right? BTW, I didn't know they had a noticeboard for that, so thanks! I'm sorry to waste your time with unnecessary postings like this. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Escalating is when you go from one part of a resolution process to the next one. You know, as in "escalate" - to go up (think of it like stairs). It's the correct word, pretty much standard. Don't worry about wasting people's time - if I had better things to do, I would be doing them (or you know, at least rationalizing them away before coming on Wiki). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Jonathanwins (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)I happened to notice a comment that I feel is prejudiced and uncivil, this user describes another user as being "batshit insane", as someone who lost someone to mental illness, and working in the mental health field, I strongly feel that this is inappropriate terminology (sort of like calling a black person by the n word.) I have noticed upon checking out this user's history that he frequently uses this kind of language towards other users. What can be done about this?: (near the end of the page). If this is the wrong place, where can it be reported?Jonathanwins (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion with uncivil user on Talk:Unidentified_flying_object

Resolved
 – Jlray is not posting uncivil comments any longer. Therefore I'll close this case.

LightAnkhC|MSG 16:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm currently having a problem with Jlray and this user's comments on Talk:Unidentified_flying_object. His comments create an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. He's commenting in a very hostile and uncivil manner and it seems that he does not assume good faith. His first uncivil comments were posted here. I then told him about it, but he did not cease to comment in a uncivil manner. (See here and here).

Hopefully somebody can help out, so I can continue the discussion (of course him beeing a bit more polite :-) )

LightAnkhC|MSG 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To others, it is easier to see the problems by looking at this diff where they were removed. I have left a stern warning on the user's talkpage. If he continues to post uncivil remarks, let us know. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I'll let you know. LightAnkhC|MSG 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems like he still does not assume good faith and is still very impolite on the article's talk page. diff Comments such as You are both trying to dodge the facts of the matter. or Neither of you have addressed the long list of glaring errors and possibly deliberate misrepresentations of facts that pollute this article and prevent it from being informative in any meaningful way. To the contrary, some here seem actively interested in discouraging anyone from noticing the fact that this article, on an important subject that needs to be covered, is a paranormalist's sick joke and little more. Are not what I'd call civil and assuming good faith. It creates a hostile atmosphere. I will not post another warning on the user's talk page (although it would probably be appropriate), because I could have a conflict of interest; since I'm already involved. I think I need a little bit help here :-)LightAnkhC|MSG 16:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, nothing has changed: Now users are beeing accused of insulting him and changing his arguments diff. Where's the good faith here? It's really frustrating. Any advice? LightAnkhC|MSG 09:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

It looks like I need to explain what exactly LightAnkh is talking about here, because she isn't fairly representing the case. I invite everyone to take a look not just at my comments but at all the available comments on the UFO discussion page (bear with me because I'm still trying to figure out all the Wikiepdia HTML hotkeys). It is abundantly clear that the UFO article needs massive editing and, contrary to the accusations leveled against me and my brother (who also took part in the discussion), we specifically refrained from immediately setting about touching up the article because we wanted to get the consensus of everyone interested. Imagine my surprise when, because of this, I was accused of being a "sock puppet" and was accused of trying to distort the facts of the UFO phenomenon, an especially infuriating accusation given the glaring bias of the article as is. I am not being "uncivil," I am just very disappointed that an attempt to achieve intellectual consensus on an article that needs to be saved has been warped into a series of baseless personal attacks against me.

Jlray (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

  • Personal attacks against you? Sorry, but you are the one who's making uncivil comments on the article's talk page and does not assume good faith. Nobody was uncivil against you. Filing a case on WP:SSP (see your closed case here) is not a personal attack. I will address all comments concerning the article on its talk page. I hope we can continue the discussion in a civil manner now.
  • To the others, please don't close the discussion yet. Just in case :-) LightAnkhC|MSG 15:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Jlray, the sockpuppet accusations against you were absolutely warranted. Your behavior has been uncivil and inappropriate. Rather than cop to it, you keep referring to these sockpuppet accusations and the state of the UFO article, as if that excuses your behavior. It doesn't. You were accused of sockpuppetry because both you and your brother use the same computer, on different accounts, and make hostile, inappropriate comments of the exact same nature on the exact same pages. And that's taking your word for it. Such a situation obviously merits an SSP complaint, which was made appropriately and in good faith. You need to drop whatever resentment you have about that, clean up your act, and move on. Stop making personal commentary, stop being hostile, and contribute constructively. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, neither of those have any bearing on how the discussion has gone on that page. I happily invite anyone actually interested in looking past the smear here and look at the attitude of the majority of the editors on the UFO page. I am not defending my past behavior as this person is also incorrectly insinuating here, I am trying to explain it. I consider it a courtesy to put up with accusations of this manner that have absolutely no merit of any kind and are utterly baseless, as the record will show. You are free to stew up further rumors and false accusations as you like; I, however, feel more inclined to dodge the mudslinging and endeavor to fulfill my stated aim of being a good Wikipedia editor and try to improve that article. You guys have more important things to do than make up new reasons to insult me, and I have better things to do than pretend that they are relevant. Jlray (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

Jlray, your efforts to improve the UFO article are much appreciated. However you have made one mistake as far as Wikiquette is concerned. Admit it and move on. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand: this is an unacceptable comment. Filing a WQA report, SSP report, etc - when merited (which in this case, they were) - is not an "insult." Asking you to contribute constructively and civilly is not an "insult." Continuing to ignore WP:CIVIL (which is a policy, and policy is not optional) may result in more serious, administrative action against you. I strongly suggest you reconsider your rejection of such policies and your unwillingness to discuss your conduct. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar

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.

nothing more to discuss here. Proceed with DR and leave out the rest ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Talk:WTBDWK.

Per a rather rude suggestion by Dreadstar [2] I've decided to mention some problems I'm having with this user's behavior at this article.

First of all, Dreadstar has been assuming article ownership by claiming consensus in instances where there is obviously great controversy. He's been consistently baiting me through the use of continual accusations about myself and seems to be genuinely uninterested in assuming good faith about my suggestions or proceeding through normal processes of content disputes. It would be nice if some uninvolved editor would tell him to stop this kind of behavior.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Two things, a) what exactly in that diff do you consider rude? b) If you feel you're being baited don't bite. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
b first)Biting simply isn't allowed. I'll note that Dreadstar is more-or-less asserting that he's been around longer than I and so has some understanding of the situation that I cannot grasp. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
a second)Here are other relevant diffs where this user is being particularly rude by asserting article ownership, commenting on contributors rather than content, and claiming consensus with little justificaiton: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. This is all that the user has contributed to the discussion over the last few days. Obviously, this user doesn't think that he can do anything but be confrontational and basically tendentious. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
SA, you are hardly a newbie, so WP:BITE isn't quite applicable here. You have been around long enough to know when and how you should react to something. What I see in the diffs is someone trying to carry on a calm discussion. What you are doing here is the same thing other users have tried to do to you in the past. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
No, what I'm doing is pointing out that I have a problem with Dreadstar. Also, note that WP:BITE applies to places where people are new, not just Wikipedia in general. He asked me to escalate the dispute resolution so I did. I think that by continually referring to me rather than my proposals (he has a tendency to talk about "what you are doing" rather than dealing with the situation) and by referring to consensus in order to contradict people stating other opinions, and by asserting article ownership he is basically being tendentious. I'll also point out that this user is an administrator and is therefore held to higher standards per WP:ADMIN. One more thing, I'm happy to have a discussion with you, Rlevse, but you are hardly a neutral character in this situation. 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs)
I'm just as neutral or non-neutral as Raymond Aritt or JzG in the disputes you get into. Believe it or not, my primary goals are peaceful editing and better articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't care what your goals are, that's irrelevant. And I don't see Raymond or JzG commenting here, do you? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I reserve the right to comment like any other editor, but I will not act as an admin since I could reasonably be seen as involved. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

←I agree with Rlevs, there is nothing uncivil in Dreadstar's comments. Also, the accusation of WP:OWN in the statement of this WQA is inappropriate. Dreadstar has not exhibited that behavior. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you act more-or-less as a meat puppet for other members of WP:PARANORMAL, I don't know what we're supposed to get out this. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Now this comment by ScienceApologist looks to be an uncivil and personal attack on Jack-A-Roe; and it appears to violate ScienceApologist's ArbCom restriction not to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Clearly an assumption of bad faith, a blockable offence under ScienceApologist's ArbCom restrictions... Dreadstar † 22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, you may need to sleep over it to understand it, but your complaint is frivolous. You were overreacting and making phantastic, unsubstantiated accusations. It seems quite possible that Dreadstar felt you cannot possibly believe what you are saying and tried to call your bluff. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
That interpretation implies that he is not assuming good faith. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Your accusation of meatpuppetry, in itself and aside from your arbcom restrictions, is uncivil and just plain silly. I've edited those articles only rarely, but in the few times that I have seen you in action, I've observed complaints and accusations from you towards others, and no examples of friendly, mutually respectful collaboration on your part. Your filing of this WQA violates WP:POINT and is a representative sample of what I've seen so far from you. That is not an effective way of making progress or getting the results you want. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, can we leave these things until tomorrow? Please see my comment at the end of this section. It seems that ScienceApologist has followed my advice. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but why continue it tomorrow - why not just close out this alert now? I don't mean that sarcastically, I mean it sincerely, to actually place the resolved tag... I see no reason to continue it at all. It's just a content dispute and doesn't belong here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If we close this now, we don't give ScienceApologist a chance to comment here in a calmer state. That's basically my only objection, but I feel it's important. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain what I've done that's rude, I believe I've been civil and have abided by policy. I have commented on a few of ScienceApologist's actions, but I have done so according to policy. I have merely been trying to convince ScienceApologist to participate in the ongoing quest for consensus, part of which he has even exhorted other editors to ignore, even though it is a valid step in the dispute resolution process; and this after ScienceApologist made a very rude comment about the poll, saying "this poll sucks".

I did change my comment to make it more accurate, that "we" are going around in circles, but I don't think the wording where I suggested ScienceApologist was going around in circles was rude. It appears to me that he is, and in several areas, WP:CON and WP:NOR being two primary issues we've returned to over and over. I certainly apologize if I've given offense. Dreadstar † 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I've removed the "Dreadstar Supporters Respond" section. I was going to remove the "Dreadstar Supporters" section, but someone beat me to it. :) That, quite frankly, makes a mockery of the WQA process, and it is not helping your case at all, ScienceApologist. WQA is not here to polarize people against one another - if you want to do something like that, please file a Request For Comment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at the links you've provided concerning Dreadstar's behaviour, and I find his remarks to be civil, and your claims to unfounded. Further, since I have been working on this article for awhile I have yet to see him behave in a way that is not civil. Since the discussion most of the time on the Bleep article is convoluted and complex I've felt Dreadstar's efforts to create a focus to be appropriate and commendable.(olive (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

We should stop right now. The incident we are discussing happened less than two hours ago. Per WP:MASTODON it is counterproductive to discuss it now. As the article in question is blocked anyway, may I suggest that everybody takes a break now? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If this edit by ScienceApologist isn't an edit war declaration, I don't know what is. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is in fact hard to interpret this as anything but an invitation to practise the bold, revert, discuss method. When seen in context it becomes clear that this invitation refers to talk space, not the typical place for edit warring. Rlevse, could you please explain how this misunderstanding happened? --Hans Adler (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2008 (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.

Outdated and disparaging remark about a WP editor should be removed

Resolved
 – Not so much an issue as a question for advice.

On Wikipedia:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism/Skeptic watchlists, one (and only one editor) is singled out by a disparaging remark involving content disputes. This editor has not even edited since September 2007. Morgellons Under very aggressive attack from User:Pez1103 Ward20 (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The page you are referring to has not been edited since May 2007, a short time before you joined the project and became very active on the same article. If this is at all a Wikiquette issue, then fixing it seems to be much more constructive than discussing it much later. Why don't you just remove this remark with an edit summary like "User:Pez1103 (Special:Contributions/Pez1103)/User:72.231.188.136 (Special:Contributions/72.231.188.136) stopped editing in 10/2007." It really doesn't look like an issue for this board. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
OK I will do that, I just saw it for the first time yesterday. I wanted to get advice from some neutral parties because as you stated, I have edited that article frequently. Ward20 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Discussing this matter here would fork an ongoing Arbitration Enforcement discussion, which isn't appropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of extremely uncivil and unjustified remarks directed toward me: [8] [9] I don't know if any action is warranted, but I would like to submit this here just for the record. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a matter to take up at the arbitration enforcement discussion in progress. Don't try to fork or forum-shop the discussion here. It's a part of the ongoing discussion there and should be handled there. It appears that your behavior is open for discussion in that matter, as you are a party to what is happening there. I will not comment on the nature of JzG's remarks because I do not have the time to contextualize them properly. Also, there is no need for you to put anything "on the record." This is not a court of law. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The Arb Enforcement discussion has nothing to do with the incivility JzG laid upon me. It has nothing to do with JzG at all. He piped in to defend the editor whom the Arb Enforcement is about and in doing so personally attacked me. To my understanding, Arb Enforcement would be the wrong forum to pursue a behavioral issue such as this. Wikiquette alerts is - to my understanding - the correct forum. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If you bring up an issue on an administrative alert board, your behavior is also just as much under examination. JzG's comments may seem hostile, but you made a complaint and you can't pretend that you're an uninvolved party or that you couldn't possibly have anything to do with the problem at hand. I'm in no place to decide if he's right or wrong in his assessment of the situation, but he's an admin responding at the arb enforcement board. You simply cannot say "The Arb Enforcement discussion had nothing to do with [it]," because it did. He is in the position to evaluate your behavior, and your opinion of whether or not he was too harsh is clearly not objective. Whether or not his comments were appropriate must be considered within the context of the ongoing Arb Enf complaint, and considering it was on a page that is presumably monitored by hundreds of admins, I can't imagine someone wouldn't have spoken up if it wasn't out of line. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

refactored: I happened to notice a comment that I feel is prejudiced and uncivil, this user describes another user as being "batshit insane", as someone who lost someone to mental illness, and working in the mental health field, I strongly feel that this is inappropriate terminology (sort of like calling a black person by the n word.) I have noticed upon checking out this user's history that he frequently uses this kind of language towards other users. What can be done about this?: (near the end of the page). If this is the wrong place, where can it be reported?Jonathanwins (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This statement by Jonathanwins is a lie. This is banned vandal, Tweety21 (talk · contribs), forum shopping. Revert, block, ignore. This particular vandal is a particularly tiresome troll and knows she is not welcome here. --Yamla (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ThuranX

I made a report on AN/I concerning this user some days ago and it was recommended I take my concerns to this page.

Although I don't normally make an issue of such matters, I feel obliged to do so in this case, because I don't see how I can possibly be expected to extend any sort of goodwill to a user who holds that I am a racist and a bigot. So I feel this issue needs to be resolved one way or another. Gatoclass (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked User:ThuranX to bring in his side of the story here so that we can reach some kind of a resolution. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing to talk about. He lumped all editors opposed to his edits into one racially/culturally homogenous group, dismissed all concerns, and was called on it by many people. I entered as an uninvolved 3rd party from an AN/I thread, available in one of his two 'complaints' against me on AN/I, found that he was, in fact, being highly uncivil, and said so. This is his fifth or sixth attempt to get me in trouble, all others being dismissed or ignored outright. He is forum shopping for some sort of ridiculous apology. He's pursued this demand for 'redress of his grievance' against numerous editors, all of whom agreed his comments, not the person, were the sort of bigoted crap that shuts down debate. This being the fifth or sixth time, it's forum shopping, and I have no intention of apologizing to an editor who was in the wrong and found to be so by numerous other wikipedians. A review of all the relevant facts will bear this out. I can provide diffs if needed, but II think his contrib history will help you find everything quickly, if it's not in the original report, or the "reprise" complaint.(THe original thread that started this, with numerous editors finding his words troubling, is here ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What a mess! I have red through the talk pages, and AfD and the IA. I think this is being caused by a lot of miscommunication. My two bits:
1. I think Gatoclass did in fact write some things regarding the ethnic background of editors that very well could have come across as bigoted (please note: I am not calling Gatoclass bigoted). I am saying that I could see how questioning an editor's impartiality because of their ethnic background can be interpreted the wrong way.
2. I think that while ThuranX may have been working with all of the best intentions by getting involved when he did, I'm not sure that the particular choice of words (no matter how accurately descriptive that you thought they were) were constructive. I am of the opinion that you could have been as forceful and direct (something I appreciate) with different words.
Certainly, not every incident of calling someone a "bigot" or "racist" is a violation of civility. I would caution both editors in this case: before you write, think about whether what you write will end up having the intended affect, and think about how it will be interpreted by another editor.
I am sorry if this sounds wishy-washy. It is not meant to be. This is the best I could come up with after weeding through all of those page. I wish you both the best editing. Peace! LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
ThuranX, I was invited by one of my opponents to share my thoughts on why I thought people were voting against the AFD. To that, I simply made the obvious observation that the opinions of the editors involved might be swayed by their countries' former relationship with the Soviet Union - or, in the words of one of the users in question, the fifty years of suppression these countries suffered at the hands of the USSR. In those circumstances, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that such users may have difficulty maintaining objectivity toward the subject in question, which is all my statement was intended to convey. That was not even an assumption of bad faith on my part, because bad faith is an assumption that users are deliberately editing in a partisan manner, and I made no such accusation. So for you to characterize my comment as "racist" and "bigoted" is, quite simply, ludicrous.
Furthermore, I have not asked you for an apology, only for a retraction. By refusing to retract your statements, you are effectively maintaining that I am a racist and a bigot, and I don't see how I can be expected to work co-operatively with an editor who holds such an opinion of me. I am simply asking for you to extend me a little goodwill here, admit that my statement can be interpreted in more than one way, and thereby give me the benefit of the doubt. It is incumbent upon editors except in the most unambiguous cases to the contrary to WP:AGF, and that is all I have asked you to do. Gatoclass (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
To be absolutely clear: No. You said something bigoted, I said you said something bigoted, and even HERE other editors agree you wrote something "which could be considered" bigoted. That's being nice. You made a broad-stroke personal attack at all opposition, based on a wild guess at the origins of all opposition. A retraction is tantamount to an apology. You're not getting one from me. YOu never bothered to apologize to everyone you attacked, and at this point, I have great doubts you would, as it would be you admitting you did wrong, and even if you did, it would ONLY be the grudging sort you'd give in the hopes of seeing me apologize in kind. Not happening. I saw you for this kind of editor when I told you to get off my talk page, and I was right. You're more interested in establishing 'ill-will' with editors who oppose you so you can brush off their opposition as a grudge, than you are with just getting the actual facts into articles. I will not participate in your bruised ego redress seeking behaviors any more. Post this where-ever you like, I've got better ways to spend my time on Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
A statement "which could be considered bigoted" - as preposterous as I believe that interpretation is - is a far cry from a statement that is unequivocally bigoted - which is what you are outright accusing me of. The point, as I've always maintained, is that there is an alternative, good faith interpretation of my (actually very innocuous) comment, which you refuse to consider, preferring to smear me instead as a "bigot" and (ludicrously) a "racist".
This is not about bruised ego. It's about maintaining constructive relationships here. I don't want to have a hostile relationship with any editor here if I can possibly help it, which is why I've asked you to reconsider your position. But I can hardly be expected to retain an amicable relationship with someone who continues to denounce me openly as a bigot. That's why, if you are not prepared to withdraw your offensive remarks, I will feel obliged to take the matter further - because I am reluctant to deal with ongoing hostility when there may be a more constructive alternative. Gatoclass (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

DarkFierceDeityLink has a vendetta against me of some kind

Let me give you the backstory real quick to understand the problem.

This morning I removed a few confirmed characters from the game Super Smash Bros. Brawl since up to that point I believed the sources were not Wikipedia standard. In any case the user quickly reverted my edits and went more to 4 reverts on that article page. But that is not my problem. My problem is that when I was JUSTIFYING my actions on that talk page he removed my comments. When an Administrator posted as well he REMOVED his comments but after a heads up from the Admin he restored said comments.

Now we had a resolution for that article, as I was in the wrong I cleaned up a portion of the article and another user cleaned up my wording, life goes on.

Then a few hours later when I have made a discussion on the main page of Super Smash Bros. Brawl he yet again brings up my actions from earlier this morning, citing that I was annoyed or mad at the roster. I have shown any signs of that and I have posted multiple times that I wanted it well-source, that was my only concern. On the same talk page for the article he yet again when back from hijacking my discussion to demeaning my character and if I responded in any way/shape or form he removes my statements. This has gone far enough, I am not letting him remove any more of my comments when I defend myself.

You can see the log here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl&action=history

He constantly keeps removing statements and keeps ups his own, despite his frantic screams for 'ITS ON-TOPIC'!--HeaveTheClay (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire dispute is the topic of a request for comment that can be found here: Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Please consider both sides in this dispute and make any comments there to attempt to reach consensus on how to proceed with this article. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SlamDiego

User:SlamDiego's discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barzilai paradox is combative. He has driven one person from the discussion with veiled legal threats regarding libel (check his comment line); the user driven from the discussion (User:Zvika) drew this attack for suggesting that we maintain some civility. I have had some personal clashes with him regarding the article itself (Barzilai paradox and Talk:Barzilai paradox), and so someone other than myself should probably call him to task and remind him about WP:No legal threats. Considering the edits he wishes to make to the article itself while the AfD he proposed is still open, he may also need a reminder concerning disruptive edits, should the AfD fail. RJC Talk 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I do not see any edits from User:SlamDiego after the civility warning, which I note was redacted.
2. The edit summary in question reads: "Because I mistakenly thought that you wouldn't willfully libel me." I don't see this as a legal threat. It may be an accusation of libel, but that is not the same thing as threatening to take legal action. Saying something like "If I thought you were libeling me, I would sue you", or something to that affect. Also, is there any indication that the User:Zvika has been "driven" from the discussion. There was a strongly worded statement, but nothing uncivil in regards to his comments on the AfD. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
After some hunting, I do see that there was some discussion carrying over to Talk. I'm seeing a misunderstanding, but nothing that I would call uncivil. SlamDiego may have misunderstood something Zvika wrote, and Zvika may have taken SlamDiego's response a bit strongly, but there is nothing uncivil from where I stand. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the concept of libel is not peculiarly legal in nature. Note, for example, that The American Heritage Dictionary defines libel thus
1a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. b. The act of presenting such material to the public. 2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.[10]
Only the last of these definitions is peculiarly legal, and I was plainly not claiming that Zvika was dragging me before an admiralty or ecclesiastical court. Further, while “libel” is defined under law, so are a great many other things, such weights and measures. But making reference to these things does not in-and-of-itself imply legal reference, let alone legal threat. First Amendment absolutists, who include me (and, famously, Nat Hentoff), in fact believe that libel, though repugnant, should be legal. That doesn't mean that we don't have use for a word to name the act of presenting to the public false publication that damages a person's reputation. —SlamDiego←T 16:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion wars on Iran nuclear program

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

I'm a subject matter expert in nuclear non-proliferation, having an ongoing dispute over Irans nuclear program. See Nuclear Program of Iran and Iran and Weapons of Mass Destruction. My adversary (how else do I describe him or her?) appears to be a single anonymous user.

Granted, we both have a stubborn streak, but I think I've been reasonable in sticking to substance. My adversary has adopted various frustrating tactics. These include changing my edits and failing to respond to the reasons I give when changing them back, and most recently nitpicking my citations. The behavios has gone from disagreement to disagreeable to downright rude. I've just about run out of patience.

I would like this dispute to end, but I think it's beyond my control. NPguy (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs and links to recent changes regarding this issue? I'd like to take a look at this one. Also, the main thing that concerns me here is the overall idea of a "reversion war" going on over this. Are we teetering on the brink of 3RR with this? Edit Centric (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've also taken the liberty of dropping a note to the IP editor, advising him / her of this discussion, and inviting them to take an active role in resolving this issue... Edit Centric (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just note that my edits are out of concern for Wikipedia's policies on no original research and verifiability. I'm sad to see myself referred to as an adversary, and was heading to the talk page per NPGuy's edits on the Nuclear program of Iran article. I'll check back to this page as the discussion continues, but will also be discussing on the article's talk page. --68.72.38.42 (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to work it out on the talk page. That is the best way to handle that... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you recommend a way to get outside input to help the discussion? --68.72.38.42 (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me suggest this. It looks like the both of you have a handle on this, and are willing to discuss on the article talk space. If somewhere along the line talks stall, or you feel you need a third-party perspective, please feel free to drop me a message on my Talk page, and I'll gladly lend a hand. Edit Centric (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to try to work it out on the discussion page. I actually made that suggestion after posting here. Probably should have tried it first. NPguy (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

veiled threat by user Wikidea

user left aggressively hostile comment on my talk page. i had reverted the user's comments on Talk:Universal health care, as they didn't contain a single comment addressed towards article improvement - it was nothing but this user's opinions, shared in response to another editor who actually did address the article. WP:FORUM is quite plain, and easy to interpret. general discussion is discouraged, strongly at that. i regularly remove unadorned commentary from article talk pages, since it merely degrades the process of article improvement. if there's even a single word in the commentary about the article, i don't revert it. i found the response uncivil, and bordering on a threat, which i advised the user on his talk page was inappropriate. i see the user has again restored his comments, with more hostile commentary in the edit summary. help? Anastrophe (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy or no policy often discussion page statements do not contain comments with regard toward article improvement. The frequency of this increases with the contentiousness of the issue at hand. Bring in the inherent cultural differenced indicative of an ailing empire clinging to its last vestiges of notarity as it is slowly consumed by its supernational obligations and theirs bound to be some miscommunication. The removal of comments from a discussion page is a serious action and should only be taken in the most extreme of cases. Wikidea's comment on your page, while obviously tense, appears to be a natural net reaction to what he feels is loss of contributions. In this case your actions act as a microcosm of larger eroding of British power. Having read the statement I was not able to find any sense of threat or veils. I did see a request that asked you to 'not dare'. He also commented on your 'nerves', clearly a sexual innuendo, it could possible be interperated as inappropriate if your feelings weren't mutual. I won't speculate however, I must point out that you did not notify the user of the alert you posted here. In the future I encourage you to both read and follow the instructions listed at the top of this page. --mitrebox (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
um, i thought this was the wikiquette alerts page. your digressions and commentary i find offensive, and not helpful to the issue. there is no caveat on WP:FORUM that removing non-article-directed commentary should be a "last resort". thanks anyway, i guess i'll look elsewhere for help. Anastrophe (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
i have alerted the user. also, the phrase 'don't you dare' has an implicit 'or what?' as the response. it's a threat - 'if you do x, i'll do something in response'. Anastrophe (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
final addendum -the comments i removed are also very uncivil. on that basis, with being non-article-improvement directed, it was entirely appropriate to cull them, in my opinion. Anastrophe (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Its good to have opinions, it's also good to note so do others.--mitrebox (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
i have not suggested otherwise. but it's a red herring. that isn't the issue here.Anastrophe (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
i think it's becoming clear that i again need another wikibreak. i'm showing strong signs of addiction. Twinkle - while an incredible boon to editing - makes it way to easy to slap that 'revert' button and slap on a WP:FORUM warning. i need to back off and just let the crap roll by. Anastrophe (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
First, I cannot agree that there was a "veiled threat", or a threat of any kind. However, Wikidea did make what I consider to be a a broadly prejudicial statement, appointing themselves as the spokesperson for the entire United Kingdom. As insulting and thoughtless the comment is, I'm not sure that it was so bad as to be deletable. I think Anastrophe was acting with their heart in the right place. I will leave a warning with Wikidea. LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, personal attacks, etc.

I normally (and almost exclusively) edit articles associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants. I have recently been drawn, reluctantly, into what is apparently an ongoing, widespread and extremely acrimonious controversy at Wikipedia with regard to homeopathy and how it should be treated at Wikipedia. I am not a proponent of homeopathy--quite the opposite in fact--but I have argued that an article about a plant species can factually and neutrally express the fact that the plant is used in homeopathy. There is as yet no consensus but the discussion has been made considerably more difficult by both the behavior and commentary of several editors. Several editors on both sides of the issue are engaging in edit warring, but in particular User:ScienceApologist and User:Orangemarlin, who seem to have no interest in reaching any kind of consensus--see for example the edit history for Thuja occidentalis where they have systematically deleted every reference to the use of this species in homeopathy, however neutrally worded and however well-referenced. In trying to work through these issues with other editors I have been accused by User:Orangemarlin of engaging in personal attacks here. In pointing out on his talk page here that he has been inconsistent in what he expects of other editors, I received another accusation of engaging in personal attacks; upon expressing my frustration at this and attempting to enlist the advice and assistance of other project editors here, User:Guettarda launched a personal attack against me. These comments are contributing to an atmosphere that only fosters acrimony and will make any kind of meaningful consensus unachievable. So... how do we proceed from here? On my own part I will be taking a long break from Wikipedia as I don't see any possible resolution. MrDarwin (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe that there are so many different plants and other substances used in homeopathy that every single plant and many other articles, both on organic and inorganic substances on Wikipedia, numbering in the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands, could have homeopathy sections.
This is excessive. For one thing, homeopathy is not really mainstream science or medicine, and according to WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE and so on, we would be giving too much weight in Wikipedia to homeopathy if we did this.
I think we should pick the 10 or 15 most common homeopathic remedies, and then include sections in those articles, along with material from the mainstream view of science or medicine stating exactly what the mainstream view is (debunking homeopathy) for NPOV balance. That would be a reasonable compromise, don't you think?--Filll (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. FWIW, I'm not high on homeopathy, but if there's a reliable reference that a particular plant is used as a homeopathic remedy, I can't see why it would be a problem to mention that in a neutral fashion in an article. In articles on various medications, it's common to mention off-label uses without saying whether or not they are effective, and this seems to be similar.
I looked over the editors' comments and they don't seem to fall into the category of bona fide incivility or personal attacks to me. The editors do seem to be engaged in an edit war and they also seem to be unwilling to listen to other points of view, which does seem to be making for a stressful atmosphere.
I think that asking for help at the WP Plants project was a very smart idea: getting support from other editors who are experts in the field will help. If WP Plants can devise an official policy on homeopathy--not for or against, but when and how it should be mentioned or incorporated into articles--that might also really help, because then there would be a clear-cut, consensus-driven policy to stand behind. You might also want to consider bringing the issue to Third opinion. Good luck! Best, DanielEng (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not clear-cut. Do we mention homeopathy in the article on water, given that water is the primary (often the sole) ingredient in homeopathic preparations? No, because while water is essential to homeopathy, homeopathy isn't a noteworthy use of water. If homeopathy is an important use of the plant then we can mention it. But I'm not convinced that we need to mention homeopathy in every single plant that has ever been used in any homeopathic preparation. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes and no. If it's a plant that has been used in some obscure homeopathic remedy in Grandma Ethel's kitchen in Kansas, no, it shouldn't be mentioned. If it's widely used enough to be mentioned in scientific or medical literature that qualifies as a reliable neutral source as per Wikipedia guidelines, I would consider it notable and shouldn't see why it would be omitted from an article. There's no reason they need to use the article as a platform for homeopathy, but if it's a case of adding a sentence to the section on plant properties that says "Plant X has been used in homeopathic remedies as a treatment for Illness Z" and it's footnoted with a reliable citation, it seems neutral enough to me.
This is also really why I think WP:Plants should consider making some sort of official policy on homeopathy. Like it or not (and I'm in the "not" category, I don't really believe in homeopathy), homeopathy is mainstream enough that many MDs use elements of it now, and since many plants are used in homeopathic treatments, it's invariably going to come up in Wiki again and again. Addressing it and setting some guidelines, instead of deleting it out of hand or deciding it can only be in 15 articles, seems as though it'd be a better way to go. Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This is an "all over the place" filing .... partially a contention over content and partially over personal behavior. The content issues don't really belong here, and there has been good advice about coming up with official policy .... not to mention that even if there is an ability to meet WP:V, there is a question as to how far a fringe topic should be included into so many articles.
As for personal attacks, from the diffs I read here, I must say that the beginning of the acrimonious language began with MrDarwin, with some rather flippant commentary about the acceptance of sources. I think all sides (heck, anyone), needs to be cautious with the language they use when referring to other editors, which is to say, focus on the work, not the workers. LonelyBeacon (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. Please note that I am not making an issue about content here; that is being handled on the project page and various article talk pages. My grievance here is solely about the actions and language of several editors which are making resolution of the content issues extremely difficult. MrDarwin (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Abrupt outbreak of edit war re C S

C S flagged Duke Math Journal as COI (after a six month interlude of no debate, I was honestly surprised). The discussion very abruptly broke into uncivil edit warring, I would say with this diff. His stated purpose for the COI tag was to get attention from an outside third party; now certainly we both need that. Thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no edit war (reversion). Instead, Peter St. John takes comments I make on my talk page in response to him, adds them to an article talk page and narrates them to some (nonexistent) 3rd party. I find that very rude. In addition, one of his comments intruded on my privacy (as can be seen in the diff), which I find completely unnecessary. I have been polite. It is hardly "uncivil edit warring". Now, I have some other things to do, but let me finish by saying that I find this action by St. John a break of Wikiquette. But I'll refrain from filing my own alert. --C S (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll take this one up initially, let me do some research on the overall issues, and I will comment further. In the meantime, what I would suggest is that any comments that are left on user talk remain on user talk, unless they pertain directly to the article. Again, let me dig into this one for a few minutes.. Edit Centric (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm typing these talking points while I read from the other monitor (the benefit of having a dual-monitor system...). First of all, C S; if you want comment from disinterested third-parties on an article, tagging it as COI is not necessarily the best way to go. Instead, try a request for comment. Also, I see nothing in the diff that you provided that alludes to a breach of privacy. (If I'm missing something there, please drop me an e-mail from the "email this user" link at my userpage, so that whatever privacy concerns you are citing are not re-cycled on yet another publicly-accessible userpage or talkpage.)
I am not seeing a revert war or edit war here yet, and by all means let's not take it that far, either. The sole breach of Wikiquette that I DO see is possibly PeterStJohn bringing an off-line conversation over and cross-posting it in article talkspace. Even at that, it looks to me like the entirety of the conversation pertains directly to the article, and CS's tagging of it. Edit Centric (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
One more thought, C S, I think the "third-party" that he's narrating the comments for would be us, the rest of the Wiki community. (Is that a correct assessment, Peter?) Edit Centric (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) At this time, let's go ahead and move this over to the following location: Duke Math Journal talk page, as a significant part of this deals with the article and it's content. All disinterested third-party may also weigh in there. Edit Centric (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:NJGW

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Editor NJGW has repeatedly deleted parts of a talk page : Talk:Predicting the timing of peak oil. A number of his/her interventions on the article page are questionable, and the editor is trying to hide facts.--Environnement2100 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved non-content related discussion to my talk page. The discussion in question has been on the article's talk page for over a week, and the only comments added were that the discussion belonged on my talk page. NJGW (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This does not appear to be any sort of breach of Wikiquette, in terms of civility policies. I've closed as such, and following are some general comments about the issue:
I think that the section of the Talk page that NJGW moved to his talk page should probably have been kept in the article, as it pertained to the article, even if it was about questioning a particular editor's motives. However, I also agree that this topic should have been brought up on NJGW's talk page in the first place, and only brought up in the article talk page if progress couldn't be made privately.
Please note that Wikiquette alerts is intended to help editors resolve interpersonal disputes so they can get back to constructive editing. For content discussions, please see WP:RFC and WP:3O. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:156.34.215.223

Resolved
 – Another editor warned the IP User to refrain from personal attacks. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The above IP has referred to me as a "knob" here. Óðinn (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:JimBobUSA

The main problem with this individual, in relation to Yamashita's gold, is that he seems to see much of the content, and reliable sources used (including a Chalmers Johnson article in the London Review of Books, inter alia) as "fiction" or "fringe theories".

He has also repeatedly deleted material without warning or discussion, repeatedly made accusations of bad faith towards me, and refuses to seek compromise/consensus for edits on the talk page, in regard to various content disputes. Rather than discuss matters properly, he engages in lawyering.

This has dragged on for months. I have suggested formal mediation twice, without any response. I would block him myself if I were not personally involved. Grant | Talk 14:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have nearly enough time to review the entire history here, but from what I can see so far, it looks to me like JimBob has provided quite a bit of evidence to support his reversions and removals of content in the article. I don't see a problem with the overall way he's handled his side of this issue. I agree that there may be a bit of wikilawyering going on here, but it would take far more time than I have available to determine to what extent any Wikiquette policies have been broken.
Could you please provide some diffs that point out specific issues you have with this editor? That will help us help you in this matter. Also, please note that WQA is intended to help editors resolve civility issues with one another so they can get back to constructive editing. I don't see any obvious WQA issues from my initial skim of the article talk - possibly a little non-WP:AGF from both of you, but otherwise it looks like just a big, protracted content discussion.
One thing I am a little worried about, Grant, is that you said you would block this user yourself if you weren't personally involved. Could you please point out examples of the behavior you feel is block-worthy? I don't see anything other than possibly WP:3RR at play here, but like I said, I'm unable to review the whole thing right now - diffs will help. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
My good faith is long since exhausted. The guy is a sociopath. He has repeatedly deleted referenced content. He just did it again. See also this, for a worse example. They are just the two most recent cases. Grant | Talk 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see how this is a Wikiquette issue. It looks more like a content dispute, and an RFC is more likely the right place for this. Please see WP:RFC for the content dispute, and if you feel it's necessary, WP:RFC/U for a user RFC on JimBobUSA. However, I see no incivility in what he's doing. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
We have had an RFC regarding the page. It was fruitless because Jim doesn't understand/respect consensus editing.
He refuses to acknowledge the validity of two main sources: Sterling & Peggy Seagrave and Johnson's lengthy review of their book in the LRB (see above). How can his purported requests for further citations be satisfied if he doesn't respect the sources?
Moreover, several editors have asked him not to delete referenced material. Do we now allow the deletion of referenced material because one editor finds it disagreeable? Grant | Talk 03:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point, Grant. This is the wrong board to help you with this matter. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that content is not the issue, you are effectively saying I should take it to WP:RFC/U. That requires the support of another editor, which is always going to be problem with a low profile article on an obscure subject. Not impossible, just difficult.
All I really want is for an admin other than myself to tell him:
  1. the Seagraves and Johnson are reputable sources
  2. that it is not OK to delete material which is supported by reputable sources
I thought that I would use official channels. Maybe I should have just asked another admin informally. Grant | Talk 05:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
What we seem to have on Yamashita's gold is a low-intensity edit war that's been running for months. The issue has appeared at ANI {1}, back in November, and been raised at WP:FTN {2} and at WP:RSN {3} and {4}. A review of the last half-page of Talk:Yamashita's gold will give a flavor of the doubts of some editors about the quality of the sources used in the article. When the sources are weak, it is hard to have a solid article on which everyone can agree. With an infinite amount of research, somebody might come up with better sources. Until then, we may have to make do with a more modest article that makes fewer claims. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Phil Hall (US writer) and user DoubleCross

Resolved
 – Editor initiating complaint has decided to end the discussion

Ecoleetage (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

During late December and early January, the user DoubleCross engaged in a hostile flaming attack against writer/actor Phil Hall on an IMDB forum board. Since then, he has twice attempted to bring his IMDB abuse to the Phil Hall Wikipedia page. Although his flaming was twice deleted under the complaint of troll behavior, he has threatened to continue to revert the deletions. Such behavior is, at the very least, infantile; at worst, it is borderline stalking. I am asking for administrator assistance to keep DoubleCross away from the Phil Hall (US writer) page, as his goal is to harass and humiliate Mr. Hall. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just beyond nonplussing.
I had never heard of Phil Hall before reading those topics on IMDb's Contributors Help message board about him. What people there claimed about him led me to look at his page on Wikipedia. What I asked on the talk page is, I feel, a legitimate question raised on that board: at the time, the Phil Hall article said that Hall had been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in 2006, but Pulitzer's own web site does not list him at all. That's a pretty big deal, right--an unsourced claim about a Pulitzer Prize nomination that Pulitzer itself doesn't even mention? That's why I posted a comment: I wanted to be sure there was nothing I was missing about that, since I was going to be bold and just remove it.
(Also, a couple of days after I posted that comment, Ecoleetage--who probably is Phil Hall--edited the article to remove the thing about the nomination, instead saying that Hall's book review column was just submitted to Pulitzer--the very thing I said was apparently the case on the talk page! He also didn't mention that he is the person who deleted my comments for "trolling".)
Ecoleetage's complaint also contains a blatant, stunning lie. I do have an IMDb account--I implied so on the talk page by saying that you have to be logged in there to read the topic I linked to--but I never once posted in those topics, "flaming" or otherwise. Not once. I only read them, which, like I said, is what led me to look him up here. Think about what Ecoleetage is saying for a second--even if I had posted in those topics, how would he know that? How could he possibly know what my user name on that site is?????? (It sure isn't 'DoubleCross'.)
Anybody who sees this, take a look for yourselves at the discussion history and see if any of the content of the two comments I made there falls remotely under flaming or stalking or hostility or humiliation or whatever else. Jesus Christ, what a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense. - DoubleCross (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Ecoleetage: I'm afraid I have no way to even verify, let alone deal with, off-site conduct. With regard to Talk: Phil Hall (US writer), you may wish to review Wikipedia:Talk#Others.27_comments. As pointed out there some editors do not believe it is appropriate to remove even personal attacks and blatant incivility. Although much of User:DoubleCross's comments are irrelevant or include original research and references to off-site discussions, I can't see what the justification was for deleting them, particularly as they indicate the rationale for the change on the article which you made. I notice that you also referred this WP:AIV earlier in the same day that you brought it here. Your comments on that referral suggest you may wish to review WP:Vandalism. In the future you may wish to consider discussing your concerns with other editors rather than removing their comments and accusing them of trolling. I notice that some of your edits on other pages contain original research suggesting you know actors whose pages you are editing. Please be sure you disclose any conflicts of interest (review WP:COI) and refrain from "original research" which other editors may delete as with any unsourced material. You may also wish to review WP:NOR regarding "original research". These may be the articles which you have the most knowledge and interest in, but you may wish to consider editing in some other topics, where the appearance of possible conflicts of interest would not exist. Finally, if User:DoubleCross were really a troll, you would have been feeding DoubleCross by the truckload.
  • User:DoubleCross: your references above to page histories were helpful, however, in the future consider using this as a place to de-escalate the situation. Your accusations that User:Ecoleetage is actually the subject of the article is unsupported by any facts (having a small topic as one's primary interest is not evidence of identity). Your talk page comments were not entirely useful and you should try to keep your talk page comments focused on the mission of building an encyclopedia.
  • I note that you are both experienced editors. I am sure you both know that you need to use caution when writing about living people (including on talk pages) and comply with WP:BLP. Maybe you could both take a step back from this article and take some time editing other articles before coming back to this one. In any case, I hope you will both agree to edit and comment with civility. Unless User:Ecoleetage has genuine WP:BLP concerns about the talk page material, it should be restored. Maybe in the spirit of reconciliation User:Ecoleetage would do that.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello! To answer some points raised:

The question of Mr. Hall’s involvement in the 2006 Pulitzer Prize competition was a mistake on my part and it has been fixed. The Pulitzer organization’s web site (which only lists winners and finalists, not all entries in the competition) states being an entrant in the competition is not the same as being a nominee, which I didn’t know. Since the correction was made, there is no mature reason for calling attention to an extinct error.

The original DoubleCross message includes a link to an IMDB forum where Mr. Hall was the subject of harassment by trolls and flamers. This is of no value to the Wikipedia readers, nor does it bring any depth to understanding Mr. Hall’s achievements in writing and cinema. I see no intelligent reason for its inclusion.

Since DoubleCross acknowledges that he never heard of Mr. Hall, I might recommend that he learn more about the subject before editing this article. For my part, I only work on articles where I have knowledge of the subject. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I have to agree that the link the IMDB forum has no place here. Not because of the content cited, but because it's not a reliable source in any event (see WP:V). However, I must disagree that DoubleCross needs to learn about the subject before editing: 1) DoubleCross didn't edit the article, 2) There are many valuable edits one can make that require absolutely no knowledge of the article, 3) editors without personal knowledge of topic often lend perspective that can help ensure a neutral point-of-view. Remember, it is a guiding principle of Wikipedia that: any editor may edit any article. I also believe very strongly that the relevant content on the talk page that led to this discussion, must be restore. I will look again at the page history and suggest what the edit could be made to look like without changing the meaning if you and DoubleCross could agree to that in concept.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Doug, but I respectfully disagree. DoubleCross' complaint is not relevant because the complaint was centered on the IMDB flamer forum which, as you stated, does not belong here. The mistake about the Pulitzer submission has already been corrected, so I see no reason to call attention to extinct errors. As far as I am concerned, the matter is resolved. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok, well I hope it is, I haven't heard from User:DoubleCross on this matter at all. I am, however, going to issue a warning on User:Ecoleetage's user talk page for three concerns I have, as I am concerned that the editor may not be taking them seriously and there needs to be a record that is accessible to other users. The concerns are 1) refactoring other's comments because it removes a valuable record of the reason for edits, notwithstanding the irrelevant material that was in the original comments; 2) failing to assume good faith; and 3) suggestions that the editor may need to self-evaluate with respect to compliance with ownership and conflicts of interest. In the future please assume good faith and not refer to other editors as trolls merely because their comments are written in an inflammatory way.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In the interest of fairness, I have added a caution note to User:DoubleCross's talk page regarding the use of irrelevant material and compliance with WP:BLP.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia: "Assuming good faith is about intention, not action. Well-meaning persons make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do."

Posting links to forums where people are being flamed, insulted and humiliated (as DoubleCross did) does not meet this definition of acting in good faith. I sought to correct the mistake, as per the definition, and I get a "warning" while DoubleCross, who threatened to repost the irrelevant link, gets a "caution"?

Fairness would be placing "caution" notes on both of our pages. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • To clarify, "caution note" is not a recognized term on wikipedia and nothing on the post on User:DoubleCross's page uses that term. It is merely intended to indicate a level one warning for which there is no special tag and is not meant to minimize the matter. At the same time, the matters recited above and on User_talk:Ecoleetage are too numerous to ignore, I chose to customize a standard warning message rather than use several different warning notices for related conduct which I thought would be unfair. I have posted a note on User:Ecoleetage's talk page to the effect that the user disputes the warning. Warnings don't have any particular effect on their own and an admin or other user may decide whether they wish to give this warning any particular weight.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I am disputing your ruling and, thus, I do not recognize this matter as being resolved.

I am repeating my contention that your judgment is harsh, one-sided and blatantly unfair. I reported what I perceived to be a disruption of Wikipedia and I am being penalized with condescending commentary, while the person who was cause of the disruption is being treated with unusual kindness. This is not my definition of a resolution.

I am repeating my request for the "Warning" to be removed from my page. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I will also dispute the following logic:

1) "refactoring other's comments because it removes a valuable record of the reason for edits, notwithstanding the irrelevant material that was in the original comments"

Please define the "valuable record" of the original comments, which consisted solely of pointing to a hostile source that you dubbed "irrelevant."

2) "failing to assume good faith"

Please define the "good faith" in posting a link to an IMDB forum consisting of insults and demeaning commentary, and in the user's desire to provide input on a subject which he openly admitted he knew nothing about.

3) "In the future please assume good faith and not refer to other editors as trolls merely because their comments are written in an inflammatory way."

Please define "trolls" -- I am unaware of pleasant people who write in inflammatory ways and openly make threats to continue posting such comments.

And, Doug, I would ask of you to "assume good faith" -- after all, who initiated this complaint? Did it occur to you that I was reporting what I perceived to be a violation of terms of service? I find it obnoxious that you are treating the user DoubleCross with compassion and you are being nasty to me.


Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


  • I think you may misunderstand both the purpose of this method of WP:Dispute Resolution and my role. I am just another editor. Other editors are free to jump in anytime, but none have. I do not give a Judgment or render a Decision, even if those words have been thrown around (though I hope not by me) - only WP:ARBCOM does anything resembling issuing a judgment. I evaluated the Wikipedia etiquette issues and made suggestions. I have warned both you and User:DoubleCross for what I personally believe are violations of those standards, but warnings are not penalties they are cautions. They are telling you in clear and unambiguous terms to check yourself. Anyone can warn, even an IP user (though issuing frivolous warnings is disruptive and carries its own warning) and it does not have any particular negative effect, though it does tend to stand out when another user is reviewing your talk page history. You were unwilling to agree to restore information which I believe is crucial to preserving the integrity of the way we do things here - even when I suggested a middle ground of restoring it in part, eliminating the irrelevant material. You can decide for yourself whether my warnings are justified or not and whether you should act on them, though in making that decision you may wish to review the policies and guidelines that I have linked to above.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Doug, I asked you specific questions and you ignored all of them. Please behave in a professional manner and answer them.

I also have to ask if you know this individual DoubleCross and if you are applying a double standard, since your communications with the subject of the complaint is excessively soft and your language in communicating with me comes across as rude and condescending -- particularly in an editing fix of the Phil Hall (US writer) page that is clearly an act of juvenile stick-out-your-tongue sarcasm aimed directly at me (and you know what I am talking about!).

We did not receive the same communication from you -- my page has a "Warning" and his does not.

If you want to restore the "irrelevant" (your words, not mine) posting by DoubleCross, be my guest. But take that insulting "Warning" off my page. That is poor and biased judgment on your part. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Doug: Just wanted you to know that I read the message on my talk page, and some of the ongoing discussion here; I apologize for not responding, as I haven't had a lot of time in the past few days (and unfortunately don't have much now). I'm going to try to respond in depth shortly. Thanks, and sorry again. - DoubleCross (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ecoleetage: I think I must have miscommunicated: 1) No, I've never had any interaction with User:DoubleCross before, I have no idea who he or she is. This the first time I have encountered either of you as far as I recall. 2) I do not know what you mean by my communications being aimed directly at you (and you know what I am talking about!) - I am afraid you have me completely baffled on this one. 3) I originally suggested that the entire post should be restored, then I suggested as a compromise that certain irrelevant material be refactored to remove the IMdB material but that the material relating to the valid Pulitzer references be restored - You were uninterested in this proposal, so I never suggested particulars; however, I can try to propose something if you wish. Absent an agreement to do so, I am not going to restore it and start a revert war, so I warned you for removing talk page material. As for the requests for definitions in your previous posts, they are all in the references I provided above, e.g. WP:TROLL, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. and those are explained in my first post here. If you need their specific applications referenced, it may take me a few days to put them all together, but I will if it will help us resolve this. As for removing the warning, I can't do that any better than you can; it will remain in page history. Nothing requires you to leave it out in full view; however - and if you want to leave it but remove the little icon and the indentation, fine - I don't believe there is any official guideline for warnings, WP:UW is not policy - although I applied it to your page, you are free to change the organization. If you are looking for a retraction, sorry, the warning was warranted. Finally, the fact that you initiated this referral is not particularly important - etiquette goes both ways. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Doug, the sarcasm in question is found in your edit on [11]-- to whom were you referring in your obnoxious comment about editing? That is not professional behavior and it appears to suggest a bias in your handling of this matter.

Doug, I have major problems with the manner in which you handled this issue. I have no further need for your services in this matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive37&oldid=1138353329"