Revision as of 14:43, 17 November 2008

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

User:Pwnage8

This user blankly reverted all my changes, that I, with some effort, had put into the Chris Pronger and National Hockey League rivalries articles. Among my changes were bypassing some redirects, unlinking dates, and merging identical references. His position - right or wrong - was that "August 3, ]" would be an appropriate link that should be kept. (And for that reason he reverted all my changes blankly.) My position - right or wrong - is that a calendar date obviously refers to a calendar year, not a season or a draft. Maybe this isn't the right place to resolve this dispute.

But what I object to is that he reverted all my changes, instead of - as I suggested on his talkpage - posting a (reasonably) polite message on my talkpage, explaining what he didn't feel was correct. An alternative would be that he himself re-add the specific changes that he didn't agree on. Instead he described my edits as "mistakes" and "unconstructive", and labeled me a "mindless busybody".

LarRan (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of the personal attacks? and notify the user of this alert as required. --neon white talk 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is his first revert of my edit to the "Chris Pronger" article: . He reverted me once again in the same manner later the same day, but his revert has now been reverted by Orlandkurtenbach, and that version is the current one at present.

This is his first revert of my edit to the "National Hockey League rivalries" article: . He reverted me once again in the same manner later the same day, and that version is the current one at present, since I don't want to engage in edit warring.

The invectives can be found on my talkpage, "Unlinking dates" section, second part. Here's the edit that added them:

I have notified him now. Missed that.

LarRan (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I have not looked at the diff's related to article content: we cannot deal with that here, only incivility. I've read the entire page that you linked to related to incivility, and I have significant trouble finding what you call "invectives". The edit that you kindly provided the diff for includes the phrases "please don't engage in mindless busybodyism and ignore the details. It's up to you to go that extra mile and make the constructive change". Based on your response, I believe that this is the portion you're concerned about. Truly, this is borderline: he didn't call you "a mindless busybody", he suggestion you don't engage in "mindless busybodyism". In fact, he then went on to suggest what would make your editing better. Feel free to correct me or enhance my understanding. -t BMW c- 15:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

While I think it is useful, and would add to the article, to include a link to the seasons in the Chris Pronger article, the fact that they are dates does not make it absolutely necessary. This is why I have decided not to revert on that article again. However, the National Hockey League rivalries article uses season links to establish greater context, and should not be removed. I'm glad that LarRan has not reverted me there, and I would ask him to agree to keep the season links in that article. I don't think it should be up to me to fix the problems caused by his edits. Why did I choose to revert all his changes? As I said, I do not think I should have been the one to fix the problems caused by his changes, because I had other articles to get to in my watchlist, and because his other changes were negligible, as the targets redirect to the articles. Redirects are something I'm anal about, but in this particular case I don't think either version would be a substantial improvement for the article, and him removing the season links diminishes the quality of the article. Since he is making the changes, he should make them good changes, not drive by script-type. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You do have an obligation to at least keep or reinsert useful edits. If it was worth your time to visit and full-revert, it's worth your time to do a little help to the article. -t BMW c- 17:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note, that wikiquette alerts are not the place to continue a content dispute, do so on the relevant talk page. --neon white talk 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there has been worse behaviour than Pwnage8's, but there seems to be a pattern of him viewing himself as "presiding" over other editors' contributions, reverting others' edits at will with the comment "try again" if he does not approve of them. It (the attitude) can be seen both in his remarks on my talkpage, and on the edit summaries of his reverts. Also, other editors have recently complained on his talkpage about edit warring on dates, so this is clearly not a one-off.

Regarding his reason for full-reverts (he's got "other articles to tend to"), I think I value my time as precious as I guess he is valuing his, so that argument is invalid.

Finally, disguising invectives (albeit rather mild ones), in hypothetical expressions does not make them anything other than invectives. If that were the case, one could easily get away with "don't do this, or you're an idiot".

LarRan (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely, if there's such a "pattern" it wouldn't be too hard to provide extensive diffs? --Pwnage8 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that some of them have recently been added to your talkpage. LarRan (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Where did I revert people's changes with "try again"? --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, here? You seem to be reverting LarRan, replacing dates with old-style wiki-linked dates and changing proper-case ("Where they met in playoffs") to camel-case ("Where They Met In Playoffs").

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 07:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's already been discussed here, and that's one diff. LarRan alleges that there is a "pattern" of this happening everywhere. --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"not again" and "not again" (reverting removal of MySpace URLs). "why remove them?" (reverting removal of full-stops (periods) in an initialism). " lmao.. i'm sure it does. just about every article that isn't a GA does, but we don't see mass taggings of them" (removing a refimprove tag). "i can't believe someone tagged/removed this, considering all the ridiculous claims in this article" (reinserting an uncited claim). "how is this not notable? how are any of the other unsourced claims notable?" (...and again).

I don't know if I would agree with LarRan that there's a "pattern", but there are in a very short period a number of unhelpful edit summaries accompanying questionable reverts and edits. In particular, re-adding an uncited claim is bizarre - uncited claims can be removed at any time, and re-adding them is unhelpful. Reverting bot-edits that are consistent with MoS are unhelpful. Reverting the removal of MySpace links could be OK, but not with "not again" as an edit summary.

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 08:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one: . A pattern does not necessarily mean that all edits "everywhere" are unhelpful, or accompanied by questionnable edit summaries. Regular occurrences are enough to establish a pattern. LarRan (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Chris Pronger reverts have to do with linking season articles, not full stops or the like. I wrote "not again" as an edit summary because I had a lengthy discussion with Piano non troppo about official band MySpace links where he didn't address the points I made, and I was simply maintaining status quo because he didn't give a good reason for removing the links. But that's another issue entirely. Drive-by taggings are a disease, and I don't see how adding "refimprove" when it's reasonably sourced helps the article. In that case, it's much better to tag individual claims with "citation needed", although I couldn't see any that needed that. As for Rogers Centre, I didn't notice that the info that was removed was integrated into the article already. Those embedded lists have to go, and I'll be doing some work on that later on. The article does very much suffer from unsourced OR, and what I added was a factual statement. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

But you did revert the initialism, reinserting full-stops. It's already been noted above that it's incumbent upon you not to revert good parts edits, but instead correct the bad parts. That you had discussed MySpace links is great, but not at all clear to other editors - and status quo is not an acceptable reason for ignoring policy. Your views on what constitutes a disease are also not a good reason for removing tags (and you may wish to rethink your description) - particularly as one {{refimprove}} tag is often better (for readability) than peppering an article with {{fact}} tags, though I note that you didn't even do that - you simply removed the {{refimprove}} tag altogether. Not realising that an un-cited claim already exists in an article seems to me to be a bizarre reason for re-adding that claim to an article: that the article suffers from un-sourced original research is no excuse for adding yet more un-sourced original research.

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having problems with him, too. The infobox on Korn had been duplicated a ton, and I accidentally removed them all, instead of all but one. He then decided to tell me that he reverted my vandalism and called me a "stupid vandal noob" (although that was my edit summary for said "vandalism" although I didn't vandalize in the least way). User:Green caterpillar came to my aid, and reminded him not to bite the newcomers (it would seem this isn't the first time, as Green dug up a lot of incidents of Pwnage biting new IPs or users.) I replied on his talk page and signed his guestbook, both edits to his pages reminding him of the "vandalism" hoax he is trying to pull. He removed my signature and comment from his userpage guestbook, which I wouldn't mind, but he called it "garbage" on my talk page and removed it saying it was vandalism, and added it to the number of times his page has been vandalized. He also called pretty much everything Green said garbage. I'm really not surprised that his name is already on this page, he is very abrasive and rude to newcomers like me. I would like to point out that I am NOT a vandal and never will be. My evidence for all of this is on my talk page, his talk page, and Green caterpillar's talk page Thanks, Winston 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Winston and everyone else pretty much summed it up in my opinion. Can't think of much else at the moment. Green caterpillar (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't ignoring policy with respect to the MySpace links. We both have our own interpretations of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, and the issue hadn't been settled (and still isn't), so I was just upholding consensus (that they are allowed). I didn't put {{fact}} tags, because like I said, I didn't see any claims that needed them. Just about every article that isn't GA needs more citations, but nobody in their right mind will go out and tag them all. Agree? I fail to see how that helps the article. What I added to the Rogers Centre article is not original research and could easily be cited. I wasn't going to bother with that at that particular moment though.

Now, as for this situation with Winstonator, here's what happened... I came across the Korn article in my watchlist, and I saw an IP edit (an immediate red flag) and noticed it was vandalism (no surprise there), so I undid it. Afterwards, I noticed that something was very wrong with the infobox. The image that used to be there was gone. I consulted the history, and noticed something very ironic. Winstonator's revision replaced the photo of the band with "erection development", which wasn't showing due to it being a "bad image" that is only allowed in relevant articles, and I found his edit summary quite intriguing because of this. It was clear from this, that he had no idea how to revert vandalism, and I needed to consult him about the edit. I went to his talk page and added a tongue-in-cheek section about him being a "stupid vandal noob" (per his edit summary). I was expecting him to check the history and post on my talk page admitting his mistake. Two days later, I notice I have new messages from Winstonator and Green caterpillar. Out of my hundred or so edits in that timespan, Green caterpillar picked out three where he alleged I was making personal attacks and not assuming good faith. If one looks at this, I was removing an obvious bad faith edit. Also notice that I did not just revert the entire edit, but only the part that was obvious vandalism (a clever way vandals make their edits slip under the radar is to mix them with good-faith edits). This is a non-starter. And yes, when I'm accused of all these bad things in a warning template-style fashion I'm going to call it "inflammatory garbage". Now, I know what's going on, so I really don't need to be bothered with this issue on my guestbook. It is not the place to post grievances about my edits. That's what the talk page is for. This is not what you do on someone's guestbook. Compare to this. Well, seeing how my post was taken the wrong way, I made a longer one explaining what he did wrong, and even gave him a link to Help:Reverting so that something like this won't happen again. Today I noticed another post of his on my talk page, where he tells me to "assume good faith" and then proceeds to make bad faith accusations: "You seem to have an inflated ego, someone needs to pop that balloon. Green caterpillar is right, you're trying to make yourself look good by targeting innocent users like me." You may not have wanted to vandalize, but you certainly did "f**k up the wiki", and all I wanted to do was make you aware of that. I also noticed that he posted a personal attack about me on his userpage, which is a violation of the userpage policy. Per What may I not have on my user page? #10: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." I ask Winstonator to kindly remove it as soon as possible. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'll take it off my userpage. I didn't know about Wikiquette alerts so I tried to take things up on your guestbook/talk page, but then I looked here. As for the "erection devolpment" thing, I thought that was a concert picture or something, as they tend to have odd names. I could have sworn that the picture showing was the regular band picture as well. I just want you to put the "userpage vandalized" count on your userpage back to 4, as I might have attacked you, but that wasn't "vandalism". You call everything vandalism. You can't act like a victim, the sequence of events went as follows:

• I saw the problem on Korn with the duplicated infobox, and I removed them all, instead of all but one. The fault was mine, then.
• Pwnage attacked me on my talk page, and Green caterpillar on his.
• I took this to the Wikiquette alerts.

I admit that the fault was mine of not correctly removing vandalism, but one thing I will not stand for is being accused of vandalizing myself. I said some things I shouldn't have, but so did Pwnage. You look down on everyone, as if you're better. That's my problem with you. Winston 20:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Whether or not you were violating policy by removing the MySpace links is moot - this is about civility. Your edit summaries for both MySpace reverts consisted of "Not again". Under the circumstances any reasonable editor would have seen a bot removing MySpace links, and an editor reinserting them with a non-descriptive, un-helpful edit summary. If I'd seen that I would have reverted you (and I note that you were, indeed, promptly reverted).
• You removed a {{refimprove}} tag without making any attempt to deal with the underlying issue because you didn't agree with the editor who inserted the {{refimprove}} tag. A civil response would have been to first discuss with the editor, or to insert {{fact}} tags where necessary and then remove the {{refimprove}} tag. You apparently did neither - you assumed the editor inserting the {{refimprove}} tag didn't know what they were doing, and simply reverted them.
• Just about every article that isn't GA needs more citations, but nobody in their right mind will go out and tag them all. Agree?

Actually, I strongly disagree. When I see an article that needs more references, I tag it. When I see a section that needs more references, I tag it. And when I see a claim that is unreferenced, I tag it. In each case I make some effort to verify the claim first. I'd add that, like your earlier reference to tags as "a disease", phrases questioning editors' sanity are unhelpful at best. Please be more civil.

• You added an uncited claim to the Rogers Centre article. If it can be, as you claim, easily cited then the correct thing to do would have been to cite it - not make a snarky edit summary about its removal. If you couldn't be bothered citing it then and there you should not have reinserted the claim - and you certainly should not have left a "How is this not notable?"-edit summary - unless you reference the claim how is any other editor to know that it's notable?
• This is not about content; I note that most of your edits seem fine in and of themselves. It's about how you deal with other editors. Those acting in good faith deserve to be treated with respect. Even trolls and vandals should be treated with courtesy per Don't Feed the Trolls - otherwise you're simply encouraging them.

Earlier you appeared to claim that you had made no reversions in which the edit summary consisted of "Try again" (Where did I revert people's changes with "try again"?). I immediately found one; another editor has found another. Edit summaries like this are precisely why I am concerned. Misplaced Pages is not a game; it is a collaborative attempt to build an encyclopaedia. Doing so requires courtesy and respect for other editors, and a level of discussion that transcends snarky edit summaries like "Try again", "Not again" and adding unreferenced claims with "How is this not notable?"

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've lowered the vandalism count back down to four, per Winstonator's request.

• Tagging is something that's arbitrary, and editors sometimes disagree about how and when it should be done. I did not see any reason for the tag to be there and couldn't find any claims that need sourcing. In any case, it's always helpful for the tagging editor to describe why they added the tag in the edit summary and/or talk page. It helps to avoid these types of cases.
• The Rogers Centre article needs a ton of work anyway, so anything that needs to be sourced (and there's a lot of that) can be done later. I don't see what's wrong with the edit summary. If you're going to remove that claim, then you should remove all the others because they have the same problem.
• Only two edit summaries that have "try again" in them does not constitute a pattern or problem that needs to be resolved here. I will keep it in mind however, that they are frowned upon. As for "not again", I don't really see the problem with that. I was upholding consensus, and I view Piano non troppo's MySpace removals as disruptive. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good enough for me. Thanks for taking the time to consider and discuss this, and working towards an amicable solution. Notwithstanding other editors' views, I'm happy with this outcome.

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 21:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for lowering the vandalism count, I appreciate it. Winston 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've decided to give my (real) two cents, now that I could think of something.

My greatest concerns are that Pwnage8 is biting the newbies and not assuming good faith. The edits I put up on his talk page that Winston described are examples where editors at least tried to help, yet were treated rudely by him, and this is the kind of behavior that drives away new editors. Everyone was new once, and if people are constantly insulted and ridiculed in the manner Pwnage8 is doing, how many will stay to edit? Probably not many, which is why I want this to stop. Green caterpillar (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, I don't like Pwnage8's apparent assumptions of bad faith and contempt of IP addresses, such as above, when he said, "and I saw an IP edit (an immediate red flag) and noticed it was vandalism (no surprise there)". Green caterpillar (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Three diffs = I bite newbies and assume bad faith? That's not assuming good faith. Although 84% of anon contribs are constructive, that still leaves 16% that aren't, which warrants every anon edit needing to be checked. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. Take it or leave it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I can bring up more if you want, and it seems that LarRan has already brought up a couple. When Winston told me about you, I thought maybe it was an isolated incident, so I looked into your contribs, and these were just some I found at the top of the stack. And apparently, yes, I think you are biting newbies and assuming bad faith, per what everyone (including me) has said. Seeing that there is a Wikiquette alert on you, I decided to look deeper, including at some more recent contribs. Here are a few:

• Unexplaned reversion of good faith edit:
• Contentious edits: , - I cannot find a single policy which says only articles are notable.
• Unnecessary newbie biting: , - "nope" is not a valid revert justification
• and, the edits LarRan has discussed: , , which were somewhat of a violation of the reverting guidelines, where the page specifically says, "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, try to improve it", and "If only part of an edit is problematic, consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit", something which you apparently did not consider. Also, "try again" is not constructive and only serves to bite the user.

I am going to say this again. How do you think these users feel when edits they may have worked hard on are reverted with an unnecessarily harsh, unconstructive, or even no explanation? Do you think Misplaced Pages looks good in their eyes as a community? Probably not. This is why we have behavioral guidelines like WP:AGF and WP:BITE. I strongly recommend that you take a very good look at both of them, because many users can probably agree that you are violating them to some extent. It doesn't matter whether it's three edits or more; your editing behavior needs to change. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

On another note, this edit was not only a misinterpretation of H:RV, but calling someone a mindless busybody, as LarRan said, is a personal attack. It doesn't matter whether you phrased it differently either; according to WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Also, the wiki-cred comment on my talk page can also be considred a personal attack.

Seriously, please change your behavior. Per WP:NPA, your behavior could be enough to get you blocked already, per "...even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption". I am not just making suggestions anymore - this is a warning. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User Miranda is randomly removing legitimate references by Editor Jake Sturm

User Miranda has accused me of "spamming" because I have been adding legitimate references to the published work of author/journalist Kira Salak over the last weeks. As I have explained to her, I am adding references to works that I have read, and I have begun with the author Kira Salak. I am not "spamming" this author, I am simply adding references to Misplaced Pages from Salak's large resource of articles published in National Geographic and in her two books. To my knowledge, the user Miranda has not read any of the articles or books, and so has no knowledge as to whether they are legitimate or not. It would appear that she has arbitrarily decided they are not relevant and is removing them. As I explained to Miranda, these articles and references meet the critera for references according to Misplaced Pages guidelines. I had intended to move on and not go to the trouble of arbitrating, but then I saw that she added a comment into the Editing Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Spamming books on Mali and other African countries) section accusing me of "spamming". I have tried every way I could to resolve this without involving administrators, but she simply refuses to stop. She has put me in a position where I can no longer add useful content to Misplaced Pages as she will remove it. She has also added inappropriate tags into the Kira Salak page (see discussion page for more details). She has removed entries of mine from Mali, Tripoli ‎, Leptis Magna, Huichol, Real de Catorce. She has also removed an entry that I made for West Africa when I forgot to login under IPaddress 69.202.73.21. Could you please review the references that I added, that Miranda has removed, and give a third party opinion as to their relevance. Thank you. JakeSturm (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You should first read instructions for pages before posting. Several points listed at #Procedure for this page were not met, including informing Miranda of this post. Regardless, she's not randomly removing legitimate references. You have not provided references. Please see WP:CITE as well as WP:RS. By our project standards, you are spamming. Miranda explained this to you. If you have questions about using references, feel free to ask on my talk page, but Miranda has not shown poor Wikiquette here. لennavecia 17:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this is 'spamming', spamming is done in bad faith and to accuse an editor of such is not assuming good faith. The edits by JakeSturm are clearly good faith edits that need to be sourced. Both editors need to use the talk page to discuss content disputes and to assume good faith. User:Miranda needs to be more patient, be open to compromise and help new editors rather than 'biting' them. --neon white talk 18:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a perhaps more important issue; conflict of interest. Though the credit has been removed recently, the Google cache for the official website kirasalak.com here shows "This website was created by Kira Salak and Jake Sturm". On this basis, Jake Sturm should not be directly editing material relating to Kira Salak. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read conflict of interest carefully. A conflict of interest is not the act of editing a subject one is involved with but doing so "in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups". On this point we must assume good faith. Involvement with a subject does not prohibit an editor from contributing to an article, it merely means they should be very careful, open about their involvment and accept more objective views. --neon white talk 12:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly these edits were placed to promote. Thus, spamming and COI, as is now revealed. In fact, if you read below, Jake Sturm writes, "I am fairly certain she has not read the book and has no idea as to whether it, or any of Salak's works, are relevant references." The fact remains that his addition of these books are not appropriate. They are not being used as references, rather he is simply inserting the information to advertise. Were it a reference, he would be citing specific pages to indicate precisely what information is being cited. Instead, he enjoyed the book, in the case of the Mali article, and wants others to read it as well. General references to books not used to write the article are not appropriate. لennavecia 04:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That isn't assuming good faith and that is very likely the reason why this ended up as a wikiquette alert. There is no evidence that this editor acted in bad faith. In future if you assume good faith and alert the editor to their mistakes in a helpful manner without resorting to unecessary bad faith accusations, you'll probably find communicating with editors a lot easier and less abrasive. --neon white talk 22:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate both of you responding to this. I did realize my error in including the Amazon references, which is why on my last addition to the Mali page, when I added "The Cruelest Journey" to "Additional Reading" I used the standard book tag. The author link part of the tag did not work (it displayed the link incorrectly), and so I put the author link outside of the tag. Miranda immediately removed this reference even though it was in the correct format as you suggested and is a legitimate reference for the country of Mali. She is just removing my references indiscriminately, I am fairly certain she has not read the book and has no idea as to whether it, or any of Salak's works, are relevant references. I will go back through my edits and remove any Amazon reference I put in when I have time over the next week and add in page numbers for any book references. I have tried to communicate with Miranda through her talk page, but instead of responding, she simply removes more of my entries or adds inappropriate tags to pages I have created. I did not realize that I was supposed to contact Miranda when putting the complaint on this page (though she did contact me when she put complaints about me on other pages), and I will be more careful in the future. But, I know she is monitoring every entry I make, so I am certain she is aware of it.

As for the conflict of interest entry, I will include here what I included on that page:I am a professional website designer and it is true that I did contribute to the construction of the Salak website. I found Salak's articles to be well researched, well written and informative but unfortunately, on the National Geographic webiste, only the first few paragraphs of most of her articles are available to readers. There was no place on or off the Internet to find the entire articles. As I believed that the articles should be available to the general public, as they are good references, I suggested that they be put on her website and I would assist her with this. Thank you for alerting me that my email link on the bottom of the Salak homepage was missing, I have reinserted it.JakeSturm (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you can provide the diff of this edit, secondly, if the articles on the webiste have been previously published in national geogaphic then it is acceptable to use them as sources and link to the full articles for verfiablity. --neon white talk 13:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. I don't see how she can be considered as a scholar if she visited Mali and took notes on people. Can "John Doe" go to Mali and take notes on the Malians and have his opinion placed on here by an associate who is closely identified with the author? No. We are promoting scholarly articles on a scholarly topic. I suggest to you, neonwhite, to take an article related to a place, country, and/or topic which has significant core value to the world, and add scholarly referenced material, instead of using one person's opinion, who has no scholarly knowledge on the field, and use that person's "knowledge" as a major source on this article. I suggest all parties re-read section 2 of RS. Thanks. miranda 00:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If John Doe has his work published by a reputable publisher (i.e. not a vanity press) then yes. Sourcing is not limited to academic sources as the term is purely subjective. Anyone doing a study can be called an academic. Misplaced Pages sourcing is based on verifiablity, editor's should not make personal decisions on whether they think sources are 'scholarly' enough. This is not policy here. It is not being used as a major source on the article and the .WP:RS is a guideline only (and a heavily disputed one. However, considering that you appear to be thoroughly familiar with it, you cannot have failed to noticed the line which clearly states "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications". Any article published by National Geographic passes all wikipedia standards by a mile. This isn't the first time you have misrepresented this policy. For now i will assume good faith and deem that you have not followed your own advice and re-read the guideline. I ask you again to step back and consider this objectively rather than allowing personal feelings about another editor to cloud your judgment. --neon white talk 21:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Goodmorningworld

This user made this baiting comment] on a discussion about John Wilkes Booth. The comment doesn't seem troubling until one notices the striken out sentence at the end. That was perplexing since, 1. I'm male. and 2. That user had never commented on this discsuion before. I did not have any reason to believe that that user and I had ever crossed paths before, until I remembered that I made a comment here ] on the ANI page a few days ago. I did not add anything further to the discussion, nor did I think that I was offending anyone. Apparently that user did not like my comment. Most likely using my edit history, he followed me to another discussion to take an opposite side. Although not exactly against policy, since wikipedia is open to all, his reasons for doing so seem vexing, based on the final striken line.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, that depends on who Ms Hutton is? A user? An outing of a user? A historical figure related to the article? Some other cultural reference? It was stricken out by the user because you're NOT supposed to delete comments from Talk pages - it appears he thought twice about his post already. -t BMW c- 11:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

GMW added it with the comment struck out to begin with, so it's not that he/she added it and then thought better of it... it appears GMW decided to put in something that he/she felt was maybe a bit cheeky or naughty, and to indicate awareness of such with the strikeout.

If it was an attempted WP:OUTING, it appears to have failed, since you indicate GMW got yer gender wrong :D I was expecting to find a Booth scholar with the name of Jo Hutton or something, which would explain the case of mistaken identity, but nada. The few "Jo Hutton"s that are out on the web, I have no idea why anyone would say "Eureka! That must be the person editing the John Wilkes Booth article!" So I'm kinda scratching my head...

Have you contacted GMW for an explanation of the comment? --Jaysweet (talk)

I have not had any contact with that editor. I decided that it may be best to just not say anything at all. I did this so that the situation would not get worse, but if you are recommending that I do contact that editor then I will.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is my bad. First, I failed to notice that the complainant did not try and resolve the supposed issue with the other editor (always the first step). Next, I did not notice that the complainant did not notify the other editor of this WQA complaint. As per the rest of the commentary, it appears that there was no incivility by any means. Marked closed -t BMW c- 12:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Umm, other than that how was the play Mrs Lincoln ring a bell? User was trying to make a funny. And indeed I laughed. Actually, its appearance here on WQA is pretty funny too. Eusebeus (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry!!

I had a hunch that I should be looking for something like this, and sure enough... I knew that it was in somewhat questionable taste, that's why the strikethrough and the picture of me with a band-aid covering my mouth (3x). It was nothing at all to do with Jojhutton's comment on a recent AN/I thread, I did not follow him around, I got to the Booth page via the Fringe Theories Noticeboard where I commented on Nov 11 (diff) , whereas Jojhutton's comment on the AN/I thread came a day later (), also I found his comment there totally unobjectionable. I also apologize to the descendants of President and Ms. Lincoln. It won't happen again, I promise.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal abuse

User:Dennis_Brown has subjected me to what I feel is unwarrented personal abuse - "it makes it appear as if you are a pompus ass" - the fact that it's wrapped up in what I feel are weasel words to make it more acceptable makes no difference to me. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel that way. The statement was sincere, and I feel that demanding that a closing admin define a policy for you was unreasonable, as the closing admin has no "duty" to provide any rationale or policy at closing if they so chose, and most will after the fact if you just politely ask. I don't think you meant your statement to come across that strong, but it did. I also took the time to quote you the exact policy you were demanding the admin to define. As for the statement, I feel pretty comfortable that it was appropriate for the circumstance. That you were so offensed is unfortunate, but it wasn't a personal attack as I was clearly addressing the issue at hand, even if colorfully. The amount of rudeness seems balanced with my statement, and I think the intent of the comment is clear enough. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 12:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"That lighting makes it appear that you are wearing orange shoes" does not mean I think you're wearing orange shoes, or even that you are wearing them - although you may well be. To call this one entry "personal abuse" or even "incivility" is a huge stretch. Let's also put the rest of the context of the sentence in: "You may want to reconsider your request for the closing admin. I am sure you are a very nice person and all, but it makes it appear as if you are a pompus ass who is owed something when you ask like that. I have the utmost confident that you really don't think this, but I was concerned that others may construe your words in this manner" (italics and bold mine). It appears to be a comment about your edit, advising you that it may come across wrong. It appears the other editor has made a rather similar comment. I can understand that it an AfD that you were involved in was going "badly" you may get defensive (I've done it ... be careful of WP:OWN in that case) -t BMW c- 12:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no incivility, but a misunderstanding. That said, Dennis Brown, it was simply too great a possibility that this comment could be misconstrued (out of context) as a personal attack. Things unfortunately often get lost in translation/communication on Misplaced Pages. :( This was an avoidable complaint, and I'm sure there better ways of expressing yourself or putting the point across; as a lesson for the future, a wiser choice of words on how Daytona2 or Daytona2's contributions may be perceived would probably be enough to avoid these sorts of complaints. Again, I'll emphasize that I don't think you were being uncivil or intending to be. But I'm sure you'd like to avoid (where possible) having to come here in the future as the subject of a complaint, particularly of this sort. ;) Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are being honest here, I find your comments in this matter to be quite cromulent. (sorry, I couldn't resist. And yes, point taken.) ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Using the term 'pompous ass' is incivil, maybe not the worst you'll see but i'd still recommend User:Dennis_Brown choose his words more carefully in future to avoid offending other editors. --neon white talk 21:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Calendar pages

I am having a problem with the Calendar pages. The thing is on the page September 11, there are four items on the intro part, especially as one might expect, the WTC bombing. I place some important events on other pages, such as December 7 being Pearl Harbor, June 6 D-Day, etc. Another user has started reverting this. To my mind, we have to be consistent. Either we have intros, or we do not.

Comments please.

Wallie (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wallie ... as this really doesn't fall under the category of "incivility", I'm not sure what we can do in this forum. If you want to give me some better article examples on my talkpage, I'll have a look -t BMW c- 17:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to prevent it from coming to this stage (of incivility). Wallie (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Verbal removed my questions from his talk page

User:Verbal had put a lot of alerts onto my talk page, but did not answer my questions about this his action. I also asked him to help me to understand his point of view. Than I wrote this message on his talk page but he deleted this my message. Is it civil Wiki work?--Tim32 (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to give Tim details of my publications. I have given him advice on various talk pages (specifically to start an RfC about his failure to accept consensus on the Graph isomorphism article). Removing messages means I've read them. I have not been uncivil in response to this users hounding. Note that this is a user who previously here called an established editor of good standing a "racist" because he said some Russian journals during the cold war are not reliable sources. Verbal chat 16:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Where I wrote "racist"? Give a link, please!--Tim32 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

About publications by Verbal. Yes, I asked his to help me to understand his point of view. I wrote in GI talk page: "There is no attack. However, if you have printed any paper about GI problem or about graph's applications, please, give me a link - perhaps, it will help me to understand your point of view. For example, this paper helps me to understand some passages by David Eppstein. Thanks! --Tim32 (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)" Is it forbidden to ask help?--Tim32 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Racism allegations: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts/archive53#Arthur Rubin. I will only respond on the article talk page to article related discussions. Verbal chat 19:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your link does not work! Cite, please. I know I did not write "racist", moreover I wrote: "Very important to note, if I said that somebody words look like racism, then it did not mean that I think that he/she is racist, moreover, I do not think that somebody here is racist, I do hope that he or she does not understand his/her words, and does not understand why these words are so insulted for me." (Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts/archive52#Arthur Rubin)--Tim32 (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Users can remove whatever they like from their own talk pages. Dismissing this alert without prejudice. --neon white talk 21:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

So, can I remove the alerts of Verbal from my talk page? Than he will set the same alerts and I will remove it again... But at the same time he must not answer my question why he did it. Very absurd strategy.--Tim32 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the individual to manage his/her own talk page as he/she chooses. If a user removes an alert or warning we assume it is recieved and read. It shouldn't be replaced. No editor is obliged to answer any personal talk page messages or questions. If you are involved in a content dispute use the article talk page to discuss it and dispute resolution is a consensus cannot be reached. --neon white talk 01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Daphne-3 and her behavior

User:Daphne-3 has been questioning my intelligence and has been lying about my behavior. Here is my comment on the sockpuppetry page about Teleology:

• Just because it is a verifiable edit does not mean it is good for Misplaced Pages.

And here is what she said about me on the bottom of Talk:Teleology:

• In a subsequent exchange, the person "monitoring" this page explained that he deleted my edits because they were based on "personal opinion" and were not "good for Misplaced Pages".

The truth: the first quote was not necessarily about Daphne-3's edits. I was the one that reported the case, which is still open. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Daphne-3 for more info. Notice that she has neglected to sign her own comments on many occasions.

Please investigate this ASAP. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is the incivility here? Can we have some diffs? --neon white talk 01:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

/* User:AvatarMN*/

I am concerned about this person's comments about LGBT issues in Talk with other users. Perhaps I am incorrect, but there seems to be some personal attacks going on with this issue and several others in Talk pages. I also wonder about their motives and reasoning in editing others work, but that's a different issue. May I please ask that someone look at their Talk contributions, and let them know if they need to change their behavior? I don't really need an answer. Remaining anonymous as I do not want to be the target of this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.141.198 (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User :Alex contributing from L.A.

User :Alex contributing from L.A., a Romanian user who only cares for the Romanian etymology, is definitly uncivil.

He wrote:

No dickface, it's from Hungarian, then from Romanian, then from Latin. This is seen in the way the word changed forms. A is putting the smack down (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC) 14:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC) at [http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Palatschinken The rest of his conversation is not quite civil either.

Later he made some other changes and wrote in the edit summary, being uncivil again:

(what is confusing? are you a dingbat? the German word is directly from Czech, not from Hungarian. The Czech word is from Hungarian, the Hungarian word from Romanian etc. It is linear) (undo) at ].

(His information is not entirely sure, because I also checked the word Palachinke’s (Austrian pancake) etymology, and the German etymology website states the following:

(sind was K.undK.-Österreichisch-Ungarisches. Der Name kommt aus von ung. 'palacsinta', das seinerseits den Umweg über Rumänisch und lat. 'placenta')

wich means translated that the word has a Hungarian origin, not Czech.

I am tired about uncivil editors who make Misplaced Pages into an unpleasant place to edit, and do so for many people I know or got in contact with.

His personal interests and editing style after editing an article, often makes the article hard to read and understand, for other contributors and other readers.

For examle: the article looking like this and after his edits looking like this , where the article has no lead section any more, which would explain what Palachinke is. It is also possible that he uses several accounts. (like user:Bogdangiusca)

Warrington (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution