Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive20

Archive index

Personal attacks by Moe Epsilon

Resolved

 – The original complaint was frivolous, and the page in question was protected. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please provide some guidance on how to deal with someone who insists upon re-inserting an unwarranted and unfriendly personal attack? The edits can be seen in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Darlin history. Burntsauce 21:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see it, Burntsauce, but WP:NPA states: "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited." And especially so, on an AfD page, which is marked as "don't modify this". Sorry.--SarekOfVulcan 21:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This one is dead easy. Moe is doing the right thing, and Burntsauce should leave the page alone. The "attack" is pretty mild, and it must be left in place as a good faith contribution that is part of the record of discussion, even if it does not assume good faith itself. Sorry Burntsauce, but it stays. I'm not editing it back myself just yet; and I may not need to. Just providing comment on the complaint itself, as an onlooker. And Moe... please try to assume good faith in your comments. There's no reason not to, no matter how many deletions are proposed. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see I wasn't notified of this. Sorry, but it's not an illusion that he put many notable biographies on AFD, i.e. Jessica Darlin, Rodney Anoai, etc. — Moe ε 22:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt it. It looks like a poorly conceived campaign to improve the encyclopedia as he sees it. Hence it is in good faith. I see you replaced your comment; as is appropriate. Burntsauce... leave it alone. Thanks. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That isn't a reason to assume that he's doing so for the purpose of harming the wiki. If his reasoning for nominating as many biographies as he did was that they weren't notable, or that there was some logical reason for doing so, then there's plenty of reason to believe he did so in good faith. If his reasoning was that he doesn't like those particular people, or he just wanted to give other editors a hard time or devalue their work, that would be a bad-faith nomination. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Who says he's not giving editors a hard time? Certainly not the Pro Wrestling WikiProject which has been struggling do to his overly essentric bursts of blanking articles for WP:BLP violations, which weren't accurate. As you will see now on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that he is trying to get one of the best professional wrestling sources blacklisted. The only hope for professional wrestling articles are external links like these, and his is blatantly keeping the progress of this encyclopedia down by suppressing articles being created and then nominating them for deletion thereafter. No malice intended, I think not. — Moe ε 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be greatly appreciated if you would stop assuming bad faith. My efforts to uphold WP:BLP are in the interests of improving our encyclopedia, and nothing more. Burntsauce 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't even mention IMDB, and thats off-topic, onlineworldofwrestling isn't user generated, so you're point is moot. Blanking articles, which have been repeatedly reverted, nominating clearly notable bios for deletion and making phony claims of policy are not for the best intrest of this encyclopedia. Any time someone goes to your talk page and tries to discuss something you don't like you blank it out without a response. — Moe ε 23:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as an FYI: My response about WP:AGF was a general comment, but I have not done as much research or gotten as involved in this alert as Duae has. I made that comment from a general standpoint - as with all policies, specific cases can call for different interpretation of those policies. I'll leave the rest of this alert in Duae's capable hands. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note. Burntsauce has yet again tried to modify the official discussion record, despite having been told on this alert that he cannot do this. Moe is clearly in the right here. Assume Good Faith is all very well; but it becomes really hard to sustain in the face of this kind of behaviour. Moe; I take it back. You're right: there is a major problem here with this editor. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My only problem is with willful ignorance of WP:BLP and it seems that only one specific group of Wikipedia contributors are under the belief that they can get away with it. I treat all articles the same. Burntsauce 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You now also have a couple of other problems. You have the problem of approaching a WP:3RR violation on the deletion discussion record. You have the problem that inappropriate modifications of this official record are now getting a bit of wider notice. You have the problem that your most recent edit comment on that record itself failed to assume good faith, and made a totally inappropriate accusation of vandalism. And you have the problem that all this poor behaviour is getting a bit of wider notice, so that you are likely to get a more more scrutiny. I'd be really surprised if that's going to do you a lot of credit. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And he calls rightful reverting of him ignorance. Not exactly the best descision-making. If you think this is a serious approach to correcting violations of policy Burntsauce you are highly mistaken. You are clearly in the wrong about the Terry Gerwin article, the "personal attack" request here and BLP claims. — Moe ε 23:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued incivility from User:Scorpion0422

Resolved

 – Seems to be a non-problem. I'm marking it resolved, since there was nothing to do and it's now old. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I first reported on what I felt was a pattern of personal attacks and vigilante-style editing from this user back in June. [1] He refused my efforts to discuss differences with him, as suggested by the mediators and since then, he has continued to revert my edits to any Simpsons article without any valid reasons [2] [3] [4], and I have taken good faith in working with this user, but he continues to ignore evidence I have presented [5] and continues with personal attacks on my talk page and in edit summaries [6]. I notice that he has a pattern of being inflammatory and disruptive to editors that he disagrees with.--Folksong 00:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [7]

Like I've said, you keep editing GA articles, which are supposed to have an elevated level of prose. It has nothing to do with you, I'm just trying to keep these pages at the level they were when they were promoted. As far as I can remember, I've only reverted you on three articles (two of which you have reported me on, the other you nearly reported me) and I'm sure you've edited many more articles than I've reverted you on. And why do you keep bringing up stuff that I've already been disciplined for? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

At a quick look though all the submitted diffs and a check through the nearby history, I do not think there is any case to answer here. The old stuff should be water under the bridge, and the later changes are minor content dispute, being carried on without any big problems from Scorpion0422 with incivility or failure to assume good faith that I can see. Scorpion, it would be desirable to try and take ten minutes to try and modify an edit rather than just revert it, even if you think the effect of the edit was detrimental to the article. It would probably save time in the long run. Folksong, you need to assume good faith and be careful with that word vandalism. You guys are just going to have to continue to keep cool and keep talking.

If this escalates at all, then the winner will probably be the one who manages to keep the coolest, and shows the best assumptions of good faith. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo

Stuck

 – Actually, not stuck so much as taken up at #Kievan Rus' a bit below. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo is continuing personal attcks toward all potential editors in Kievan Rus' article. He is using the word "idiot" adressing their work and reverting the information that he dislikes. See Warning: please don't add idiotic infoboxes: they will be deleted 15 August 2007, Warning: please don't add idiotic infoboxes: they will be deleted 13 August 2007, rmv idiotic box from the lead 22 June 2007 and many others. Please, make brutal User:Ghirlandajo to be civil, be tolerant to views of others and be polite! Thank you in advance.--202.249.213.38 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to resolve the issue in the discussion pages. There are issues there that I cannot understand, and none of you seem to be talking about them. Try to set a standard for politeness yourself when you do this. Avoid describing this little tiff as "brutal". That comes across as just a tad hysterical. You don't want that.

I think you have a fair point. Calling the infobox "idiotic" was not helpful. Ghirlandajo does not explain his concern in the discussion page, and he certainly should. I can't see what the problem is. No one is talking about it. My advice is to be WP:COOL. Keep focused on the matters of content; don't try to make a big fuss about the fact that the word idiotic is used. Try this, for example.

It will help to avoid saying anything at all about the "idiotic" remark, I think, unless it is repeated. If you just ignore it, then it has a better chance of being forgotten and not repeated. Good luck —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the Project Former Countries, and I fail to see anything helpful about their activities. The idea of an infobox for the countries that existed millennia ago is absurd. What was the flag and COA of Assyria? It's a good idea for a Kurdish nationalist to seize upon. As far as I can see, the infobox is just a tool used by modern nationalists to advance their fringecruft. The agenda of this particular sockpuppet is to paste the modern Ukrainian COA, with modern Ukrainian colors, to the top of the article about a state which existed a millennium ago. It's like inserting the modern Italian flag into our article about the Roman Empire. Will it be tolerated, let alone seriously discussed? P.S. I have my reservations about the propriety of this "Wikipedia alerts" page. It reminds me of WP:PAIN which had to be closed down after it became, in essence, an attack page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This report is entirely specious and should be closed. An unregistered user whose (very few) contributions tend to calling others "vandals" is upset over editorial comments that an infobox is "idiotic"? Give me a break. For the record I agree that the article is much better without the infobox for several reasons, but that is a content issue. Further, the insistence on irrational standardization that requires things like infoboxes is highly detrimental to the encyclopedia, but that opinion is also a content issue. Tim Shuba 07:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my overall impression (except that I like infoboxes, which as you note is not relevant here). I left a note at Ghirlandajo's page to let him know of the existence of this alert, and to ask his input. My advice is still to talk about content issues on the discussion page; just to keep a record of what is going on, even if it is a matter of dealing with some form of cluelessness. But hey. I am cool with closing this as a non-issue, and will do so shortly after a bit of time to allow for any other comment. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrghh. Close it already, it's ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

2 Ghirla. Where did you find Ukrainian COA at the top of the article? There is only the one of Rurikid symbol of 10th c. - the trident. Blue and yellow are not "ukranian colours", but just "blue" and "yellow". Now the trydent is an image from the coin which you have downloaded, but your commrades still removing the infobox. You are fighting with natioanlistic stereotypes of your own. Infobox provides short information about the country and is very convenient for readers. Also, I would ask you to calm down your accusations in sockpuppeting. Its not the matter of anon-users but users who have got many accounts. --133.41.84.206 08:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Further comment directed to the alert below at #Kievan Rus'. One alert on this is more than enough. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Kievan Rus'

Stuck

 – Overtaken by a recently returned arbitration decition. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A group of editors (see [8]) are constatntly removing Infobox Former Country from Kievan Rus' for pseudo-reasons of "original research". The article in this edition with template has nothing OR-ish, providing reader with a short information about that former country. The Infobox Former Country is used in many articles in Wikipedia stadardizing all articles about historical states, so I dont understand their stubborness in removing the template. They do edit warring without making even an atempt to disscuss the problem at the talk page of the article. They are not looking for consensus and do not give any arguments.--133.41.84.206 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, see the thread #User:Ghirlandajo above. This "report" is submitted by the sockpuppet of the user who submitted the original one. But seriously, a question to the regular handlers of this board. Is there a reason why this board is needed. Is it fundamentally different from WP:RFI and WP:PAIN both deleted per my urging with the wide consensus approval. AFAI can see, this is used either as a Wikipedia:Request to block or as a Wikipedia:Complaints department. Is it needed? --Irpen 06:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I'm not responding to this WQA posting right now, but I've replied to your questions about WQA in general on the talk page. --Parsifal _Hello 07:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

We certainly do get a lot of contributions from fringe viewpoins who see Wikipedia as (at last) a place where their particular nuttiness can be published in what appears to be a credible source. They usually get reverted when contributing to articles of general interest (I think); and sometimes we have extended episodes of cluelessness. Many good editors end up leaving in frustration. It looks very much to me that you and a couple of others are dealing with this issue by claiming a kind of ownership over your articles, periodically cleaning out edits back to established versions, and dismissing any need to talk about what you are doing in the discussion page. I'd like to see some kind of more formalized recognition of expert review on articles. In the meantime, I wish you guys would just for heavens sake TALK about the problems you see on the discussion page of articles. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that a discussion thread be created at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries. The issues here seem too technical for the contributors at this noticeboard to come up the learning curve quickly. Either that, or just pick one article, for instance Kievan Rus' and conduct one or more article RFCs. Whichever place you choose, I hope someone will start a discussion thread that expounds the alternatives as clearly as possible. There is more heat than light in what has been posted here at WQA. If you agree to move the discussion, leave us a pointer to the place where you are continuing to have it. EdJohnston 02:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There should be no need for this board to come up to speed. This is not a venue for content disputes. The idea of discussion is a good one, but it requires a willingness for people to discuss. That seems to be the major problem here.

If I understand it right, some editors dismiss this whole dispute as being unworthy of comment. They object to the use of wikiquette alerts as being merely a way to make attacks, and just want to shut down the whole alerts system. They consider that the complaints are unworthy of comment, and that any other editors who attempt to mediate are merely being made dupes by people making frivolous complaints. They assert strong control of the page in question, and claim to have the expertise and background and understanding to justify this control.

I would like to make a strong advisory comment here. Use the discussion page. If people are making frequent major edits to undo what they see as inappropriate changes by editors pushing an agenda of some kind; you still need to say something about the problem on the discussion page. Similarly for editors who are trying to introduce major changes. You can make your statements firmly without being uncivil. Please, please, please; if you consider yourself to be an expert on the topic who is fighting off POV-pushing, you need to demonstrate that by a concise, clear, substantive comment on the problem in the discussion page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Events addressed in this alert have been overtaken by a recent arbitration decision. The decision recognizes long standing and deep seated problems relating to articles on Eastern Europe, liberally defined. The conclusion is in two parts. A general amnesty for all involved parties, and a reminder to edit courteously and co-operatively in the future. This is excellent advice, and this Wikiquette alert is immediately closed, being resolved by the amnesty. Best of luck to all concerned in a difficult situation. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TheRingessDeleating problems

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

TheRingess keeps deleating information that I put in saying it is "urban legend" but is not! Please, help me I am going mad!

John Schnell 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Help us help you, what articles? what talk pages? how many times? As a hint, try to reference your material when you put it in, so that the policy of no original research can't be used to remove it. --Rocksanddirt 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Some diplomacy might help, but many of the items added by User:John Schnell to Cardiff-by-the-Sea, Encinitas, California seem to lack references. For example, see [9]. If John has access to back issues of a local paper, he might be able to find references for some of the facts he has asserted based on personal knowledge. Saying you were there is not enough for Wikipedia purposes, due to our insistence on reliable sources and verifiability. Editors who want to know what the dispute is about should look at the history of Cardiff-by-the-Sea, Encinitas, California since 5 July, and also see its Talk page. EdJohnston 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The removals of unsourced material and linkspam look consistent with enforcement of [WP:V]] and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Simply because a web site exists on the internet is not sufficient reason to link to it. For external link policies please see: WP:EL. Buddhipriya 20:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no case here to answer. John has been given some good advice about attribution. Basically, he has been adding information to Cardiff-by-the-Sea, Encinitas, California based on his own authority as a resident. But Wikipedia requires information to be based on verifiable sources. It is that simple. A friendly word also about handling such matters. You should not try to make a Wikiquette alert until you have first tried to resolve the matter on the relevant talk pages. I'm marking this resolved. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tried the talk page but she or he will not answer!!! She deleats stuf by me on the Cardiff By The Sea article! John Schnell 21:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding something. ANYTHING you write on wikipedia can be removed by ANYONE if there isn't any proof. And you being there isn't proof, you have to have articles or other reliable sources. DurinsBane87 22:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Blanche Poubelle and talk page problems

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This user has done a great job on Swedish Social Democratic Party and has contributed to article Neoliberalism, but I am getting irritated with this user's conduct on Talk:Swedish Social Democratic Party. After my (I hope so) rather mild criticism on some aspects of her edits, she reacted with militant comments, as if she owned the SSDP page. E.g. comments [10], [11], [12], , by which she accused me of political biases, noted my “keen censoring eye” etc. You see, she changed her response a number of times, until reaching this 'final' text which seemed, well OK (see history of the page for details). After my comment, by which I attempted to elaborate on my concerns (mostly neutrality), she responded with accusations of “authoritarian tone of your [i.e my] political complaints”, of having made her do edits I “demanded in a disrespectful way” (!), “ill-toned complaints” etc. In the end, she once again deleted her insulting comments and replaced it with a more tolerable reply. I also find unacceptable her request that I “revel (sic!) in your [i.e. my] existing achievements” in Wikipedia - she must have been aware, that my contributions don't number less than hers. All in all, this user has, in my opinion, violated WP:NPA, Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments (constantly changing her comments, hiding (removing) insulting ones). I expect your comments and suggestions. Erik Jesse 09:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for documenting your concern so thoroughly. The impression I get just from the diffs to which you've linked is of a user who has a short fuse and who hits "Save Page" first and then thinks later. All things considered, a user who regrets the kind of sarcasm in which she was engaged is preferable to one who engages in that kind of sarcasm and then starts defending it in a knee-jerk fashion when called on it. I guess my question for you is how big a deal this is, really? I agree that her initial comments violated Wikipedia policy, but then she deleted them and replaced them with more civil ones. Ideally, she shouldn't post the sarcastic stuff in the first place, but do you really feel this is harming the encyclopedia? (I ask that question in earnest and to elicit an answer, not to imply that the only reasonable answer is no.) Besides that, I don't think I agree with your interpretation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments - as I see it, it only advises against changing your comments after somebody else has responded to them, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Certainly, coming up with six editions of the same comment isn't optimal, but I'm not sure I see it as a policy violation. Sarcasticidealist 10:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I also doubt if there's the 3. policy violation, that's why I raised the issue at the informal level. The problem with the user is that

1. she often mistakes Wikipedia for soapbox or a blog
2. lays too much emphasis on particular points of view she personally agrees with (both in case of SSDP and Neoliberalism).
3. is not coöpereative in case of criticism or suggestions, rather, 'explodes', if one dares to contradict.

There is no big deal with the diffs, but I got the impression that she first expresses her views rather overtly (deliberately makes it) and then covers things up. So that I'd get both her real response and the 'acceptable' reply. I got tired with it, and wished to hear other opinions, so that she might (if she made us that favour) consider her conduct. If I find more time, I'll just start removing not neutral things she has added to SSDP article, there's little use trying to argue with her. Erik Jesse 10:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's premature to conclude that there's little use trying to argue with her (although "argue" is not the preferred nomenclature - "discuss" or "reason", please). In fact, you seem to acknowledge on the SSDP talk page that she did eventually remove the POV language to which you were objecting. I'd strongly encourage continued discussion over unilateral action at this point.

I'd also suggest that in the interests of WP:AGF, you try to avoid assuming the impression you mention above - it may have been a good faith response on her part, or it may be something more nefarious, as you suggest, but absent evidence one way or another we should assume the most innocent plausible explanation.

Finally, I think your last reply on the SSDP talk page is teetering on the edge of WP:CIVIL. Specifically, I don't think the last sentence was in any way useful. I'm not blaming you for the problems - clearly User:Blanche Poubelle's deleted posts are much less civil than anything you've written - but I think WP:COOL is very much in order as we try to sort this out. Sarcasticidealist 10:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can agree with that. The more that Wikipedia is not one of my top priorities and I readily drop the activity if I feel that the thing is not working at the moment. Erik Jesse 11:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. I've left a note on Blanche Poubelle's talk page asking her to be more careful with her comments before she hits "Save page", and I'll continue to monitor the situation to see how things are progressing. Sarcasticidealist 11:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Steve Dufour's personal insults to other editors.

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the latest example: [13]. - Redddogg 14:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet another frivolous alert. There's no case to answer here. The link goes to an edit that is three weeks old, which was a bit peevish but definitely not worth this alert. The real issue seems to be with other editors causing trouble. The substance of the matter was discussed at: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barbara Schwarz (closed). This alert should be closed too. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Duae Quartunciae; the edit cited is not, in and of itself, enough to establish a problem - it's an isolated, and not terribly severe, violation of WP:CIVIL. However, User:Redddogg calls it "the latest example". If he's prepared to provide more cites that would establish a pattern of behaviour, I'm willing top listen. Sarcasticidealist 21:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

For the most part he isn't blatantly uncivil, however I think the problem stems more from a WP:COI concern re: Barbara Schwarz.

• Barbara Schwarz is a friend of mine.

Maybe WP:COIN would be a better forum? Anynobody 03:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Likely it would be. For what it's worth, though, I've reviewed all of User:Steve Dufour's edits to the Barbara Schwarz page for the last four months, and the only one I can find that seems at all questionable from a WP:COI standpoint is one. Sarcasticidealist 03:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

To his credit he does refrain from editing the actual article much, however the issue Redddogg mentions is the nature of his posts to the talk page. He tends to have problems with acknowledging the relevance certain aspects of her life have on her notability and the article. For example he feels the first sentence should not mention her nationality or the fact that she is a non-us citizen; Like he did here. After I explained to him that it's part of her notability he questioned that, Has anyone said that the fact of her being German is a part of her notability?. Since it's been pretty much confined to talk only and hasn't been overly problematic I haven't taken any action since WP:COIN is more about actual article edits than talk page discussions. Anynobody 05:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that voice of reason. The matter you raise now is a purely content dispute. The way you express it presumes that you are correct; whereas I personally think Steve's point is entirely valid, and that her nationality is quite secondary and better out of the lead. But that's really irrelevant, since we don't address content matters here. Since Steve has tackled this content matter with perfect civility in the edit you mention, and since he has let you guys keep that curious addition in the lead sentence in any case, there is no longer any reason for wikiquette be involved. Good luck with the page, and stay cool. I'm marking this resolved. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's wise. I've just reviewed the entire (non-archived portion of the) talk page, and it doesn't seem to me that he's having any real negative impact on the article; there's certainly a lot of repetition, but consensus seems to be chugging on (albeit a little more slowly than it might without him). I can see why regular editors of the page might find him inconvenient, but I only saw the one violation of WP:CIVIL (the psychiatric help bit) and no violation of WP:COI (which, as you say, deals almost exclusively with mainspace edits). I'm marking this as resolved for now, but feel free to bring up any new concerns if/as they come up. Sarcasticidealist 05:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC) _{(Duae beat me to it.)}

Continued hostility/personal attack from User:Misou

Resolved

 – The user in question has received corrective action as of 17 August, and there don't seem to be any further issues with their recent edits after the block expired. --Darkwind (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Incivility: "you are running out of some 5 year old confusion"
• Personal attack: "if you want to just edit here or try to contaminate this place with hate propaganda."
• Incivility, along with assumption of bad faith: "hooked on collecting negative information on Scientology since (which is your COI point)."

I can't talk for other users, but I noticed that the incivility has been persistent. The sarcasm and disparaging tone already makes it difficult to discuss issues on respectful terms. I take offense as being described as an individual bent on 'hate propaganda'. All considered, it's difficult for me to imagine that the points I bring will be considered honestly by the user. Raymond Hill 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing ArbCom on if a Scientologist (COFS) has a WP:COI because she is editing Scientology articles. This is obviously a question to be asked for Raymond Hill as well. He is running an anti-Scientology site which is being used as "reference" also in those articles he is editing reguarly. This is the background for the above. I apologize if I went over the acceptable way of presenting this. Misou 15:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, if someone said the same to you and you would feel attacked or offended, change how you say it. Politeness gets one a lot further in this place. Regardless of the merits or accuracy of your descriptions, if you can phrase it neutrally you get a lot further. Also, remember to comment on content, not editors or thier motivations whenever possible. Best of Luck! --Rocksanddirt 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the basis of Misou's "lack of good faith" is rooted in the fact that several editors of Wikipedia's Scientology articles are openly and publicly webmasters of anti-Scientology websites. While this doesn't excuse rudeness on Misou's part - especially his/her unwarranted heckling of User:Tilman on his talk page - it does point to a real problem. I could also provide a LONG list of diffs that show that Misou and other editors have been spoken to by anti-Scn editors in an extremely demeaning, sarcastic, abrasive and insulting way with no repercussions for those editors, so I can certainly see how Misou might start to think such behavior is condoned around here. wikipediatrix 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's quite true - there's plenty of anger and attack-fodder on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, WQA isn't the place to fix the community as a whole. :) --Darkwind (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Discourteous deletions by User:Blnguyen & User:Skyring in John Howard article

Resolved

In the article John Howard (The Australian Prime Minister), Blnguyen and Skyring(Pete) continually delete 'useful content', but not in a courteous way. The deleted information is factual, verified and referenced, and its truth is not in dispute.

The Wikipedia has guidelines about deleting useful information, on this link: Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting...

Blnguyen and Skyring(Pete) delete useful information without initiating a discussion, which would be the courteous way of allowing other editors to see what the information is.

On the discussion page, Talk:John_Howard, there are 2 recent examples. One topic is Bob Hawke motion on race, opposed by Howard (Bob Hawke was a previous Prime Minister). The initial delete edit by User:Blnguyen is here (note that a discussion was not initiated by him at the time the deletion occurred), and it happened again yesterday when new information was added here.

The other subject matter was Talk:John_Howard#John_Howard.27s_secret_ancestry_revealed, where today User:Skyring deleted the content, even though a discussion was taking place between other editors days before the deletion took place. As I write this, Skyring(Pete) had not contributed to the discussion. The deletion can be seen here. Lester2 02:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take any comments from this user with hefty dose of scepticism. User:Lester2 is a WP:SPA troll account that would do well to read WP:CONSENSUS. Check his history to see his edit warring on the one and only article he edits. He has been blocked no less than 3 times for trying to ram through his slanted POV, and now resorted to these forums as a last ditch effort. The last request for comment he initiated resulted in him agreeing to seek consensus for any of the pointy additions he trys. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Prester John for your kind words :) Lester2 03:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the statements about the RfC made above are strictly accurate. See my remarks at Talk:John Howard#Request for Comment. Hornplease 04:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lester2's short but disruptive history is visible to all. I have encouraged his sometimes productive edits and praised his research skills. However, he does not seem to grasp that although something may be true and well-sourced, it is not necessarilly relevant to a biographical article, especially when its intent is clearly to smear the subject of the article. The edit I removed, with a hint to seek consensus first, had only the most tangential relevance to the subject.

His action here is another in a long line of attempts to seek third-party approval for his behaviour. If he were being victimised or bullied, then he would be quite within his rights to do so and I would cheer him on, but the fact is that he is being treated with as much courtesy and co-operation as he would get anywhere else in the WP community. I encourage him to edit more articles on other subjects and see for himself. --Pete 03:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting 'useful content' in a discourteous way is, unfortunately, how many edit wars begin. In fact, there's one taking place right now, (see History with content I've inserted, and User:Skyring repeatedly deleting it again. Lester2 04:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Only you seem to think the allegations about Howard's uncle are "useful". I politely re-echo the repeated calls that you study up on consensus. --Pete 04:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask that this Wikiquette Alert also looks at general incivility, both here and on the John Howard discussion page. I feel that some editors use derogatory terms as a tool to drive other productive editors away. I don't think there's ever justification for personal attacks. Thanks, Lester2 05:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Another paragraph has just been deleted. This one about control of semi-automatic handguns. Once again, no attempt to move the information to another place, or start a discussion. Not one of the deleted paragraphs is disputed over factual accuracy. If we adhere to the "Avoiding Common Mistakes" document (linked to above), then this information is classed as "useful information". We can retain useful information. If an article gets to long, we can create sub-articles. If someone doesn't like the phrasing, they can keep the references and try changing some words. If there is too much information that is "anti", they can add more "pro" information. Political articles need to have both. But cleansing an article can lead to Wikipedia gaining [http://www.smh.com.au/am/2007/08/24/ news headlines like it's getting today. Maybe it would be worth asking the people who deleted content about what their reasons for doing so were, to discuss whether or not those were valid reasons. Thanks, Lester2 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary says it all. Howard copped long and sustained criticism from pro-firearm supporters. It would be ridiculous to ignore this and mention some lukewarm anti-gun comment that had no visibility at the time. What was it, a letter to the editor? --Pete 04:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Skyring-Pete. The gun control info was one deleted by Blnguyen. I don't think any of the gun issues you mention should have been deleted. I'm sure it would have been possible to include all sides, and probably into a concise 2 or 3 sentences. I don't think we need to delete each other's content and throw it away, when all are factually correct. Also, a message in the edit history window that says "find consensus" is not a good substitute for a discussion on the Discussion Page. Lester2 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lester, I've discussed WP:MULTI with you. This is not a page for content disputes. The edit summaries in the deletions give reasoning, and do not violate WP:CIVIL. Please discuss on Talk:John Howard and use the RFC process or mediation if you cannot get consensus there. The most recent deletion is a not unreasonable interpretation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT#INFO; even if it is wrong, use DR to fix it. THF 14:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Muckrakerius using talk page to further agenda in uncivil, libelous manner.

I recently posted what I believe was a legitimate question on the Shoot 'Em Up talk page in the interest of adding pertinent information about its release and screening process. Since then I have been the victim of several personal attacks by Muckrakerius, (who has only contributed to one other article on Wikipedia). So far he has accused me of being a corporate troll, of lying about my sources, and most recently about lying about my own personal life. I am perfectly willing to engage in reasonable discussion about the film, the film's entry, and the uses of Wikipedia talk pages, but I consider attacks on my character to be "off limits" and ask that they stop. Thank you. ChrisStansfield 20:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I state that you are lying and have an agenda because you do. Please do not use the term LIBELOUS because you are thus threatening legal action. The purpose of a talk page is to discuss the article. You have been asked repeatedly to PROVE your point. You won't. Fine. But you HAVE been lying throughout the back and forth and have been proven as such. PLEASE STICK TO FACTS. Muckrakerius 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you two. First of all, let me say that I agree with ChrisStansfield that Muckrakerius has been violating WP:CIVIL. Muckrakerius, if you plan on sticking around, I think you'll find it not only mandated by Wikipedia policy but helpful to your cause if you learn to disagree a little more politely.

That said, this disagreement originated in a conversation that was virtually entirely unrelated to improving the article. One way to avoid having people jump down your throat over opinions you express is to confine the opinions you express to those which are directly relevant to the Wikipedia article itself, rather than to the article's subject. While I think that Muckrakerius has got to change his behaviour, I think the easiest way to deal with the problems you're currently having is to just end the conversation in which they're occurring. Sarcasticidealist 21:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In my own defense, Sarcastic, the question about the subject I posted on the talk page was clearly phrased as an attempt to find relevant information to add to the entry itself, which certainly is legitimate in a film article. I did not just say, "I thought the movie was bad," nor did I state that my own original research in this case was significant enough to warrant adding it to the main entry, which is clearly in good faith. I asked if anyone knew how long the film had been held aftyer being made, which for purposes of the article is, I repeat, completely valid if you look at articles for films like The Brown Bunny and the like.

Further, need I point out the responses of muckrakerius above to underscore my point? Thirdly, muckrakerius has now continued the attack on my own user page. Considering about half of my life is fully documented on the Internet under my own name, any attempts to paint me as an employee of any studio is absolutely ludicrous. I also DID answer his allegations with "facts," by extensively quoting from the same site that is used as a reference in the article itself.I fail to see so far how anything I have done violates Wikipedia policy ChrisStansfield 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I worded my response too harshly - I don't think you have violated Wikipedia policy, and Muckrakerius certainly has. Moreover, I think you clearly won the debate on the talk page about whether the movie had been scheduled to come out sooner originally, and I say go ahead and add that fact (properly cited) to the talk page; if he reverts it, that's an entirely new issue. In the meantime, his accusations about your so-called "agenda" are so transparently false that I don't think they're doing any harm. It looks to me like a classic case of "don't feed the trolls".

Of course, if you feel that this *is* doing you some harm, you might want to report it to the Admin Noticeboard. Over here, all we can do it reason with people, and I'm not sure how much good that's going to do in Muckrakerus' case.

Finally, it wasn't apparent to me that your initial question was an attempt to find relevant information to add to the entry itself; it became apparent later on, of course, but it initially appeared to me that you were treating the talk page as a messageboard. In the future, you might do well to be quite explicit about your intentions in asking such questions, so that the slower editors know what's going on. Sarcasticidealist 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think it would be perfectly in order to delete Muckrakerius' comments from your talk page, if you don't want them there. Sarcasticidealist 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SarcasticOne. I agree to try to be more patient. It is my belief that this User is employed by Lionsgate films to promote the film 3:10 to YUMA and his trolling was designed to negatively affect Shoot 'Em Up. That said I promise to behave nicer to the trolls in the future.Muckrakerius 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that this user is in conflict-of-interest, you can report him to WP:COIN, but you'd better have some evidence beyond that fact that he has said nasty things about a movie that happens to look awful. Sarcasticidealist 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you help, Sarcastic- I appreciate your reason and logic in responding to this, as well as your willingness to accept my good faith. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is over- at the moment, I doubt any harm will come to me, though if I find in the future that I'm being sued by a movie studio, I'll have an idea why and may call upon your help. ;) I will try to take your semantic advice, meanwhile, about talk pages. (I enjoyed the wry comments, too.) ChrisStansfield 22:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

New issue regarding conflict with User:Muckrakerius

Resolved

I know I said that my issue was resolved, and I truly hoped it was. However, yesterday someone named "Don Murphy" tried to add me as a friend on Myspace. I responded by asking him if I knew him, and this was the answer I received: "I was referred to you by email as someone hired to attack my film on line. I ask you to stop and reveal your employers."

Since it was only recently that I dealt with this here, I had an idea what film he was talking about, but I did not recognize his name, so of course, I checked him out on Wikipedia.

This was my response, verbatim: "Oh, for Christ's sake. Nobody has "hired me to attack your film online." For that matter, I never attacked your film online. I said in parentheses in one sentence that I thought it was silly. If Roger Ebert or Leonard Maltin says the same, are you going to accuse them of being hired shills?

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that, "rather than being told by email" etc, etc, that you are actually the gentleman on Wilkipedia who first accused me of being a troll, despite the obvious evidence that a hired troll doesn't spend two years editing articles on Popeye and reality show performers in advance to "set up an identity."

I am not employed by anyone to attack your film, and I genuinely hope you make as much money from it as you can. Lord knows, if I were being paid by a major studio for such nefarious purposes, I'd live in a nicer apartment than I do. Best wishes, Chris"

Here's the thing- I don't know if this guy really is the producer of the film or not, or why he would be worried about one guy on wikipedia who thought his film was silly. But should I be contacting a lawyer, or what? ChrisStansfield 04:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is weird as you got all legal last time this came up and as you know Wikipedia does not take kindly to legal threats. You seem to have stopped your organized campaign against the film. Perhaps since you were exposed you stopped and didn't get paid. I don't know. I am not sure why you are asking for Myspace advice on Wikipedia though. Muckrakerius 04:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we really can't deal with off-wiki issues (and this sort of thing is, unfortunately, a hazard of editing Wikipedia under your real name). Unfortunately, I think you have no choice by to ignore that kind of nonsense until it actually becomes actionable harassment, which I don't think is for quite a while (although I'm not a real lawyer, only a wikilawyer).

I have sympathy for your position here, insofar as Muckrakerius is clearly trolling and is taking the trolling off-wiki, but I sincerely don't think there's anything we can do about that. Sarcasticidealist 07:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never posted any kind of responses to my recollection here so I hope it is ok for me to comment here. If it is inappropriate, please do not hesitate to remove and advice me on my talk page that only a selected group of editors respond here. Anyways, file a formal complaint with the headers and identifying information to My Space. I have never been to this site but it has been on the news a lot and from what they say on the news is they have gotten very strict about the site and the postings there. Also a complaint to the person's IP with the offending information might also aide you. Just a suggestion, but sometime this approach does work. Good luck to you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has in the past indef-blocked users for off-wiki violations of WP:HARASS when the off-wiki behavior can be definitively linked to the on-wiki account. But if it's a single polite (if trolling) Myspace email, and there haven't been any more after a response asking the harassment to stop, that's not quite to levels requiring intervention. THF 13:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know about that- I wasn't being clear, I guess. I don't want a lawyer to go after THEM- they're just a nuisance and I'm a big boy. I'm just wondering whether I need someone to defend myself if this really is a concerted attempt by the movie studio. Also, I should note that once again, on this page, Muckrakerius has resorted to doing the exact things he promised he would refrain from....if this goes on, which dispute page is the next step? ChrisStansfield 13:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "defend yourself" from "a concerted attempt by the movie studio." If this is really Don Murphy, it's just a single paranoid producer, who should better recognize the potential for disastrous publicity from threatening someone who disliked his movie if Murphy's accusation is wrong. I've asked Muck to be civil on his talk page. If Muck persists in on-Wiki personal attacks (or provable off-Wiki harassment), I'd raise with User:Sandahl, who unblocked Muck upon Muck's promise of good faith. If Muck continues to edit Shoot 'em Up tendentiously, let me know on my talk page. (Separately: leave messages for users on their talk pages, not on their user pages.) THF 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not really all that familiar with the movie business. That said

• I suspect that Myspace isn't studios' preferred method for threatening legal action.
• Probably, if somebody randomly informs a studio that somebody else has been hired by a rival studio to bring their pictures down, the informed studio would demand, at the very least, a scintilla of evidence that this is the case before it confronted anybody about it.
• Even if, for some reason, this studio *is* contacting you via Myspace and is considering taking legal action against you (which I think is unlikely to the point of absurdity), the burden would be on them to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that you committed some kind of tort against them. Since there is no evidence to this effect at all, you're probably fine.

I think it's pretty clear that you're just dealing with a troll who derives pleasure from making outlandish accusations of conflict of interest against other users. And, as you said, such a troll is just a nuisance. I think you're okay. Sarcasticidealist 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, both THF and Sarcastic. Yes, you're probably right that Myspace harrassment isn't the first method studios would use (though I would counter that by saying I'd never have thought companies would edit Wikipedia in order to make a point, and clearly I was wrong. ;) ) I guess this whole thing has made me a bit paranoid, especially since I found the producer's message on my myspace after a very long day. That said, i have responded to Don (whom I believe is the genuine producer), and upon pointing out everything that has gone on, Don has apologized to me and has stated that he does not, in fact, believe me to be a "hired gun." If anyone ELSE still has doubts, he's welcome to ask for the transcript of Don's last response to me. :) ChrisStansfield 14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if "Don Murphy" is behaving non-trollishly, perhaps he *is* the genuine article. Stranger things have happened, and I have been wrong before. Anyway, I'm marking this as resolved. Sarcasticidealist 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Cydevil38's disruptive editing in Wandu Mountain City

Stuck

 – Referred to WP:RFC/HIST per WP:NCGN to resolve content dispute, now that editors have cooled down. --Darkwind (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This user wants to delete Pinyin romanizition of 丸都 (i.e., Wandu in Pinyin) and leaves only Hwando (Korean romanization) in the article Goguryeo. Then he falsely and repetitively claims that Hwando is a historical name while Wandu is a present-day name, so that he can use the historical name only (Note: this claim about using historical name only in an article is also from nowhere, but it is not my concern here). Unlike his untrue claim, Wandu and Hwando are merely different romanizations of the same historical entity. Cydevil38 is an amateurish wikieditor who is incapable of reading canonical history records like Samguk Sagi and he always fails to quote any original history record or original wikipolicy contents (At least I have never seen his original quotes even upon requests). What he presents is his original research which is improper to be put into wikipedia. Here I am requesting an alert to monitor his behavior in editing the article Wandu Mountain City.--Jiejunkong 02:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind you, Jiejunkong (t c), that your own comments here are treading perilously close to violating NPA. To stay on the right side of that line, try not to use adjective terms in describing your fellow editors, most especially not those which can be considered pejorative - "amateurish" and "incapable of reading" are uncivil and could be considered by some to be an attack. Please remember WP:COOL before making any additional posts. --Darkwind (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have known Cydevil38 for a long time and wrongfully assumed that an administrator is in the same situation. It is my bad and I apologize for the tone. But let's get to the technical part, I will post related evidence in the talk page Talk:Wandu Mountain City. It is my remark that Cydevil38 will post many google search results (which can be done in 1 second by typing a search term), and he will disappear when I ask him to present original quotes of related history records.--Jiejunkong 02:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There was already a RFCU[14] on this kind of behavior, but it seems he's not interested in improving his user conduct. Cydevil38 02:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The RFCU was also about my attitude towards you, nothing is new this time.--Jiejunkong 03:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wandu Mountain City" is an English word designated for the UNESCO World Heritage Site. This site is based on the ruins of Hwando fortress, a historic city that served as the capital of the ancient kingdom of Goguryeo. With regards to Hwando, I have repeatedly given Jeijunkong the necessary evidence that it is the most common romanization used in reliable English publications. Cydevil38 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In order to encourage a neutral opinion from everyone who chimes in, it would help if you'd link those reliable publications here for us to see. --Darkwind (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. Hwando[15], Wandu[16]. Cydevil38 02:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jiejunkong on one point here, which is that you did indeed do exactly what he expected - you posted links to google search results as "evidence". A link to a google book search is not a source. A source would be a reliable scholarly publication (or something similar) that discusses the use of the two romanizations and provides its own evidence as to which is more accepted. Just seeing that your particular search lists more books under Hwando+AND+Koguryo than under Wandu+AND+Koguryo proves nothing --- in fact, using that comparison to draw the conclusion that Hwando is thus more accepted is fairly close to OR. A Wikipedia editor is not supposed to draw conclusions themselves (see WP:OR again), they're supposed to cite conclusions already published in a reliable source.

Based on what you've posted here, I see no reason for removal of Wandu as an alternate romanization of Hwando. Even if a reputable source says that Hwando is more common or more accepted doesn't mean that Wandu should be removed from the article if it's a valid Pinyin romanization of the same Chinese name. However, I don't have the time to dig through the various article histories to find out if you've even strenuously made that claim. (hence my next outdent comment) --Darkwind (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer such a study that specifically covers the subject of which romanizations to use for Hwando, or Goguryeo for that matter, but I'm not aware of any such works. And since there was no set guidelines for resolving disputes on romanizations, I tried using the ones recommended by WP:NCGN. I know WP:NCGN isn't a perfect fit for this dispute, but I thought it provided the means to prove which word is more appropriate for an English encyclopedia. Even the application of WP:NCGN is limited, because Hwando is rarely mentioned in reliable English publications, such as lacking entries in the three major encyclopedias(though there is an entry in Encyclopedia Britannica Korean edition and other Korean encyclopedias). Anyways, I hope to continue the discussion with you at Wikipedia_talk:Translation[17], which I believe is a more appropriate venue for this debate. Cydevil38 01:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, this isn't the place to continue discussion on the content dispute at hand. I myself really have no interest whatsoever in the outcome of the content dispute itself, I'm just trying to get you and Jiejunkong to see eye-to-eye, as it were, so that you can come to a consensus on this issue. Please see my next outdent comment for a suggestion as to your (collective) next steps. --Darkwind (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil38 stopped editing Wandu Mountain City (both the article and the talk page), but then he could have created a POV fork Hwando (fortress) to bypass the problem. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hwando (fortress) for details.--Jiejunkong 06:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, can you please post links to diffs where Cydevil38 either removed the Pinyin Wandu or posted a comment suggesting its removal? I haven't the time to find it in the talk pages or the articles' history. --Darkwind (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The romanization name was written as Wandu by User:WangKon936.

1. Cydevil38's 1st unilateral change.
2. Cydevil38's 2nd unilateral change. Note that this is a blind revert. He changed my wikification of Gwanggaeto Stele, which has nothing to do with the argument. The wikification is a collateral damage.
3. Cydevil38's 3rd unilateral change. This time the Gwanggaeto Stele is spared.
4. Cydevil38's 4th change.

Now User:Odst and User:Wikimachine, who have exchanged many personal messages with User:Cydevil38 in the wikipedia, showed up in the talk page and left some random improper messages (see [18],[19]). Also they continue to do Cydevil38's reverting before consensus can be made ([20],[21], [22]).--Jiejunkong 05:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, and you were going so well. This alert has been declared stuck and referred to a more appropriate forum. There seems to be no reason for that to change.

• Neither of the comments you mention are "improper" or "random". The first expresses some irritation, but not exceptionally so in the page. You brought up this alert. You should expect people to notice it and join in. That is not random or improper.
• In the same way: it is not accurate or helpful to refer to "Cydevil38's reverting" when it is other people who are engaged; these are other editors who have a similar point of view. Do not belittle their participation. They are welcome to join in.
• For everyone involved, we continue to urge patience and calm. There is a very apt talk box at the top of the page urging a cool head. This is good advice for you all.
• There are claims being made by various editors about what "default" position should be allowed to stand in the absence of consensus. There is no such rule. You are all going to have to work for consensus, and stop panicking if your preferred final resolution happens not to be one in place right now. If a protection has to be applied, it is going to be more or less random which version is the one at the time. It will get sorted out eventually, and in the meantime please keep cool.

This latest addition to the alert was made after the alert was declared stuck, and gives no cause to change that status. Please relax, and deal with the content dispute calmly and constructively, with recognition that there will be other voices contributing. In the meantime, there's no default basis for declaring which version should stand while you work towards consensus. That is what the content discussions will address. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(1)As to the "other" users, User:Wikimachine and User:Odst are not strangers to User:Cydevil38. You may take a look at the three users's talk page and see what's going on there. The relaying pattern of meat puppet is also a little baffling to me.--Jiejunkong 07:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(2)For putting {{RFChist}} on articles, there is a technical difficulty. Chinese characters are in many wikipedia pages. Currently the romanization of the characters in these pages mostly has the problem being discussed. The problem is there, but it doesn't cause trouble when the contents are not disputed, but it does cause trouble when any disputation happens. If we vote on every Chinese character that causes disputation, then the problem will persist for a quite long time. 丸都 is only one of the case, 國內城 may be the next, and there are hundreds of the cases in the queue.--Jiejunkong 08:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The RFC can serve as an excellent place to begin to form consensus on what standard of romanization to use for names that are written in Chinese characters but pertain to Korean history. As an alternate suggestion, perhaps you could open a discussion on the project discussion pages for WikiProject Korea and/or WikiProject China, as those users are likely to be the most interested in the matter and most familiar with the languages involved. Nobody says you have to open an RFC for each individual name, just form a consensus on the standard to use. As it is, this has definitely gone beyond the scope of a WQA, and I suggest that further discussion be taken to an alternate forum as previously suggested. --Darkwind (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Once I finish the reliable source collections in Talk:Wandu Mountain City, I will put the evidence and proposal to the RFC site and on the project discussion pages for WikiProject Korea and/or WikiProject China. This will probabily cost the incoming weekend before the collections are done. Thanks for the good advice.--Jiejunkong 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the first diff[23]. I considered it a minor spelling fix, because the Goguryeo article, as any other Goguryeo articles in other encyclopedias, consistently used the Korean romanization for historic Goguryeo entities. I didn't expect someone to make such a big deal about it. Cydevil38 01:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that you both have cooled down and are willing to discuss the content dispute itself CIVILly, I'd suggest that you take the content dispute to RFC/HIST, following the suggestion in WP:NCGN for dispute resolutions, as that's much more likely to attract editors interested in the subject at hand. You'll be able to get a reliable community consensus on which romanization to use in general. I'm marking this WQA as "stuck-referred to another forum." --Darkwind (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Translation#Romanization_of_Chinese_characters a few days ago. I put it under the "Translation" section because this problem is completely about Chinese characters. In other words, if there is no Chinese character, then this problem is gone. WP:RFC/HIST could be another choice. But since modern Korean kids typically cannot read Chinese, they don't respect Korean canonical records like Samguk Sagi (which was written in classical Chinese). This causes more trouble.--Jiejunkong 05:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John Uncivil comments

Resolved

 – --Darkwind (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John has been posting in numerous places that I'm a WP:SPA, telling people I'm a "troll" and other generally derogatory remarks. It is possibly set off by my previous Wikiquette alert (above). I make a second report so I can inform User:Prester John that I have made a report.

I haven't discussed who is right or wrong regarding content. I just want the incivility to stop. Some recent examples in the last day or so are the comment on my previous report above [24] a publicly viewable similar remark within a false 3RR report [25] spreading the same allegation about WP:SPA, and another unnecessary remark on an article I had just completed -> at Talk:Lyall_Howard. If he really thinks I'm a WP:SPA, then he should take the issue up in the appropriate channels, but not spread it all over the place. It's even appears again on his user page: [26]. Thanks, Lester2 06:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and terms like "troll" should be avoided. But I note:

• You have been blocked three times in three weeks for edit-warring. WP:3RR is not a upper bound for edit-warring to be gamed, and an admin could have legitimately blocked you for continued edit-warring after previous blocks even without the technical violation of four reversions, so the report was not illegitimate, though not as persuasive as it could have been.
• A single reversion is an appropriate way to deal with a content dispute, so the deletion of material you added does not violate Wikiquette. See WP:BRD. There was already an RFC, and your use of WP:WQA to discuss the same content issues violated WP:MULTI, and your complaint that Prester John repeated allegations against you "all over the place" when you brought a content dispute here violated WP:KETTLE.
• "SPA" is perhaps an overaggressive characterization, but over half of your edits including all of the recent mainspace ones are to the John Howard page, so it is not an unfair comment on edits, rather than editors, and thus not a violation of NPA. Over 90% of your edits in the last six weeks are John Howard-related.
• An editor is entitled to maintain an evidence page in userspace in preparation for "taking the issue up in the appropriate channels."

My conclusion: (1) Prester John was uncivil in calling you a troll instead of assuming good faith, since some of your edits have been productive, but his substantive comments about your edits and procedural actions on this page and in the links you provided are reasonable, and he has been taking the issue up in the appropriate channels; (2) Pete has been remarkably resilient in addressing your concerns in the above WQA report; and (3) you yourself are skating on thin ice by acting disruptively, and should do more to demonstrate good faith. WP:AGF is a presumption that can be rebutted by repeated bad conduct, though editors should, as Pete has done, continue to adhere to WP:CIVIL when editors misbehave. I take no position on the John Howard content dispute, which I have not investigated; these comments are purely procedural. THF 08:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, THF. I will read the above links you posted. Lester2 09:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Shooter (2007 film)

Resolved

User: Bob Lee Swagger 2u has been adding sections pushing an extremely not-nuetral point of view, despite him being asked to stop by both users and admins. He's recently also decided that it's a conspiracy being forced against democrats, and threatened me here link title. DurinsBane87 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, he just got blocked. Thank you for your time. DurinsBane87 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the block was only for a week, I left a {{uw-npa3}} at the bottom of his talk page anyway, in case he tries to resume that sort of behavior after the block expires. If it resumes, I'd suggest taking it straight to WP:AN/I where an admin is more likely to see it immediately (this page is run by volunteer editors). --Darkwind (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Soxrock's alleged disruptive editing pattern

Stale

Note: This issue was archived without any attempt at resolution. I have restored it back here with hope that someone will try to come to a consensus on this issue. Thanks, Caknuck 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite pleas from several editors, User:Soxrock persists using a highly disruptive method of editing articles that, while technically not against any specific policy, is disruptive and detrimental to the database as a whole. Specifically, the editor in question has been making rather minor changes to articles (typically dealing with sports statistics) as a series of several dozen tiny edits instead of one or two large edits. Several editors, including myself, have urged Soxrock to stop this primarily through the use of the "Show preview" button. We have explained that his editing style has major negative impacts on the project's servers: the server load and bandwidth required to update the pages for every single edit he submits, the clogging up of edit summaries and the wasted extra storage space required for the thousands of intermediate pages he leaves in his wake. None of this has dissuaded him from this pattern.

For specific examples of this behavior, please see the following diffs:

1. [27] — List of managers for the Cincinnati Reds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 218 consecutive edits over the course of 27 1/2 hours.
2. [28] — 2007 Tampa Bay Storm season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 47 consecutive edits over the course of 14 hours.
3. [29] — 1961 American Football League Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 250 edits (plus 5 edits from another editor who was trying to demonstrate how to accomplish the same amount of work with only a handful of edits) over the course of two days.

These are only the most egregious examples from the past week.

When confronted about this disruptive behavior, Soxrock has been alternatingly duplicitous — by saying he will change his ways (see here and here)— and indignant (as with here).

For some reason, this only seems to be problem that has surfaced in the last two months. Per my comments here, I think that Soxrock has a bad case of editcountitis. (See here for Soxrock's edit count and edit summary usage.) What we need to impress upon him is that in the long run, he is doing more harm than good as far as the project goes.

Thanks, Caknuck 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

His main purpose for doing this, as Soxrock himself has admitted, is to avoid edit conflicts. But in reality, he makes these series' of edits on articles in which he is the only editor, if not one of the very few editors, who edits that article, reducing the risk of any edit conflict arising dramatically. --Ksy92003(talk) 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe his main purpose of doing this is to drive up his edit count. I questioned his editing techniques before, here: User_talk:Soxrock#Small_Edits_on_ATH_Stats. Just looking at his contributions, I see that the situation hasn't gotten any better. The last 37 edits (all on June 25th) of this article 1999-2000_NHL_season are his, including an astounding 29 edits in 17 minutes. Bjewiki 12:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(←)I think the reason no-one responded when you posted this previously is that it does not seem to be an issue of civility or editing disputes. Now all the information is almost a month old, so it does not seem like a situation needing immediate attention. Considering that Wikipedia has millions of articles and something like 75,000 editors, plus high-speed editing bots doing maintenance and cleanup, I don't think his edit count is significantly burdening the servers.

What is it that's bothering you about this? Is he violating WP:CIVIL and causing trouble to you personally, or to another editor in particular? Is he inserting material in the articles that does not conform to WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS, or WP:NPOV? If any of that is happening, please provide some specific examples so we can take a look.

But if he's just editing fast, why is that bad? Think about how many edits bots make every day, where they add things like tag dates and other minor corrections to templatges. Those must create many times more pages than the editor you are reporting. If you think I'm wrong about that, you could post a request at the Village Pump (Technical) and I'm sure you'd get a quick reply to the tech question. If his edits are vandalism, that's different and would be an important issue. If so, we can refer you to where to report that.

Also, I reviewed his talk page and he seems to have productive and civil editing relationships. Please clarify what you're looking for here. I don't mean to make light of your report, I just don't understand why you see this as a problem. Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't even get this all. Laleena^{Talk to me} _{Contributions to Wikipedia} 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I can metaphorize it (Yes, that is a real word. I just typed it, didn't I?). In recreational car racing, there are those with little money that "win" because of large amounts of skill, skill that is gathered by long practice. They love to drive just to drive, and there is no better feeling than to continue improving. Then, there are those that just want to drive faster than everyone else, and have more disposable income. Those that win due to a large amount of money spent upgrading their car instead of practicing their art are often very irksome to those who drive for the love of driving, rather than the love of winning, as it cheapens a beautiful thing. Or, as I should have put it, it's like using a gameshark or a code to get lots of gold or the ultimate weapon at the beginning of the game. Cheap. Yeah, it kinda bothers me too, but no, I don't think he's hurting anything other then our sensibilities. Surrogate Spook 00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you; it may be annoying to some, but it's not a policy violation and unless someone posts a clear problem statement here in the next day or so, I'm going to archive this alert. --Parsifal _Hello 22:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[the below paragraph was moved from the top of this section, where it had been placed out of chronological sequence. Therefore where VisitorTalk wrote "below" in this comment, please consider it refers in this case to "above" --Parsifal _Hello 22:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]

The complaint below implies that making a series of small edits to the same article, over a short period of time, places an unreasonably great technical load on Wikipedia when compared with batching the edits into a single edit. In addition, the complaint implies that making a series of small changes, rather than a single edit combining those changes, is disruptive to the community. In addition, the complaint implies that it is inappropriate for an editor to reach a high edit count through these small-edit techniques. As a new editor, I would like to see the documentation of these alleged policy issues. VisitorTalk 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello VisitorTalk. The key word in in your comment here is "implies". While there are implications here, there really is no significant problem that I've been able to find. If you read my response above, (it starts at the ← symbol), that will give you a good summary. In my comment I provided several links that begin with the letters WP. Those are links to the policy issues you are asking about. In addition, here is an article that explains that the server load is not a problem: Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance.

As I mentioned above, it's possible for someone to use an editing method that is "annoying" to some other users, but that is not the same thing as "disruptive." Disruptive editing has a particular meaning, and from what I saw in reviewing this situation, it does not apply here. Others may disagree with me about that, but no-one has said that, so I assume there is no ongoing problem here.

I suggest that as a new editor, you read the basic policies and then focus first on editing articles before getting involved in dispute resolution pages like this one, unless you find yourself in a troubling situation and need help. Here is a good place to start to get a full overview of the Wikipedia policies, guidelines and help systems: WP:WELCOME. --Parsifal _Hello 22:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and clarifications, Parsifal. VisitorTalk 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Tezza1 disruptive editing pattern

Stale

User:Tezza1 persists using disruptive editing Railpage Australia. The user is strongly anti the subject of the article, has openly stated he does not believe the article should exist and campaigned for its deletion in an AfD. The AfD decision having been keep, the user engaged in disruptive editing to devalue the content by adding unencyclopedic content, and "warning" that the article could be nominated for deletion again for containing unencyclopedic content. Further actions include repeatedly adding and restoring unencyclopedic content, demands not to remove unencyclopedic content, accusations of COI for anybody adding new information to the article, threats to invoke WP:3RR for users removing unencyclopedic content he has added, unilateral reverts of collaborative edits to a non-consensus version, agenda pushing, WP:POINT and listing an article for speedy deletion immediately after it was unprotected. The Null Device 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Null. I am looking over the edit history and am responding to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1. I see clear evidence of numerous policy violations by this user, as well as possible sockpuppetry. I believe that, for the most part, you and the other editors in that article have remained civil and have kept the discussion on topic, and for that you should be commended. I did leave a note in the Talk page against one set of comments that stepped over the line with respect to WP:NPA, but otherwise, I agree with your assertion about Tezza1's disruptive patterns.

If the RFC/U against Tezza1 fails to resolve the conflict, your next step may be to take this to Arbitration. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it sounds like you all have taken reasonable steps to resolve this issue already, and they haven't worked thus far.

Good luck, and let me know if I may be of any further assistance. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, It's a content dispute about a commercially owned site passing itself off as something else.I've only said it should be encyclopedic. As it stands parts of the article could be considered as spam WP:SPAM. As for the user The Null Device, he is only a recent participant (from 23rd July) in editing this article [30], no doubt because I submitted the article for independent Peer Review on the 19th July as his flood of edits occurred after 23rd of July which I consider was a blocking strategy. My complaints about this users editing "flood" and report to the COI noticeboard, probably explains why he posted his complaint here. This user has yet to follow the first three steps of the dispute resolution guidelines [31]Tezza1 13:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll attempt to respond to this point by point:

1. There is a longer history between you and other editors on that page than has involved Null Device - this is true. However, it appears that Null Device is simply continuing the dispute resolution process against you that was taken up by previous editors - therefore, he is not required to go through other methods first. Plus, WQA is actually listed as one of the first dispute resolution methods anyway, so I need to ask, what's the problem with what he's doing?
2. COI is a serious allegation - almost as serious as harassment and libel. As such, you need to have significant proof that a person is in a conflict-of-interest situation when you go to report them to the COI noticeboard. Given what I was able to see in the situation, you've leveled this accusation against quite a few people in the Railpage article, and that seriously detracts from our ability to assume that you're editing in good faith.
3. As has been pointed out multiple times, whether a site is owned by a commercial company has no bearing on the site's own profitability status. Non-profit organizations are very frequently owned and overseen by commercial companies, but that does not automatically make them for-profit, commercial organizations. I don't know the specifics about Railpage Australia, so I can't speak to this particular situation from a content standpoint.
4. It appears that there is a strong consensus among other WP editors there, and you appear to be consistently rejecting that consensus, resorting to WP:NPA and accusations of WP:COI in an attempt to discredit those editors. I would strongly advise that you stop going along that route.

I hope this helps clarify the situation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Null Device has been a participant since March, not 23 July.[32][33] The article is not considered WP:SPAM as it has been nominated for {{db-spam}} on several occasions (including by Tezza1[34]) and this was rejected by administrators. His actions display many of the characteristics of problem editors. The COI accusation against the regular editors of a page he actively campaigned to get deleted is bordering on harassment. This seems like a campaign to discredit not just the regular editors but anybody who doesn't agree with him, including Wikipedia itself. He did not take the RFC seriously, described the dispute process as "BS"[35] and did not accept the offer of mediation. Thin Arthur 00:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I have to repeat yet again that the so-called "flood" of edits were collectively a series of collaborative bold edits taking into the account the collective opinions expressed in the then most recent AfD debate and on the talk page. Tezza1 then unilaterally reverted these reliably sourced changes. To quote WP:TE, "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption."[36] That is the basis of this WQA. The Null Device 08:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment In response to KieferSkunk coments.

1. Maybe someone can jump into recent discussion and lead the dispute resolution process. I'm not an Wikipedia expert in this, but one administrator has said this was premature and other had the The Null Device withdraw [37][38].
2. Yes COI is a serious allegation, but recent edits and discussion about technical details is more than a passing interest in the article. It's more than "the average man in the street would know" or be of interest to.[39][40]
3. True, many commercial organizations have "non profit" ventures. But the difference here is that it is usually the norm to set up an separate transparent structure such as a trust and register for non profit status under Federal and State Government laws. Railpage seems intertwined with its owner [41]. An example of a commercial organisation setting up a non-profit venture is Ronald McDonald Charities [42] - interesting to note they have an "written like an advertisement" tag in their article (03 Aug). I have asked other users to provide evidence for Railpage "non commercial status" [43]. To this date they have not. Asking for "donations" by a commercial organization like Railpage Australia [44] , is technically a "voluntary payment for service". There is no transparent disclosure process where the donated money actually goes, and any "donations" would be classified as income generated by Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd [45] and subject to tax. I have even tried to compromise, stating "Commercial - Yes, Free membership, Voluntary payment for service"[46]. ALL this discussion, just for ONE box [[47]]in the top right hand corner of the article!!!!
4. I consider the number of active "contributors" in the Railpage article could be counted on one hand.

Tezza1 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot respond directly to point #3, as it involves more detailed information about Railpage Australia than I have handy. But I'll respond to the Wikiquette issues:

2: There is a difference between being well-informed and having a conflict of interest. Let me give you another example: I am heavily involved in WikiProject Video games, and I have made a lot of edits of a highly technical nature to many of the game articles within that project. I have what you can call much more than a "passing interest" and "street-level knowledge" about many of those games and the machines they run on. However, that does not automatically mean I have a Conflict of Interest in those articles, as I do not work for any of the companies that made those games (I did work as a tester on Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge, so there's POSSIBLY a remote COI there, but not within the scope of WP's policies), and furthermore I have no vested interest in publishing any specialized content that only I would know about.

The editors you've accused of COI on the Talk page have all had reasonable explanations about their involvement with Railpage - namely, they are members on the Railpage forums and/or they've volunteered some of their time with the organization; they found technical details straight from the Railpage site itself or from other publicly accessible sources (in other words, the information they put up was NOT insider info); and they have made it clear that they are not intimately involved with the organization's inner workings.

4: The number of currently active contributors to the article does not have any direct bearing on the state of consensus. Looking through the history of the Railpage Australia article and related articles, I've seen more than a dozen different people contribute, and it appeared until fairly recently that they had reached a consensus on much of the article content there. Now, just because a consensus exists doesn't mean it can't be changed - WP:CON is very clear on this point. But when a consensus exists, the onus is on you to change it through meaningful, fair and balanced discussion, and what I've observed from you, Tezza1, is a tendency to simply reject the consensus and attempt to discredit the other editors, rather than to discuss the matter in a civil and fact-based manner. In effect, you have put yourself in a possible position of Conflict of Interest, but more to the point, you have made it difficult for discussion to take place there.

Again, I hope this clarifies the situation somewhat. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You were willing to comment on "commerciality" before, so why can't you make a comment now? Yes, you are correct, that I reject the "consensus" on the main point (commercial) even though I disagree strongly with some elements (not all!!) of the article, If you look at the recent history I have refrained from editing content in the actual article. The purpose of the discussion page is the discuss and debate!!!! Arguments against the consensus should be allowed even if people don't agree with a POV. As long as its non defamatory, and backed up by creditable online references, it should be allowed. Even the editing war back in March 2007 was about an incident was supported by documentary evidence (newspapers and the Railpage Forum itself), I did not originally post that information on Wikipedia, but I supported and argued its inclusion. Look at my comments on the discussion page, have I not put references and links to support my arguments?. On a closing note, to use a legalistic term, I have stepped out of the "arena" in the Railpage article, KieferSkunk, based on some comments made, you unintentionally seem to be descending into it.Tezza1 20:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing commerciality from a general standpoint, and simply pointing out what other editors had already said in the article. However, I am not qualified to make a judgement about whether Railpage Australia IS commercial or not. That's the distinction. And I am purposefully limiting my comments to discussing the manner in which you pursued the discussion, not the content of the discussion itself. That's all I am attempting to do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This WQA has been sitting idle for a while. Anything more going on with it? Or should I mark it as stale? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This user has been very disruptive with a negative POV, does anybody have any idea's or further comments? Is WP:PROB too early at this stage?203.122.101.142 09:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than what's already pointed out above, can you cite any specific examples? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tezza, there is an FAQ article on Railpage that states where the donations go to. Read it: http://www.railpage.com.au/faq-1.htm#80 Doctorjbeam 01:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving this comment on Tezza1's User talk page, as he may not be reading this WQA anymore. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:KieferSkunk He'd be better off reading this COI User:Doctorjbeam and taking note of it, given time I have a few more fish to fry, including one who spends most of his active day editing Wikipedia. Tezza1 13:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I don't see how other people's editing habits are any of your business or why it's your job to "fry" them. Thin Arthur 06:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)