User talk:Durova/Archive 36

DYK

Did you see? Ouimetoscope got its DYK! :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Grats! Durova^Charge! 03:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial triple crown jewel

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide should be in that list, according to his page. Dreamy ^§ 00:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask him to submit specific entries. Durova^Charge! 03:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing link

FYI, your first link here doesn't include a page. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/JB196 - I've gone ahead and restored the page; it was deleted prematurely. Durova^Charge! 14:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your triple crown thingy

As it turns out, I accomplished this months ago, but I didn't even realize it existed.

First set

- DYK: Good Night (The Simpsons short)
- GA: Homer Simpson
- FC: List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame

Second set

- DYK: King of the Ring (1998) (Set to be a DYK soon)
- GA: Homerpalooza
- FC: Homer's Enemy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awarded, sans donut, your Imperial Majesty. Durova^Charge! 18:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houston, we have a problem

Thanks for looking out for back on possible impersonation accounts. I appear to have been a victim of my own security test... Physchim62 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP, wish I'd known about this. Given how contentious things had become, it seemed entirely plausible that someone was trying to joe job you, especially the way the signature was written. Unblocked with edits restored and my apologies for the inconvenience. Durova^Charge! 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, let's remember that we're all the good guys and that we should try to help each other. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

I have sent one. :) Acalamari 17:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Triple Crown

Thanks a lot! "It's a major award!" :D David Fuchs^(talk) 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for earning it. Durova^Charge! 21:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, an editor and I have been linking to city articles differently and I was wondering if you knew if there might be a preferred way to do this. I've been doing Norcross, Georgia but he's doing [[Norcross, Georgia|Norcross]], [[Georgia (U.S. State)|Georgia]] so that both the city and state are linked to different articles. Do you know if there is a "correct" way?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They both seem fine to me. Is there any conflict over it? Durova^Charge! 22:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not not really, I just thought it was odd that if an article existed you wouldn't just link straight too it. It seems like you could break up the links for an multi-word phrase and that's be weird. But it's no big deal. I just didn't know if there was a preferred way.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In situations where it's a style issue, normally whatever style gets used first should be repeated throughout the article. Of course Wikilinks normally get used only once in an article. Both ways you get to the same city article. So po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question II

If an editor comes back after being on break.. and uses a new identity.. but edits previous articles.. aren't they supposed to disclose their ALT-Account usage? If not, doesn't it qualify it as improper SOCK usage?

Specifically User:Smee new account which has been restoring old copies of articles back to the time before Smee left on break. Peace.Lsi john 22:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Durova (talk · contribs). Due to personal concerns of mine regarding events off-Wikipedia, I do not wish to disclose my identity or any information to that respect. I am not currently in any edit conflicts, and I apologize for initially reverting old versions of a few articles in which there were more citations in those versions. Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Please help me, Durova, this user and I are in no editing conflicts, save for this particular issue, and I simply wish to be left alone. He seems to wish to edit his Mind Dynamics type articles, and that is fine by me, but I am not using any other accounts, and I do not wish to go further into this due to off-Wikipedia concerns. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Smee, I have no knowledge of your real life identity, however if you are going to come back and revert entire articles back to your preferred version, then it is important that you also keep your block history for Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). To do otherwise would be unfair to the rest of the editors who abide by the rules and don't edit war. I don't care why you abandoned the User:Smee account but your revert and edit history is a part of the record and by the rules you cannot simply 'drop' it and begin anew. If you choose to stay completely away from all of your previous articles, then nobody would have any challenge to your new identity. If, however, you continue to revert to your previously 'preferred' versions, then the rules require that you attach all your prior edit history and user accounts to your current one so that admins have the proper information when determining whether or not you deserve to be blocked for violations. If you wish to remain dis-associated from your previous identity of User:Smee then you need to refrain from editing any of your previous articles and refrain from revert warring. Peace.Lsi john 01:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Although broader input would be preferable, I think John says this very well. I'm very glad you earned a triple crown, Curt, and plenty of good editors have one hot button topic. See this essay. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy question would be better on WP:AN and the dispute would be better at WP:DR. Lsi john and I had a rough ride through arbitration, so feedback from completely uninvolved people might mean more than mine. Best regards to both of you. Durova^Charge! 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I do not wish to discuss this further, due to off-Wikipedia occurrences. I will not edit along articles that User:Lsi john wishes to be active in. I will not revert articles back to former versions from "Smee". Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Do you think it would be worthwhile to have a checkuser on Bluemarine and his troll, since he has been accused (again, by one of his "biggest fans") of sockpuppetry? You seem to have a good idea of the identity of the culprit, but a checkuser might dispel some of the rumors. Is it possible to run a mass check of all of the commenters in the thread (including the two of us, unlikely though it is) to stop the nonsense once and for all? Horologium t-c 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need a specific sockmaster candidate. Checkuser isn't for fishing, but maybe that would fly. Give me a heads up if you request it. I have no objection to being included for the sake of fairness. Better if we could narrow things down. Does anyone else on that RFC seem to have a short fuse? Durova^Charge! 00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several users on both sides are short-fused, but Benjiboi, WjBscribe, and Typing Monkey are unlikely candidates, as is Elonka (who seems to have withdrawn from the topic) and the users who presented uninvolved views. I can probably figure out the process for filing a checkuser request, but I wanted to discuss the potential scope of such a request with an experienced and impartial admin before I started the process. A particular editor has leveled sockpuppetry allegations at Sanchez on more than one occasion, and I think he's doing it again because he thinks nobody will call him on it, but I for one have grown tired of the back-and-forth over the article and its agenda-driven editors and would like to flush out the puppetmaster once and for all. However, it appears at first blush that there is no appropriate code for such a request (other than the catchall "G"), and my proposed all-inclusive solution appears to violate the no fishing and no self-requests. Any suggestions on how to proceed? Horologium t-c 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, someone who's familiar with this dispute and its personalities will see a likely candidate for sockmaster. Very few people pull stunts like that userpage vandalism without tipping their hand in some way. The trick is figuring out where. Thanks for your help and interest. Durova^Charge! 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found the (well-hidden) RCFU you filed, and might suggest taking a look at indefinitely blocked User:Pwok and User:Truthjusticeamericanway, two notorious Sanchez bashers (Pwok runs a site dedicated expressly to destroying Sanchez, and the other one is allegedly his partner (with the same abrasive editing style), either a meatpuppet or more likely just a sock. IP addresses include Special:Contributions/24.18.130.89 and Special:Contributions/71.231.140.80, two Comcast IP's in the Seattle area used by this rather unhinged and tendentious editor. Horologium t-c 02:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 03:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial triple crown jewel

Dreamafter alerted me to the existence of this. I feel slightly awkward about this, but I have more than 2 (4) featured items, more than 2 (7) good articles, and more than 2 (3) DYKs. It can all be found here. So yeah... :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to delays in the past (where people with 10,000+ edits expected me to glean nominees from their contribution history, etc.) I've had to standardize submission format. Just go toUser:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle and copy the format near the top of the page. It should only take you a minute, and it sounds like you qualify for the imperial jewels. Thanks, Durova^Charge! 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dihydrogen Monoxide
- DYK: Transfusion (EP), Pick You Up
- GA: Age of Mythology, Dream Days at the Hotel Existence
- FC: List of Crowded House awards (FLC), List of Powderfinger awards (FLC)

Thanks :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Imperial Majesty, your jewels have been delivered. :) Durova^Charge! 13:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For helping to promote excellent editing with your Triple crown, I bestow upon you this barnstar. Use it well, Your Imperial Majesty :) — H ₂O — 07:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How sweet! You're very thoughtful, thanks. Durova^Charge! 07:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enabling email?

You made a comment on the ArbCom pages that I should enable email[1]. I thought I had, but in any event I have now. You also mentioned that I might want to make a motion for a checkuser. I have no idea what's involved, what to ask for, how certain you have to be before requesting it, etc. I'm vaguely troubled by the whole thing and possible relationship among Alkivar, Burntsauce, JB196, Eyrian, JohnEMcClure, 68.163.65.119, and possibly others who were active in the popular culture deletion flare-up. Somethign seems very fishy about Eyrian. And he and Burntsauce just "quit" (they say) within hours of each other. But I don't have anything to go on but suspicion, and I haven't seen what you've seen on the evidence.Wikidemo 00:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 01:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - in two years the whole 'pop culturectomy' mania is the most disruptive event I've encountered and that was only via Eyrian and a few others, but then I just came across the whole Arbcom thing....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish my twenty favorite fellow Wikipedians a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute! :) Durova^Charge! 05:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tube and Matt Sanchez

Please see my longer reply at Talk:Matt Sanchez#Edit protected. First of all, I believed my admin action was non-controversial, in that I simply repaired something that was broken in the article (a Cite error 8; No text given.). The citation is used in 3 different places. From my perspective, I wasn't choosing to add a new (controversial) citation, but instead fixing the article so the 3 places that linked to the ref named "countdown" were attached to the original citation, instead of an error message. That said, I agree that we don't need to link to a YouTube video (especially now that it has been taken down), but that doesn't mean we can't still cite MSNBC and Keith Oldermann, IMO. I'd be glad to undo my edit if you think it's the right thing to do, but if we do that, I'd like to either remove the 3 sentences which are currently using this as a citation, or at the very least add fact tags, so we don't have the cite error #8 anymore.-Andrew c ^[talk] 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of my role in the investigation, and fully disclosed potential COI, I prefer to limit my comments to pure policy and technical issues. An MSNBC citation sounds fine with me. I just have grave doubts about citing YouTube, ever, because of the risk of edited/doctored material being hosted there. Use your best judgement. Durova^Charge! 13:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence

Please can you check I've formatted it properly?? I've been watching this case carefully and adding what I know: it's the first time I've ever taken part in an ArbCom case, so I want to know if I've done it properly. Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 11:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Durova, I have also added evidence and proposals. Please see: [2], [3], and [4]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Durova/Admin random suggestion

Aside from it being a well-thought-out piece, this subpage of yours has the potential to be automagically updated. If you replace the first sentence with The English language edition of Wikipedia currently has a ratio of one administrator for every {{#expr:({{NUMBEROFUSERS:R}}/{{NUMBEROFADMINS:R}}) round 0}} registered accounts., it will produce "The English language edition of Wikipedia currently has a ratio of one administrator for every 56749 registered accounts.", which will update itself. I figure I'll let you make the change if you so desire, since it's your subpage, but it's worth noting that the number you currently listed is off by about 900 as of this comment, at 3257. Hope that's useful/desirable, :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 19:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion! Apologies in advance if it's a little while before I implement it. Very thoughtful of you. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI Nightmare..FYI

I thought that this might be of interest for you. I am honestly getting tired of this sh**. WP:COI is a mess and used for everything against anybody. WP:COIN gets then slammed with all this and the end result are many upset editors and in too many cases ex-editors who just leave instead of coping with this BS. Cheers and happy reading. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This hardly seems like a nightmare. Why the angry comment? Durova^Charge! 03:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the first time, not just for me, but others as well. I believe that WP:COI is increasingly abused for other purposes. I still have a bitter after taste in my mouth from this one. Regarding this current incident some comments and suggestions.

The links were scrutinized by other editors already and not considered wrong or bad. Some links are in the content for months or even longer. Articles that are spammed and watched by the RC Patrollers all the time. Content that sticks should be marked as such. Reviews of content should also be tracked (verification of references for example). Okay, that's technical and requires changes to the software, but lets start with this.

Something gets questioned, E.g. content xyz was added by abc who is alleged of COI. Fine, Check the allegation, decide over it and create a reference to point to for the next guy who makes the same allegations. I don't mind that my edits are scrutinized, if done properly. I replaced links to content on my resources or archive sites myself in the past, if I found something better and more authorial.

Does this make sense? I know that I open myself up more for all kinds of things by using my real name as editor and by being open about what I do, but I prefer honesty over playing games. I rejected the recommendation, which I got multiple times from other Wikipedians, to create an editor account without revealing my identity and let my current one die. It does not feel right and can't be the right way. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 17:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't you taken up my suggestion to raise this at the reliable sources noticeboard? That should bring a straightforward resolution. Either the source is reliable or it isn't. If it is reliable, then you can relieve concerns about it being a proprietary domain in your name by posting suggested citations to article talk pages and requesting impartial review from the relevant WikiProjects. I don't think anyone would bother you if you took that conservative approach. If the site doesn't satisfy the reliable sources guideline then we shouldn't be citing it at all. Sometimes people build very good private websites that don't fit that guideline, and I'm sorry when that happens - there's a huge range in quality among personal websites and we have have a consistent standard; I hope you understand. If that turns out to be the case here, then we could still accept the vetted reliable sources you used to build that website. So first, let's see how your site measures against the reliability guideline. Durova^Charge! 17:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard for the first time about the RS Noticeboard when you mentioned it at the COIN discussion. I have to check out how that works. Thanks for that info though. The report to the COIN happened unfortunately before. As you can see in this example, COI is now used for everything. The problem is that a COI accusation is much more severe than questioning the reliability of a source. COI is against an editor regarding a whole subject/article, while RS is not. Do you know what I mean? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, and that's why I do advise addressing the RS question first. I don't think the COI guideline itself is a problem so much as every guideline and policy sometimes has to paint with a broad brush for consistency's sake. Periodically editors take issue the verifiability policy because they argue, for example, that The New York Times got its facts wrong in a particular story. Well, that might be so, but unless the paper also published a retraction we can't disallow that citation. That precedent would open the door to enormous problems because then people who have an agenda could quibble about every citation on the site. I hope you understand this type of thing occasionally puts us volunteers in a bind, and there's nothing personal about it. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 19:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this will do Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Review_Needed_User:Cumbrowski. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Durova^Charge! 19:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sanchez evading block

Hi, Durova. Matt Sanchez, whom you indefinitely blocked, is evading his block under a sock account, here. He seems to be in attack mode, as evidenced by this, which he left on my Talk page today. Would you mind extending the block to his sock account as well? Thanks. --Eleemosynary 05:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've given him one last offer to lift the indefinite block. This ought to be easy to resolve, but if he refuses to even try to resolve it I suppose I'll be blocking all of his sockpuppets soon. Durova^Charge! 09:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Howard the Duck and the Triple crown

Just check his page and there are his ones. Dreamy ^§ 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please name them here. A few months ago the awards got backlogged because of requests to dig through user space and edit histories, so in order to be prompt and fair I ask everyone to submit the same request format. Thanks, Durova^Charge! 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Delete my userpage and talkpage. Thanks. Peace.Lsi john 02:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the user want the photo gallery to stay?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't specified. I'll wait for clarification. Durova^Charge! 02:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your comment

Re: [[5]] No prob. I tried to make my questions relate closely to actual ArbCom activities in the hopes of both getting candidates talking about such issues (more ideas are always good) and so I can get an idea of who might be good for the committee. We'll see how well it works. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were well researched, clear, and very much on target. Not soft questions either. I enjoyed them. Durova^Charge! 03:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no softie on folks running for ArbCom, that's for sure. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question to you, and, since Heimstern Läufer is here as well, I may as well pose it for him, as well. Here goes: you were unable to take me down in the John Smith's-Giovanni RfAr, to what extent am I totally screwed with you as arbitrator/s? Thx. El_C 08:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think I was trying to take you down? El C, I don't know you very well and I hope that's your sense of humor. If not, then if you wish I will recuse myself from any case in which you are a named party. If you'd like to chat I'm on gmail. Durova^Charge! 09:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. I'm not running for arbitrator and have no plans to do so, so you certainly don't have to worry about me causing any problems for you in that regard. As for me wanting to "take you down": I did present evidence related to your behavior, but I certainly didn't want you "taken down"; I recognize your many valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. I couldn't see the ArbCom giving you any more than a reminder, anyway, so I decided to present the evidence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I always confuse you with Hemlock Martinis? El_C 08:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. But I'm not he. :-) Seriously, being on ArbCom sounds like a much bigger headache than I'm ready to put up with. I'm just taking a heavy interest in the election as a voter. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Triple Crown request

I, Peter Isotalo, hereby request to be considered for the Imperial Triple Crown awards. I submit the following entries for consideration:

I should note that both medieval cuisine and smoking have been featured at DYK and have gone through the GA-process. I've also assisted in getting French cuisine, Italian cuisine, Sauvignon blanc and Skåneland to GA status and lend a hand as copyeditor and reviewer to get Domenico Selvo, Turkish language and Battle of Shiloh to FA status, but I don't want to list these formally as the contributions were far less substantial than the other articles.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Imperial Majesty, the crown jewels await you. :) Durova^Charge! 15:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, Durova! Despite my reluctant attitude to tooting one's own horn, I can't help but feel that these kingly trinkets really are a splendid idea to get cracking on expansions. I'm curious about your comment on my talkpage, though. You mentioned a quadruple set?.Is this some secret future award yet to be conquered by mere mortals...?

Peter ^Isotalo 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 13:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:RichSatan at Talk:Games Workshop

Hi Durova, back in July I asked you take a look at an IP editor pushing for inclusion of unsourced criticism at Games Workshop. This user, now using the User:RichSatan account, is claiming that I abused my admin powers to push my POV. Which is impossible since I have no admin powers, as you know, and my edits removed unsourced statements as per WP:RS and WP:NOR. RichSatan has been blocked for personal attacks before[6] (you can see one here and another - this one was a "retaliation" for a user giving them a {{welcome}}). In this instance they are failing to assume good faith, treating wikipedia like a forum & a battle ground and being incivil, as well as attempting a straw man argument saying that I threatened users at the page.

The whole conversation is here and the latest diff with incivility etc by Rich Satan is here.

The material I removed is here; my complaint to Sir Fozzie about the IP is here and SirFozzie's review. backing-up my removal is here.

I've taken a lot of incivility and failure to assume good faith on this page - most of it generated by the IP (which I believe RichSatan to have used) in July 07. If you look at this you'll see I was described as a "fan-boy" by the IP and by User:Agamemnon2. I do play one of Games workshop's games so I don't make many edits to articles about that company. My edits in this case are extremely basic policy driven ones and frankly I've had enough of the incivility generated by User:RichSatan and his IP. I'd much appreciate it if you'd have a look at this--Cailil ^talk 15:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is continuing, unfortunately. RichSatan has re-inserted unsourced and unverifiable original research into Games Workshop [7]. He is also continuing to treat wikipedia like a battleground[8] and is refusing to assume good faith [9].
Just so you know, the "abusive admin" he refers to is Van Tucky who added teh welcome template to RichSatan's talk page--Cailil ^talk 13:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about opening a content-based WP:RFC to get broader feedback? Durova^Charge! 15:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened the RFC for the content. There are already 2 editors who agree with my position and one commented the material out. The problem has been the spurious accusations of misconduct by RichSatan directed at me. Perhaps I need thicker skin but straw man comments like "the fact that [Cailil] has broke wikipedia policy and community tradition by deleting a section without editor consensus and then used threats against editors to cement his position is WRONG." and attacks like "Your virtual jumping up and down when anyone even attempts to approach the topic is harming the article" are just plain disruptive--Cailil ^talk 23:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a thick skin is very useful when dealing with this sort of thing. One deals with a lot of logical fallacies when working with difficult editors. Thanks for being patient, and let's see how the rest of that RFC goes. Durova^Charge! 06:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europe

Hello. User:Energyfreezer has been removing information from the page on Europe about the large muslim population in France. He seems to be suggesting, without any justification, that the 4% professed muslim population is not "native". I suggested that if he believes this to be the case, he should argue his point on the talk page of the article, because otherwise this kind of ill-informed deletion amounts to tolling or vandalism. He has not done so and has now removed France three times from the list of European countries with significant Muslim populations. France has the largest population of Arab descent in Europe. I think User:Energyfreezer has broken the 3 revert rule by removing this correct information 3 times. I will not remove his vandalism for the third time. He is editing disruptively. Cheers, Mathsci 19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how he fails to mention that what he wrote to you is his own point of view. So hopefully you decide for the best. Energyfreezer 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the information under discussion is listed on the WP page for France, which I have not edited so far. (I do edit several pages on French topics; for example Phèdre, Victor d'Hupay, Aix-en-Provence, Marseille, etc.) I have opened up a section on the talk page for Europe for User:Energyfreezer to explain why he has removed this information from the page for Europe. He should add his comments there. Mathsci 19:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive and contentious edit warring without using talk pages seems to be the pattern of his edits. Today's vandalism is just a repeat of what happened a few months ago on exactly the same point, but on the Islam page.[10] [11][12] [13][14] [15] [16] He has called me "moronic" and "whining" in his edit summaries. --Mathsci 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about an article content WP:RFC for that? Durova^Charge! 06:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]