Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/Archive/2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The following contents are the archived alerts in 2005. Scroll down for the full navigation or select one the individual pages below for the specific time period.

Archived alerts in 2005


Discussion of User talk:Adam Carr#Personal attacks

Note: This headline has been removed from User talk:Adam Carr

    • I don't see a problem here. Skyring is trying to amend the Government of Australia page in a way not supported by other reference books. Adam is getting increasingly frustrated with him (which I don't find surprising). Skyring is either trolling or trying to add original research into the page, and I'd urge Skyring, rather than Adam, to stop what he's doing.
      • So your answer is yes, if a user appears to be trolling, adding original research or flouting consensus, then personal abuse is no problem? 11:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I haven't seen outrageous personal abuse here, just one editor, who is acting reasonably, getting increasingly frustrating with one who appears to be trolling, adding original research and flouting consensuse. I certainly wouldn't be harsh on the reasonable, but frustrated, editor. 13:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • It was worse a few days ago (now archived), e.g. [1]. What concerns me is not the attacks themselves: as you point out, it seems to be a consequence of frustration (which happens to many editors, we're only human, and it's not a big deal). What I worry about is Adam Carr's insistence that personal abuse is entirely acceptable in these circumstances -- and that he continues to make such attacks, even when other editors have asked him to refrain from them. I feel (and I think the policy states) that personal attacks are unacceptable in all situations; I think that is basic Wikiquette. 01:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree that "personal attacks are unacceptable in all situations". I also agree in making some allowance for fallible and frustrated humans.
In this particular case, the attacks seem to have considerably lessened and the parties seem to be relatively close to equal in their current discourtesy to each other.
Which is why I won't get involved in that discussion at this time. (That's not as clear as I'd like it to be.) Maurreen 07:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Accusation of teamwork

These users act as a coordinated team to circumvent the 3R rules, and weave in propaganda, and delete others' contributions. This is a dishonest way of controlling Wikipedia from others' contributions. Those who are not similarly and dishonestly coordinated as an ideological team can be mistreated by them. What can be done about keeping this conduct and biased "Team" ideology from spoiling the Wikipedia project for the rest who might want to contribute as individuals? Please see my Talk page. Thanks. Realbro 19:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, this is a breach of Wikiquette in itself, with personal attacks against named editors in the header (which I've removed) and throughout the message. Given that Realbro has opened this account purely to post to this page, and is clearly a sockpuppet of some other editor, I think that his or her rather nasty little complaint, verging on racism, can be safely ignored. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
He/She doesn't give any indication of where the problem lies, anyway, so nobody can act on it regardless. Sockatume 22:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
NB: Even with the list of accused editors, there was no indication of the source of the grievance, I mean. Obviously the alert is utterly meaningless now that they've been removed. Sockatume 22:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't want to take the action myself, but given the complete lack of information, I'd say delete the whole alert and ensuing discussion. RayGirvan 23:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Jun 10

Jun 13

Jun 14

  • User:Leonig Mig places ad hominem (his description) and false comments about Andy Mabbett on his (LM's) user page (and in edits) because LM objects to AM's edits to pages LM has writen, and offers to remove them only if AM agrees to his conditions [2].
    • The situation is worsening [3]
      • Now resolved. Thank you.`

Jun 16

This kind of misbehavior is only getting worse. To me, "only a Nazi would say what you just said" constitutes an ad hominem attack.

Jun 17

  • In Pontiac Trans Am, an anonymous user is repeatedly deleting one sentence without comment. Is this the best place to discuss this?

Jun 18

  • User:152.163.101.5 has added an advertising link 4 times to License plate (it has been reverted all 4 times), and is also vandalizing other pages with anti-Semitic, anti-liberal, and other vandalsm. 22:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jun 21

  • User:Zen-master Personal abuse, for instance: "So yes, I am accusing you both of being neo-nazis based on your posts on this talk page and based on the way you repeatedly defend or ignore the misuse of language."
  • User:Bloghate has been making VfDs of notable bloggers ( [4] ) as well as the category Bloggers. This may be simply Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point or it may be a trollish enjoyment of seeing each VfD's defenders get outraged at the nomination. It has been suggested that Bloghate is a sockpuppet in some war between Deletionists and Inclusionists.

Jun 22

  • i am not completely sure that this has gone unnoticed, but if someone has noticed it i dont think anything appropriate has been done about it. shawn Mikula was created on 2005 June 11, which as far as i can tell goes against wikipedia:votes for deletion/Shawn Mikula and wikipedia:votes for undeletion/deleted#Shawn Mikula. the most recent discussion of mikulitis i can find is in february and march of this year, regarding a user archiving the page in his user namespace (see user talk:anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula, among others). i dont believe that starting a Vfd is the right move here, especially since the page the template wants to create for a new Vfd already exists with the data from the old one. i couldnt find a better looking place than wikiquette alerts to start. if i am missing something or there is a better way for me to bring this to the attention of others, i would be interested in hearing/acting further.
  • Is it OK to drag old usenet discussions to Wikipedia? At Talk:John Byrne an editor first claimed that he is trying to prove popularity of the subject based on those discussions and then claimed he wanted to remind about the old discussions. I consider those as a personal attack. A name of the wiki-editor (me) was used as a search key to find the discussions so it clearly was not only about finding information related to the subject, but to find old comments posted by the specific wiki-editor. It seems like an attempt to discredit the Wikipedia contributions of an editor based on old comments the editor posted to usenet. 18:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A number of recent external link additions by User:Skywalker [5] seem to be PoV at best, spam [2] at worst.


Jul 1

  • User:Jaberwocky6669 seems to be copying and pasting the same line into every one of today's VfDs, as well as submitting an inordinate amount for deletion (including such pages as WP:FUN). No attack meant, but it just seems like something's rotten in Denmark, so maybe someone can look into this odd behavior? Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)
  • User:Mjgm84 (who also edits anonymously as User:195.137.109.177) has been constantly re-uploading the same image that was deleted over and over again, despite having been warned about it twice. The Nirvana article has had to be revert four times already to get rid of this image. He has made no response to discussion of it on the talk page. He has also changed several articles relating to Nirvana in ways that go against the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Also worthy of note is that some of the images he uploads are never added to articles. -- LGagnon July 2, 2005 02:30 (UTC)
  • With the exception of one, one-character typo correction, virtually all of User:Leonig Mig's edits for two weeks have been directed at reverting or deleting the work on one user (and all have been pages recently edited by that user), including PoV comments and edit summaries and personal attacks. LM has previously been warned for making personal attacks against that same user, after that user Wikified some of LM's creations.
This is palpable rubbish. This user is obviously paranoid, and has a history of making paranoid attacks on people (see RFC for user:Nick Boulevard). We both operate with in a similar namespace and many of his edits I do not agree with, therefore I edit. He has a habit of splitting articles up into many small ones (i.e. A38 he split into A38 and A38(M) and he also attempted to make a stub article for every petrols station on the UK motorway system), the obvious thing to do is mark for speedy and wait for the comminity to decide the best thing to do. There is an ongoing VFD going on re: the service stations, and the consensus is to merge his scattered articles into one: very sensible- until he makes an accusation that I voted twice this morning. I editted to make more clear and he accused me of making paranoid accusations. Then he makes this one himself. All very odd, I question whether this user has the wikipedia's interests at heart, or is more interested in facile drama. Leonig Mig 1 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)


Jul 2

Jul 4

  • User:Nick on Hormone replacement therapy (trans) is apparently a medical doctor with a side-practise prescribing to trans people. He has written, and closely polices the page, based on how he himself prescribes, and uses reverts and, on the Discussion page, aggressive and repeated incivility ("spell check your edits and ensure they are grammatically reasonable before posting", "you got it from some nutjob pro-life website along with instructions how to bomb a family planning clinic", "false and misleading information posted by people like you", "you are a total nutter. Now, run along"), ignoring references and misrepresenting writings and motives to drive away other contributors. He openly admits this on the Discussion page. Since any different information might indicate he was not treating his own patients in the best manner, the whole article, which controversially advocates the use of substances for which there are safer and no more expensive substitutes readily available, without warnings on precautions and potential side-effects, is a personal and self-interested POV. How does one get around such an entrenched author?

Jul 5

  • Westwood High School. The phrase It is also the only current public school in the country to ban Indians (especially Vishal Ganesan) and black people and Mexicans. has been added and removed about 5 times. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask, but what is the best course of action?
  • This ad hominem and falacious attack, from an admin (the "log" referred to is, in fact, an RFC).
  • Keith Henson Apparent campaign by users are creating a POV page and censoring valid content even after attribution. User removes other people's postings of these attributions.

Jul 6

  • Andy Mabbett is stalking User Nick Boulevard after RfC Mabbot created against Boulevard has 'gone cool' to all but Mabbott's satisfaction. Reverts all edits by Boulevard with snide commentary, also continues to keep log of Boulevards edits at [11] along with misrepresentative description. Also reverts unprovable accusation of ip ownership, surely calculated as a snub to Boulevard on some personal level, as for all practical use the comments are ancient history. Note, Mabbot has been warned by admin, responding by posting a wikiquette alert above. For my part I see this as bullying of Boulevard by Mabbot and wish to see it stop. What is best way forward? Leonig Mig 6 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)
  • Helpmeets first edit is a revert to Khmer Rouge where he reverts in the middle of an edit war saying "Removed queer edits" Reverts three more times with no justification. 6 July 2005.

July 7

  • User:213.140.6.107 has been link-spamming several articles with links to threemonkeysonline.com. -- LGagnon July 7, 2005 16:29 (UTC)
  • User:John Kenney broke the WP:NPA rule here and on several other locations. I believe that his fellow admins should instruct him on proper behaviour. Halibutt July 7, 2005 18:37 (UTC)

July 9

July 10

  • User:Zhen-Xjell (who may also be posting as User:68.87.100.242) is a link spammer working for castlecops.com. He has put link spam on several articles for his website. -- LGagnon 02:10, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yes I added CC links in addition to other domain links. I added them because I see value in them (please follow all those links to confirm). They were not redundant IMVHO, however, be that as it were I am not part of the culture here. So your decisions I'll comply with.--Paul Laudanski 02:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

July 11

User:Grace Note's general conduct. 02:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • I second the view. User is attacking a proposed policy discussion (Wikipedia:Disruptive User) and leaving semi-threatening messages on User talk pages ("you better watch it", "you're lucky", etc) who are voting to support the proposal. -04:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I suggested you shouldn't call people vandals and that you were lucky I had thick skin and didn't mind your personal attack. I'm only gently helping you to an understanding that your behaviour could be hurtful. -- Grace Note

  • If it was indeed Grace Note then the conduct was uncalled for. To be fair, all the edits were entered under an anon ip address and there really isnt anyway to determine if in fact the person posting was the user in question. Maybe thats why whoever it was did it that way. -05:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Grace note has been posting under that IP for a day or so. S/he responds to comments made on Grace's talk page. And if it weren't Grace Note, why would the IP defend itself above? 14:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

July 12

User:Proto on User_talk:Proto#The_removed_"rude_message". Deliberately inflammatory and with willful use of homophobic language.

July 13

On the Independent Catholic Church USA page, four similar anonymous IP addresses (each beginning with 207.67) keep reverting the article to non-Wiki formatted advertising (see history page). Any recommendations as to how to address this behavior would be helpful. 16:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

July 14

  • Sonic 3 and Knuckles got reverted by an anonymous IP address from a redirect to the redundant article, first posted by a very similiar IP address (216.178.11.*). I fear this will just turn into a revert war. --18:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Question of Wikiquette 07:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have been informed that my edits, regardless of content, relevence, or reference will be reverted due to my not having created an account. My reading of some of the help sections haven't produced a definitive answer to if this is proper.

  • I can revert your edit with good faith based on the fact that you are just using your IP address as an identifier.

From Discussion here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_W._Bush#Tax_revenue_as_a_percentage_of_GDP -bro 172.149.84.231 07:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slim Virgin has helped to clarify issues, I believe they are settled at this time. I have as of yet tried to edit though, so this may change. -bro 172.149.84.231 08:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Debate over Constant Reverting in Israeli terrorism 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we need a few neutral people to come and examine the Israeli terrorism article, because right now, everyone's just reverting it back to his or her favorite version, and it kind of stinks. Could we please have a peer review here? Jeus 02:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I have taken a look, (I haven't made any edits until today), however it seems like the entire articles is a duplicate of the state terroism article. --Eliezer 02:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

July 17

  • List of Irish-Americans involved in quite a bit of reverting, which has already lead to at least one RFC. There is some suggestion that two or more of the editors have been making WP:POINTs. 05:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User:P0lyglut has posted to Talk:Perl with instances of profanity, incivility, and personal attacks (opens remarks with "look perl fanatical morons. I don't have time to fight this and with the pettiness of perlers. This perl article is full of fanatical fucks.") to insist on inclusion of link to his personal pages, the quality and prominence of which has been questioned (and is therefore being discussed as possible self-promotion). To judge from user's talk page, some of this may proceed from explicit commitments. It is the combination of offensive incivility and remarks on the talk page noted in the course of protesting these that motivated posting here. 13:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

July 19

  • Charles Taze Russell / Talk:Charles Taze Russell - one editor claiming unique knowledge of biographical facts on the subject, asserting control over the article and repeatedly reverting edits to match unverified text at his own website, as well as removing tags for NPOV and stylistic problems. 22:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

July 20

Has NO moderator yet seen the comment on GKIF put there by Peter Lee??? This comment is WAY out of the neutral point of view, it's not based on FACTS but is merely his personal opinion. I can take it away (again), but I was in several edit wars already with this fellow and I don't want to get me into another one. In my view, it's now the task of a moderator to do something about it. I have also commented on the text on the NPOV talk page. -- MarioR 13:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've moved that block of text to the article's talk page, where commentary belongs. -Splash 15:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Ward Churchill where User:Keetoowah repeatedly uses language that is aggressive, belittling and disrespecful to other editors despite repeated requests from other editors to be civil. 15:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=19253879&oldid=19247847 (toe rag)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=19100888&oldid=19069536 (loony)
I think that her fellow admins should instruct her on proper behaviour. 217.140.193.123 23:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

July 21

Special:Contributions/69.169.144.239 is adding in content to Broadbandreports in what appears to not have any value. I have reverted it now twice. If this is acceptable, please let me know, otherwise, this person needs to be watched. --Paul Laudanski 00:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

July 22

Hello, I'd like to get some feedback/discussion at Talk:Broadbandreports. It appears there are multiple anonymous IP addresses adding in a "Controversy" paragraph which have been reverted multiple times by different registered editors. User:Splash has given me excellent guidance tips in my Talk page, so I hope I'm doing this correctly. TIA --Paul Laudanski 13:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

July 23

True, Truth; Is user 67.182.157.6 engaging in personal attacks, or negotiation? 07:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

July 26

User:Vizcarra claimed in several images that the web pages of the Mexican government are in the public domain. After being confronted with evidence on the contrary he refuses to fix the tags and remove the statements arguing that it is someone else's job. 08:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

July 28

  • Revert warring at neurofeedback over Scientology, etc. 14:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

July 29

  • Users Splash and Who and admin Kbdank71, responding to five requests for Category name-changes regarding film-related categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion on 28 Jul 05 have deliberately, wilfully, wantonly and abusively attacked and maligned the user for making the requests, and accused him of other "adverse" activities in re editing the same Category (Category:Film), although there is no correlation between the requesting user's ID number and the IDs of the other posters whom they say are the "same" person, nor is there any evidence that any of these other users have done anything wrong. They seem to be in a fury because of the user's attempt to organize the Film category, and have no legitimate grounds for their actions or stated grievances, as the user under attack seems to have clearly followed protocol for requesting Category name changes. Postings by them on other, earlier Film-related Category naming discussions suggest they are attempting to circumvent change and improvement in Wikipedia by obstructing Wikipedia process and discouraging open discussion or support by others who may agree with the victim-user. They need a warning, and the admin needs to be dismissed as this does not seem to be his first shot at abusing his position. None of them, surely, represent what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, and make Wikipedia look like nothing more than a middle school playground without a grownup in sight.
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.196.92 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 July 2005 Note this is the same anon who unilatterly had a category speedied after moving the contents to a previous Cfr after the consensus was to keep. Then has continued to vandalize the Cfd page, remove {{Cfd}} tags, and put {{d}} tags on the categories they do not agree with, mainly the ones that were decided to keep in the Cfr. This user keeps switching IP's and has a history of such actions. ∞Who?¿? 00:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for proving my point. And, posts aren't supposed to be signed - nor responded to.
  • The Albanians page seems to have become an excuse for some members who seem they would like to refight the Balkan Wars. Check out the talk page. [15] There doesn't seem to be any progress being made, and it could use the input of some more neutral parties (i.e. not Albanian or Greek nationalists). 20:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User talk:24.30.157.246 mostly just acts bizarre, which isn't illegal, but they have only made one edit to a talk page, ever, including their own, out of hundreds of edits, and have broken several rules. A block might be in order? - 23:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • A mention somewhere like WP:AN or WP:AN/I might be more useful than listing it here. Only admins can effect blocks. 23:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      I'm an admin. I'm just trying to figure out if this is a blockable offense or what to do about it. Will try notifying over there instead. - 23:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
      You might be able to rely on Wikipedia:Vandalism#Silly vandalism, and vandalism is certainly blockable. 00:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

July 30

  • Wetman (talk · contribs) has been adding {{TOCright}} to articles where it does not appear neccesary or to improve upon the article in the eyes of myself and several other editors. The template is controversial and avoided deletion only on the condition that it was not just thrown around, but reserved for very large TOCs. I removed TOCright from about 20 articles which did not fit the guidelines for its use, explaining in the summary why. Wetman has been reverting these, and stating on the talk pages of each article that TOCright's use is unrestricted, which was at best a misrepresentation or misunderstanding. Since I have clarified the guidelines on its use on both the talk pages and Wetman's talk page, and Wetman continues to revert my removal of TOCs add the same message to the talk pages, I consider this to be dishonest behaviour. Joe D (t) 22:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Wrapping the tables of contents generally greatly improves the "look" of Wikipedia pages by eliminating those ugly gaping holes of blank space that disfigure many Wikipedia entries: the template has quickly been embraced by many Wikipedians who apparently agree. "TOCleft" is preferable, unless there are reasons for setting it at the right: but see my formatting at Gallaecia. An unthinking "formulist" approach is not always the best: see Praise of Folly for a comic example.
This particular editor, User:Steinsky aka "Joe D", has been going about making a mess of carefully formatted articles, where he had evinced no interest in content, to satisfy a personal formulaic agenda: see his "explanation" in the edit summaries. Instead of simply replacing the "TOC right" template that offends him with a "TOCleft" template, or—scarcely to be hoped— adjusting the format to improve it, he has vandalized the careful new formatting (even—but actually just twice—my own). I have had to go through every one of these abused formats and restore visual coherence: the interested editors will compare the various before- and afters and come to their own conclusions. User:Steinsky is currently in the process of going through these pages once again and simply reverting. I won't stoop so far myself. And that will be all I have to say on this subject. --Wetman 22:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The following was posted at Wetman's Userpage: "Are you going to respond to the fact that your edits go against the guidelines for use of these templates? Unless you do they will be reverted again. You can misrepresent the situation and spread rhetoric about my "agenda" and "vandalism", but that will not change the fact that your edits go against the guidelines, and the fact that when this was pointed out to you, you first ignored it, and then were dishonest about it, will not look good. If you fail to acknowledge that the guidelines (and several other users) disagree with your use of TOCright I will take this to the next level of dispute resolution. User:Steinsky 22:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)"

I don't think that Joe D has correctly characterized the situation regarding {{TOCright}}. It was brought up on WP:TFD. There was a consensus to keep it, after considerable discussion. Several people in that discussion said that this template (and the coresponding {{TOCleft}}) should not be used on all pages, but only where it improved the page. There were various suggestions for what kinds of pages would be so improved, and what kinds would not, but nothing that has achieved the level of consensus that deserves the name of "guideline". It is not at all the case that the template was kept only on "condition" that it be used only on very large articles. There is ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Template:TOCright, where several users hope to formualte an MoS entry on the use of floating ToCs. But note that a) we haven't got as far as making an entry in the MOS yet -- this is still all on the talk page, and b) the MoS is explicitly not binding on editors anyway. Thus it is simply not correct to say that any article "did not fit the guidelines for its use" as there are no such guidelines, except for the overall guiidelines on writing a good and well-formattted article, and there are not IMO likely ever to be guidelines or policies on the use of {{TOCright}} so strict that violating them wopuld be dishonest, or should be automatically recverted, like vandalism. DES 02:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

If there is a dispute on whether {{TOCright}} is a good idea or a bad one on a particular page or pages, that dispute should be settled like any other editing dipute over formatting -- on the talk page of the article involved, with no particular answer automatically assumed to be correct. The ideas discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Template:TOCright may be helpful, but should not be regarded as guidelines or policy, much less holy writ. I was an active participant in the debate over {{TOCright}} on TfD, and in the subsequent discussion on its use, and i created {{TOCleft}}. So I think my opnion is of some value on these issues. DES 02:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, DES, I'd love to discuss the template, and have indeed been doing so whenever I have time for such things, from the TfD discussion on. The reason I took this to Wikiquette alerts is specifically because of the way Wetman dealt with the situation, and continues to do so. I think it is the case that the outcome of the TfD discussion was that this template shouldn't just be thrown around, and while no conditions were officially attached (VfD discussions aren't that formal), would it still have been kept if we discounted all those votes that were "keep for extreme circumstances only?" While the guidelines may not have been officially set, all of the discussions regarding them have so far been very cautious about the use of this template, which is why I think it's inappropriate to go slapping the template on any old article. I know Wetman has been involved in some of the discussions, so he must be aware that its routine use is very controversial and that such instances of its use were likely to provoke such an argument (though to be fair, another editor originally added it in several cases). It is not that I consider the discussions holy writ never to be broken, but that I see no evidence for the articles on which the templates were used being anything over than utterly avarage articles, not special cases in which special formatting is needed. Joe D (t) 15:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
While many people expressed some degreee of reservation about the tempalte during the TfD, I don't think that enough people said "keep for extreme circumstances only" or anything similer to change the outcoem if those votes were changed to delete. (Keep votes out numbered delete votes by 31 to 14, by my count). My personal view is that a floaring TOC would be a good ideal in perhaps as many as 20% to 30% of all articles on wikipedia, but only after we firm up some style guidance for its use. IMO treating the current discussions as a consensus agaisnt applying the template except in "extreme circumstances" or as anythign approaching the level of a guideline or a policy is mistaken and not backed by any clear consensus. Why don't we take this debate to the MOS talk page for general discussion, and to the talk page of any particular article for discussion on the merits of a flaoting TOC in that article. DES 15:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

July 31

Talk:The God Who Wasn't There one user accusing another of a 'Bad Faith' copyvio tab, and unilateraly removing it. (I understandI don't sign this)

5 August

Can someone please help me? I am too angry. This user has been on for about two weeks. He does not seem to understand what the Wiki is. He posted a question in the middle of a Civil War article. He is mostly focused on the Talk page of the Freemasonry article. There he has asked silly questions, claimed he wanted to join, claimed he was a member and whatall. All in all he is not respecting the Wiki. I snapped at him on the Talk page. Sorry. Could someone who is more calm than me help? Paul, in Saudi 17:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe there is a breach in Wikiquette in the talk pages of the article on Stalin. Personal attacks and overall bad attitude seem to follow wherever this editor goes. He has been prevously banned several times, and by looking at his page, I believe he is well known of the administrators as a difficult

user. If someone could take a look... thanks. LtDoc 21:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Mikkalai (talk · contribs) keeps reverting films that belong in Category:Soviet films to Category:Russian films as soon as they are removed from same. He adds nothing to either category, just keeps on recategorizing Soviet films as Russian ones, ignoring others' confrontations and thwarting their efforts to clean up the Russian films category according to the definition given at the top of that page (note there is a Category:Russian language films which can include both Soviet and Russian titles; he keeps reverting posts to this category also). 23:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The anon speaks about consensus, but continues to ignore Category talk:Russian films and uses the abusive language in edit summaries. This is his first attempt of any discussion of the issue anywhere. mikka (t) 00:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Mikkalai writes as if only one user involved, but examination of "Russian" films show moves to "Soviet" category by at least 3 people, the first of whom makes no "abusive language" but simply moved the titles in good faith. Mikkalai then moved them all back to "Russia" without discussion or explanation, thus starting the "reversion war". He was questioned about this by Sam Wantman. Talk on his personal discussion page has a threat to have anyone banned who touches these films, and his own idiosyncratic definition of USSR vs. Russia; also clearly he is staking a claim to the "Russian film" page as personal turf because he initiated it, and in disregard for other articles by other users on Russia, Soviet Union, Russian film, Soviet film, etc. He needs to be helped to understand he does not run any section of Wikipedia simply because he created it or contributed to it. Negative comments by last reversionist are only abusives I can find at a glance, and I can't justify them, but likewise I cannot see any justification for Mikkalai to persist in efforts to exert personal control over these categories. 16:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

August 7

  • Amorrow (talk · contribs) at Talk:Elizabeth Morgan. Lack of civility, ominous threats. Eerie. 07:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • More information, from a post made by Amorrow (talk · contribs) to User_talk:Raul654: I know what I want: I want Elizabeth Morgan, the person, to repudiate Elizabeth Morgan the Act. I do not want to win by cheating. I want to defeat her fair and square. THAT is how Grant took Vicksburg and THAT is how I want to take Morgan. I am using Wikipedia as a tool in a larger game. I do not know how Wikiepdia feels about that. Now do you see? Grant would targeted his artilery on the main strategic point of the City. I am targeting also, but the only weapons I use are eyes. I look. I get others to look. The pressure is felt by the enemy. They know they are surrounded. Is this crossing the line? Amorrow 19:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC) 07:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Also see the edit history for Elizabeth Morgan, and Amorrow's edit summaries. tregoweth 21:03, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

August 11

  • I'm sorry Jimbo , but I see the responsibility to settle intractable disputes rests with you . I seem to run into intractable dispute on your WP , so I ask you to take responsibility . No one else can take this your place .

I refer you to the articles Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope as the centre of this dispute and ask you to put yourself into the position of final arbiter now, OK ? I particularly think that the surviving Roman Jewess's words be taken as an issue : I wish you therefore to show or not show , that an Auschwitz survivor be called POV ( rv'd ,Pius in WWar 2) . You will see that the difference between the two articles at this minute is simple : one (PPII) is the 'censored' or whatever version of the other (H's P). Having been battling to and beyond the brink for 8 months on the one article , I say that only you can survey this with any authority to do anything about it . Let you be the judge of all the WP requisites, knowing that your judgements are real , and that ultimately you yourself will equally be judged . Auschwitz survivors are definitely in a minority and this responsibility for arbitration I lay at you because you are the organ . I will consider myself in-active until you please let me know that I am required . As various users may find this disappearance odd , I post this letter to you for them to see elsewhere . Famekeeper 11:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

August 12

August 14

August 15

  • There's a text in Russian or another slavic language written in cyrillic at Talk:Black_Ruthenia. It seems to me quite inappropriate that a text in a language other than English should appear on the English wikipedia, otherwise anybody can begin polluting wikipedia putting racist or nationalist texts without most of the readers being aware of it. So, I suppressed the text, a logical move did it seem to me. Well, not logical for User:Mikkalai, who justifies the presence of this Russian text with 'For reference. Experts on the topic must know slavic languages.' and then puts the Russian text back on line with as comment 'Removal from talk pages is violation of rules.'. I quite disagree with both statements. This User:Mikkalai seems to have a very particular view of wikipedia rules. --Pylambert 22:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


August 16

  • Melasma suprarenale. Melasma is a general term for skin pigment. An administrator, who claims to be a doctor, repeatedly deletes any mention of anything other than the mask of pregnancy. The extreme malice of his mind-set is evident from his explanations. For example, it is a rule of the Wikipedia that sources must be quoted. Rare - and new - photographs carried my name. "Would Charles please remove his name from the photographs". No. That would be removing the source. Other images of melasma suprarenale came from Plate 5 of Addison's own book; from the Louis Martineau thesis of 1862, and so on. Exact protein-sequencing, complete with the ligand of attachment to melanophores, came from Dr. Mac E Hadley's ENDOCRINOLOGY (2nd edition, Prentice-Hall, 1992) and so on. The article was ENCYCLOPEDIC. That is what it was meant to be. However, there is a fifth column in society whose purpose is sabotage. Most people will have heard of fake doctors - Dr. Reinaldo Sylvestre who is currently on trial in the States for giving female breasts to Mr. Mexico, or Drs Walton, Alison and Ledward who raped their patients (over 4000 each) over thirty years, or Harold Frederick Shipman, who killed 862 patients. You will also have seen on the Internet that you can get any degree without study due to a "loophole in the law". So we can discount the credentials of the alleged Dutch doctor who is an administrator, when he glibly calls my work "amateurish". We have no proof of his academic history. He is ANTI-encyclopedic in that he ERASES the work of others. I mayself am not prepeared to work in circles. If it is Wikipedia policy to allow such wholesale deletions, on the say-so of an individual, I shall no longer waste my time writing here. I spent my life as a professional technical author - but then, I might be an impostor. "By his fruits you will know him" - does he produce a product, or destroy the products of others?

August 17

A user has placed a rant against another member here, [24] , and the user in question has responded here, [25]. Please would someone with some kind of authority or ability to actually resolve this thing offer suggestions. Thanks.
Note: perhaps more importantly, this user has said [26] that he will not discuss any of his edits with another user. This is clearly against the spirit of Wikipedia and needs resolution.

August 18

Someone anonymously keeps posting a link to an irrevelent to a personal website on Nabu, presumably advertising their own site. --04:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

August 19

August 20

  • There is a vote ongoing at Talk:Cat about whether to include an image of a toilet trained cat within the main cat article. Please vote as you think necessary. 03:07, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:MagicKnight, aka User:24.199.77.62, is a new user who has only ever edited Virtual Magic Kingdom and has a problem with other people editing his changes. He continues to revert back to his own versions even when they contain typos, and he has not answered requests to discuss the issue on that article's Talk page or his own Talk page. One of his edit summaries: Now leave it be! I will personally update this page everyday if you change it back!) See User talk:MagicKnight for a list of specific things he keeps changing back. - 11:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

August 22

August 24

  • One editor removed a large section of content from Jeff Koons. Another editor questioned (and reverted) the deletion. Since then the deletion and reverting has see-sawed while the discussion on Talk:Jeff Koons was quickly steered outside the bounds of Wikiquette. 22:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User:219.95.154.137 User_Talk:219.95.154.137 Continues to put an NPOV section despite being asked to discuss the section on the Talk Page of Real Madrid. I'm basically out of reverts and simply cannot understand how someone is unable to see that a Best XI Lineup for 2005/6 is not inherently against NPOV. Looking at the history makes me think that it is the same user that has been inserting this into the article again and again, dispite attempts to discuss this on the talk page. Cursive 02:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


August 25

August 26

  • User:Arrigo == User:217.140.193.123. As the disruption seems to continue everywere I'm considering a RfC/user conduct - but I'm not sure that would be the best course of action. If anyone feels like certifying or endorsing such RfC listing, please do so at User talk:Francis Schonken/Arrigo disruption
    • User:Arrigo has been moving pages without discussion [27], despite warnings [28]. Rude and condescending to almost all the users who have ever had to deal with this user [29]. Also likes to remove naming tags before there is an end to any discussion [30], [31].
    • 217.140.193.123. Abusive, insulting, vulgar, highly resistent to discussion of entry content [32]. Arrigo has been accused of being 217.140.193.123 and vice-versa [33].

August 27

  • User:Lapsed Pacifist is repeatedly inserting NPOV comments in the MI5 page here [34], he seems to have an Irish axe to grind and his talk page Talk:Lapsed Pacifist shows this is not the only page he is doing this to. He refuses to enter into the talk page and just reverts the page repeatedly while using NPOV as an excuse.

August 28

  • The article Broadbandreports is under an apparent edit war for the greater part of a couple days. The communities links are being removed and wikipedians keep reverting. See the talk page for more information on AMA assistance and temporary page protection requests.
  • User:garywbush and user:alibadawi are suspected to be related hence socketpuppetry at kafir. See talk:kafir.

August 31

  • User:ThomasK has been changing the Category:Cult films category on hundreds of articles and getting into revert wars with editors fixing his changes. Doesn't seem to be malicious, but it is very disruptive. See Category_talk:Cult_films.

It is yet not really a revert war, but I suggest a wp vote. --ThomasK 04:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

September 1

  • After an edit war concernig the insertion of an NPOV tag had raged through Anti-Polonism the page was blocked (history). Then, the discussion on the talk page got to be very lenghty and entangled on a single issue (despite of the fact that there are many more). This may mean that the parties do not assume good faith. A summary of the issue has been done here. The community should watch how the policies are obeyed during the new chapter of the discussion.
  • Two Christian fundamentalists want the Genesis account of the origin of clothing included in the Clothing article, which at present gives a scientific and archaeological approach to the matter. It has been suggested that they write a NPOV article summarizing religious and mythological explanations for the origin of clothing, which could then be linked, but they are demanding equal time in the main Clothing article. 22:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

September 3

Rafti Institute has been vandalising the BME page again. He is involved in an ongoing conflict with BME over his unauthorized use of BME's copyrighted material in his publications (which are for sale). I reverted to the previous version, but I'd appreciate of others could help protect the page from his revisions. It's clearly a conflict of interest for him to even edit the page, given his personal situation. He has vandalised this page in the past, between February 17 & February 25 of 2005. After a 5 month hiatus from Wikipedia he has uploaded almost 100 images today, all of which I'd consider potentially in violation of copyright. his contributions are here. Glowimperial 05:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


September 4

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

I tried to reason with him but his Point of View is irreductible as it shown by his actions at the above referred article and at the discussion page Talk:Prayer#Category with other users who tried to put some good-sense in his mind. "::There is no scientific evidence that prayer works. They only people to claim that have been a few US religious nutters, who wanted it to work, it has never been reproduced by independent researchers. As a doctor you should be ashamed of yourself pedling such rubbish.--Baphomet. 11:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)"

And, please, also take a look at his user page discussion User_talk:Baphomet. with other users on this subject.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please, I request for the User:Baphomet. to be immediatly stopped. Thank you. --GalaazV 20:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

How old are you?--Baphomet. 20:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
It appears to be that I am older than you... I am not against you or your convictions, my friend, but fighting a battle not seen yet in the eyes of your mind for the future, through a Science more spiritual and a Religion more scientific: in order to bring some peace to the world and within each one of us. [35] --GalaazV 21:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Are you perhaps an acid fried hippy?--Baphomet. 21:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia, Baphomet is an idol or image of a being typically described as demonic. Baphomet, as Lévi's illustration suggests, has occasionally been portrayed as a synonym of Satan or a demon, a member of the hierarchy of Hell. Is it just my impression or you use the conception of your nickname to do a sort of ironic "holy (satanic) war" of your all-powerfull Science against the Supertitious Religion? Are you going to use that same process when facing or getting through the gates of Death (is it Death or Life after Death, or even Rebirth?) --GalaazV 21:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
One of the side effects of intelligence is awareness of mortality. It's when you really face up to that, you'll stop peddling this opium.--Son of Paddy's Ego 22:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
See categoriees for deletion. Rich Farmbrough 22:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
We are all going to die.--WholemealBaphomet 23:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
REQUEST to Administrators of Wikipedia:Religion as main category at the Main Page. --GalaazV 00:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement that either of you accept each other's POV. There is, however, a requirement that you treat each other civilly. Our NPOV policy requires that our articles respect all points of view, whether you personally respect them or not. If you consistently refuse to play by the rules, you can eventually be banned from Wikipedia. By the way, there is no such user as Baphomet. His user name is WholemealBaphomet. His signature is deceptive. – Quadell (talk) 19:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Antaeus Feldspar refuses to attribute his claim and then argues that he doesn't need to bother because the article is going to be deleted and then makes a personal comment based on his own speculation. See his comment here: [36]

September 5

  • Talk:Lacerte Does a prior VfD result of "Keep" restrict an article from being merged later? 01:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • [37] repetitive page-blanking, replacing with a loopback redirect to the article linking to it - essentially unremitting deletions w/out a vfd or even deletion request. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:52, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Oasisfanatic is spamming WP by adding his link to multiple martial arts pages. The link itself points to a website that has only just started with no content and is business advertising. I have asked Oasisfanatic to stop spamming the articles and reverted the edits. --Paul Laudanski 03:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

September 6

User:Felix Frederick Bruyns has apparently, without seeking my approval in any way, chosen to delte several msgs from my user talk page User talk:DESiegel. I have reverted these changes. This seems to have been done because thsoe msgs concerned a dispute this user was having with User:Moriori, and they have apparently decided to delete mutual recriminations. Taht is all very well, but I do not consider that this entitles them to delete parts of my user talk page without so much as a polite request to me, merely a notice that it had been done. I am particualrly disturbed that this ahppend at mroe or less the same time that this user sent me a series of quite hostile msgs, threatening me with a arbitration proceeding, all because of one msg which i posted on his talk page which he chooses to consider "monstrously obscene" because I included the name of an image constining sexually related materiel, an image recently on IFD, to indicate my views on wikipedia censorship, which was the subject of the then ongoing thread of discussion. I welcome comment on this matter, and i ask if anyone considers that I am in any way acting incorrectly in connection with it. DES (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

September 8

I'm afraid that I'm losing my patience with a fairly new but rather self-important user, who is usually civil but isn't apparently particularly enthused about working with other people and doesn't seem to be catching on to how Wikipedia works. For the latest example, see:

And from Tuesday:

Thoughts or opinions on the Bully Kutta page (to which he added a huge collection of links to individual external photos) or on his more-frequent strategy of reverting complete sets of edits, or on my responses, might be helpful. Because I'm completely immersed in the dog project world and have been for a year and a half and that's where he's making many edits, I keep encountering him, so he's hard to avoid. Thanks. Elf | Talk 00:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

September 10

User:Dragons flight is a sysop who evaluates WP:RM votes, and then, depending on the result of such vote, decides whether or not to do the technical stuff for moving the page (which in some cases even doesn't involve sysop powers). Today he wrote on talk:William the Silent:

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. I have decided to move this to William the Silent, even though I have some significant misgivings about how this vote was conducted. My count based on the above and comments below is 10-4, but if were to discount all the users whom Francis recruited from nl.wikipedia by leaving messages on their talk pages there, the count would be 4-4. However, none of those accounts on en seem to have been created solely for the purpose of this vote, and two actually have fairly substantial edit histories here. Given this, I have decided to allow their opinions to tip the balance towards moving, though I would regard this result as a very marginal consensus given these circumstances. I would strongly caution Francis against rounding up his friends in order to sway polls in the future, as I am unlikely to give much credence to such votes if I see this repeated. Dragons flight 06:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

This statement is highly POV, based on non-evidence:

  • The Fourth NoMove vote Dragons Flight included was that of Arrigo, the "expert" of going around on user talk pages to invite people to side with his vote - the fact that this user didn't do that for this vote, shows how much this makes a difference: less people sneering at those who defend a more reasonable approach of Exception #2 of wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles) - Arrigo has been criticised several times for disruptive behaviour in voting procedures, see: User_talk:Scimitar#Hi_Scimitar.2C - considering the possibility that Arrigo should've been included as a voter when he didn't vote seems all too ridiculous, so the vote is and was 10-3 and that should not be doubted with subjective rant;
  • The accusation that "Francis would've gone around on user talk pages of Dutch wikipedians recruiting for the William the Silent vote", and thus would have triggered at least 6 extra votes is self-invented POV. The only user talk page where it was mentioned was that of Errabee Känsterle, a regular contributor to English wikipedia, and I only had mentioned it sideways, when making him attentive of another minor problem at English wikipedia, which he should've solved, and indeed solved soon after.

Apart from these two there's still the implication in Dragons flight's comment that voting is something for an "in-crowd", completely contrary to general approach of avoiding conflict, which advises to seek outside expertise. In sum I'd ask Dragons flight to withdraw voluntarily from anything that has to do with sysop end-evaluations of votes, as he appears not to be able to do that in an impartial manner. --Francis Schonken 11:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Francis's vote gathering:
*Errabee: he admits. Corrected that above also, my last talk with Errabee was more than a week before the start of the vote --Francis Schonken 19:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Post on the NL Village Pump: [39]
I can't find direct posts for the others from NL (I actually can't find one of the identities either), but when you get a half dozen native NL speakers, some of whom rarely participate on EN, it is clear to me that their votes were recruited regardless of how it was accomplished.
Since, Francis disputes it, here is Arrigo's vote: [40]. The only issue there is that it was not placed in the "correct" section of the page, which is certainly not a reason to discount it.
I do see evidence that Arrigo (talk · contribs) has tried to gather votes in the past, but the message he left in the cases I most recently observe was neutral (i.e. not advocating an outcome) and he explicitly contacted a number of people who had just voted against him. I am not a fan of vote gathering in any case, but it is tolerable if one attempts to do so neutrally. If you have evidence in any particular vote that Arrigo is trying to shape the outcome through non-neutral vote gathering, please do call my attention to it. However, I stand by my conclusion that your efforts certainly were not neutral.
As to the "in-crowd" remark, of course it is not an "in-crowd", but the naming conventions and policy decisions on EN should be based on the consensus resulting from a fair sampling of the views of participants on EN. Your actions attempted to skew participation both by recruiting people who agreed with you and bringing in people who were otherwise unlikely to participate in an EN discussion. The fact that they came from NL wikipedia and had preexisting accounts here (though in several cases rarely used) only makes it a few steps better than the people who posts on "BigHunkOfCheese.com" that Wikipedia is about to delete the entry on "BigHunkOfCheese".
Oh, and unless someone should be confused, I did in fact move the page as Francis wanted.
I have no intention of recusing myself in this or related matters. Dragons flight 16:00, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
I posted on Dutch village pump, which is seeking outside expertise, general, not pushing any direction. I even explained that "William of Orange" was no longer a choice. Also, the message on Känsterle's page was not pushing in any direction w.r.t. the vote, just mentioning the vote was going on. Even re. Känsterle's I had no idea what way he would vote: he never took part in votes in which I participated, nor did I even see any vote in which he participated on Dutch or English wikipedia.
So Dragons flight only adds more unjustified incrimination about techniques of attracting voters.
As far as I know there were no other posts or whatever attempt to attract voters. Most of the other voters I don't know, so I don't even know which one "could" be connected with the post on Dutch Village pump. Anyway: "all the users whom Francis recruited from nl.wikipedia by leaving messages on their talk pages there" adding up to SIX votes according to Dragons flight's calculation was a lie, an unfounded surmise, that can not be proven while it's a hoax based on his own unjustified assumptions, so NOT IMPARTIAL, so Dragons flight should stop writing that kind of inflammatory vote count analyses, and is just not suited for that kind of job, since he even doesn't seem to think about correcting his lousy comments on the William the Silent talk page.
Arrigo was constantly falsifying the "fair sampling", while often rallying support as an anti-Francis message. I had no idea whether Dutch people would agree with me, while I'm not Dutch. There I belong to the small minority of wikipedians who has no root whatsoever in Holland. William the Silent does not belong to Belgium where I live, so the only thing I know is that Dutch wikipedians from the Netherlands that are also active on English wikipedia would have more expertise than I had.
And the result of the vote shows that the "regular" voters of WP:RM votes connected to royals, have few chances of knowing what they're talking about. They're just lowering the quality of wikipedia, see the "personal attacks" they listed as vote comments here and here. And then Dragons flight doesn't even omits the votes showing such insulting voting behaviour.
Dragons flight is just not suited for the job of "vote results interpreter". Period. I'd like other wikipedians to comment on that, maybe a request for comments is the most suited for that.
Dragons flight is the last one I would report Arrigo's disrupting behaviour to. That has been done elsewhere. To apparently less biased sysops. --Francis Schonken 19:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I would encourage you to open an RFC as Wikiquette Alerts is in fact not well suited to the current discussion. If in fact that is your intention, I will hold off commenting further while you do open such a discussion. Dragons flight 19:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd just like to say that I think Dragons flight has behaved perfectly correctly here. And that I quite dislike it when people gather votes from users of other wikipedias. that being said, Francis's complaint seems to be based on the premise that DF is behaving in a "POV" manner, which is unacceptable. But this is absurd. There is no rule against being POV on talk pages - POV is a policy which applies to article content, and nothing else. Dragons Flight is allowed to call it however he sees it, and the fact that he doesn't see it your way, Francis, does not mean that he is biased against you. (Obviously, the fact that DF actually moved the article suggests that he is not biased against your position.) john k 20:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Religious bigotry

An un-logged-in user using a variety of IP addresses has made repeated personal attacks and expressed general disdain for anything contributed by users with a religious background, or for material from sources with a religious background, and has displayed a general disregard for basic wikipedia etiquette. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icon#Answer , and surrounding comments. In editing the article, the user has repeatedly censored or reverted any changes that do not conform to his or her POV. See the edit history of Icon for the last month or so. 16:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

September 11

  • User:82.35.232.241 may be linkspamming. He has been adding links to the same website over and over again in several articles. From what I can tell, these are the only edits he makes. -- LGagnon 19:01, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I agree; I've gone through and removed some of them and placed a message on the user's talk page. I did leave some of the links in, in articles that had no external links or references anyway; they seemed more useful and less spammy in that context. ManekiNeko | Talk 22:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • User_talk:68.80.133.163, an unlogged-in user, is making numerous POV edits and is writing edit summaries which refer to Muslims and Arabs as Nazis (cf diff [41]) and include offensive falsehoods about Islam (cf diff [42]). Can some action be taken? 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like a full scale edit war going on at the article Kathleen Blanco. 00:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Will someone please check out the "conversation" at Talk:Fruit#Stupid Fruit Facts. An anon has been persisting in deleting a statement in the article Fruit he just does not like (will not correct it if wrong). When I advise him (on anon talk pages) that one cannot just delete facts that are true becuse of a POV, he has moved to attacking me. I did not enter the "offending" fact, and his responses seem increasingly irrational to me. His ISP is from somewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area, so his accusations that I am a typical Eurobashing, "racist" American are a real mystery (since he knows nothing about my sex, race, politics, or nationality). I finally blocked him after several warnings, but his/her responses to discussing why he/she cannot do what he/she wants seem way over the wall. I really am only trying to uphold the civility of our rules and could care less about carrot jam. Are these sorts of personal attacks permissible here? This one has gone on far too long - 00:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

September 15

September 16

  • An editor has been making changes without discusion to the "purpose of this page" section on WP:VFU, because he says he feels the page is out of line with undeltion policy. He has to date not entered into the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#"Purpose of the page" section. Making major changes to a policy page and restoring them after reverts and invitations to discuss without entering the discussion is inadvisable. 17:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

September 18

User:82.21.63.223 (contribs) has been removing content without explanation and reverting articles to very poorly copyedited states for about a week. See [59] for the negative difference being continually made by the user at Drill n bass. The user behaves similarly to User:62.252.32.13, and began editing the same spread of Aphex Twin-related articles (including Richard D. James Album, intelligent dance music, and Analord [60]) just as 62.252.32.13 went on hiatus. 18:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

September 19

  • User:JoeMele has been posting some personal attacks in Talk:Aspies_For_Freedom: accusing those who disagree of being analogous to Nazi collaborators, calling people busybody trolls and accusing them of being non-autistic and therefore having "no business speaking any thing like autism", and so on. People have generally been responding without losing their tempers so far, but it does have the potential of getting ugly. Thanks in advance for looking into this. 23:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
No one seems to have come by -- is there a better place than this page to post requests for help? 22:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
If you are looking to discuss someone's behavior, see WP:RFC. If you need someone to stop a vandal/troll or something like that, see WP:VIP or WP:AN/I. Dragons flight 23:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I posted something a while back and thought there was no response, but gradually it became apparent that someone(s) had read the post and were taking a look at things. I think that this is not for urgent needs. Elf | Talk 23:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
"Wikiquette alerts are an option for a quick, streamlined way to get an outside view" implies otherwise! It's a bit confusing. I did not know if WP:RFC was the right step yet, and wanted feedback from the more experienced. 00:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

September 21

User:211.26.48.32 has personally attacked User:Antaeus Feldspar and User:SimonP, both in the edit message and text. He went as far as to imply Antaeus will die. This is againts the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, but that policy doesn't say how to resolve it 'quickly which I think it needs. He's just been blocked for 24 hrs, but I'd like to block the Ip indefinitly. I'm just not sure if that is the way to go. 16:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

September 23

At Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Sin_Star_and_Mind_Pollution, it appears that User:Sin-thetik may be a sockpuppet for User:G4DGET in discussion of an undelete request on a band with two names (or two bands with the same personnel) - this was the second AfD on these bands. Also on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davien Crow (2nd nomination) - Mr/ Crow is a member of these bands. Besides Sin-thetik saying this -- quoted by cut and paste-- : Exactly what G4DGET said. in the discussion, I have found locations where both editors referred to "puppetts" with that identical misspelling 02:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

An anonimous user 128.206.59.97 is a vandal and must be prohibited from any further "contributions". --Barbatus 14:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

User 81.156.93.13 is linkspamming. -- LGagnon 17:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

September 23

User:JackSarfatti seems to have objections to his biography, Jack Sarfatti, which several editors revised a few days ago during a VfD. (Result of VfD was to keep the revised version of the article. In past few days, several anon editors with similar IP addies (machines owned by Pac Bell Internet Services) have

  1. blanked the biography
  2. vandalized the article in various other ways
  3. threatened editors with lawsuits on behalf of Jack Sarfatti

See talk page of the biography for evidence supporting our suspicion that these anons were Jack Sarfatti. Several of us have tried to engage Sarfatti is discussion about his concerns, but so far he has not responded other than by issuing threats. As I was about to confirm this edit, JS put the following unsigned comment in my user talk page:

I am warning all of you that you do not realize that you are all putting yourselves on a watch list as possible terrorists especially Chris Hillman who keeps replacing true facts with inacuracies smears and personal attacks.
How dare you all call me the "vandal" when I am your victim and you are the vandals? Talk about Orwellian double-think!
Chris Hillman (PhD in math from University of Washington it appears) refuses to stop vandalizing the information on me on Wiki with his own inaccuracies. He accuses me, his victim, of being the vandal. The Wiki Board must stop Hillman's vicious campaign of misinformation against me. Hillman is using shocking Nazi-like tactics systematically deleting positive factual information and replacing them with same false smears and personal attacks. Why Hillman keeps doing this needs investigation in the light of a concurrent hate-mail campaign against me accusing me of murder, with stories similar to the charges against Ira Einhorn, from unsigned letters sent from Springfield, MO on Sept 17,2005. I shall add Chris Hillman's name as a possible suspect in my impending complaint to the FBI and the US Postal Inspectors.

(Needless to say, I have no idea who Ira Einhorn is, and I have nothing to do with the alleged letters Sarfatti seems to be accusing me of writing.)

Help in persuading JS to observe basic Wikipedia behavioral standards would be appreciated. It might also be appropriate to protect the article until he decides to discuss it rather than simply vandalizing it.---CH (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Now he has vandalized my User:Hillman user page with this message

This is Jack Sarfatti. Stop your vandalism slandering me with your lies. For example you keep saying I got a PhD in 1967 from UCSD, I got a MS in 1967 from UCSD and a PhD in in 1969 from UCR. But more importantly you are not a physicist you are not even a real mathematician. If you continue to vandalize the information about me with your lies I will seek legal means and also contact your employer about your vicious libelous actions. You removed positive statments from famous physicists George Chapline & Leonard Susskind and restored your false libels. Unlike you I do not hide my e-mail sarfatti@pacbell.net My lawyer has been informed.

Can some admin please warn him not to vandalize pages in this way? TIA, ---CH (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

September 24

User:Satpersian is uploading images that have no relevence to Wikipedia. Could someone please check out this IFD page and take a look at Satpersian's uploads, and get an unbiased opinion as to why he's doing this? 22:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

September 25

Yet another vandal: 24.195.229.247. --Barbatus 18:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

September 26

A Wikiquette violation from August 12, 2005 on a user Talk page. See also the discussion on an article Talk page, later discussion here, and attempts at resolution here. 05:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The Martin J. O'Malley article is rife with POV contributions. My edits to remove some of the POV have been reverted, so there's not much I can do. Someone with authority needs to check the article out. (You'll find several outside "links" that are dead or nonexistent.)

September 27

Please see the edit revert war on Bloodsport (film) and its talk page. I'm runnin' out of reverts. 16:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yet another barbarian, with rather extensive list of 'contributions': 152.163.100.6. Last time, this ... creature deleted the whole article. --Barbatus 18:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

the Articles for deletion page on Philosophy2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy2 has been repeatedly vandalized by a user who is not signed in. 19:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • 149_Presentation has an unusual request to remain as an article for an "english project." I wasn't sure on Wikipedia's stance on something like this. 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

September 28

User 24.130.58.221 has vandalized two sites so far: Persian language and King James Version of the Bible. --jonsafari 05:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Clarence Darrow Anonymous IP keeps replacing entire page at Clarence Darrow with POV. 08:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

September 29

  • Another very active vandal: 166.66.202.80 (see his "contributions").
  • Abuse on User:Leonig Mig, repeatedly reverted after removal and now proteected by an admin who is in dispute with the abused user, elewhere. This edit shows that Leoning Mig is also a user of the IP Address used to post this anounymous abuse, about the same editor. It is in the same IP range as this anonymous abuse
  • Potential edit war starting at LASIK; see Talk:LASIK for details. Article was added on the Requests For Comment page and recieved no responses outside of the participating editors. Outside assistance is needed in making a decision on the article. 01:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


October 3

October 4

One editor is making repeated minor alterations to a cross-reference, claiming "I can do this all day, you know" Opinion is invited. 22:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

We need some level-headed Wikipedians to compare the reasonable, neautral encyclopedic former entry with a new entry that seems to be an essay in pressing a series of agendas about a "known" history of Joseph of Arimathea based on popular mythology.

October 5

The article isn't too pleasant, with near constant revert wars and vandalism and no shortage of apparent sock puppets. Some outside help would be nice to head this off at the pass before it gets to RfC. Thanks. 12:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

October 6

  • An anon user at IP 203.59.6.175 has been putting links to the Buddhist Society of Western Australia on tons of Buddhism-related article, neglecting the fact that the BSWA site doesn't have relevent information about many of the topics. As an example, a link was added from Abhidhamma, but a quick use of the search box at bswa.org turns up almost nothing relating to the Abhidhamma. 09:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • See Bektashi article, its discussion page, and recent versions upto three days. One editor deleted some part of some section, the one who inserted them thinks they should be kept, but the other editor cuts out the discussion. 22:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

October 11

  • User:Wbfl refuses to discuss his edits to Road and Pavement (material), despite being politely offered every chance to do so. He has now reverted three times, removing what seems a reasonable statement from the text. His responses to the comment on talk page has consisted of little more than insult, and his edit comments are full of the same. This is the sort of thing that really ticks me off, I just want to get on with something interesting - can someone take a look and sort this out? Graham 09:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Things are getting seriously out of hand in the spanish version of wikipedia, and there is a mass abuse of power. Some spaniards have become obsessed with "Gibraltar bashing" placing untrue and POV items on the Gibraltar page. There are many spaniards in WP, but not many Gibraltarians, so I am fighting a losing battle. There are many abusing their power as sysops, and banning me from correcting their lies, or coming up with a "consensus" that has nothing to do with truth or neutrality. Could someone please look into this issue, and assure objectivity and fairness in future? Many Thanks --Gibraltarian 22:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

October 12

Things are also seriously out of hand on Neuro-linguistic Programming. We really need assistance there to restore "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks". 11:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

On the WP edit template, there is a direct request made to editors: if you don't want others to edit what you write, don't submit it. Unfortunately I've found there are many Wikipedians who refuse to honour that request, angrily reverting even the most minor clarifying edits to "their" pages. Some Chinese editors are particularly nasty, accusing all who clarify articles on China of vandalism (the "use the sandbox" message). It's reached the point where I'm off to more productive work than WP - I'm just not into edit wars with doctrinaire and possessive people. Unless you can find a way of handling people with high revert counts, I'm certain you will lose other qualified editors too. JohnSankey 13:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


October 13

There is currently an edit war heating up at Wikipedia:Manual of Style; an anon. user continues to reinsert text regarding the German 'ezrett' character w/o apparent consensus. I don't feel qualified to jump in, but I do feel that the MoS is not a good place for an edit war, so I'm hoping a more qualified editor will have a look. 16:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Administrator Fire Star is deliberately getting involved in edit wars and then threatening those involved with banning. This is obviously conduct unbecoming of an administrator. 24.250.136.236 22:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You were warned against reverting more than three times. Since I edited the article, I wouldn't have banned you, I'd have reported you on the 3RR noticeboard and someone else would have blocked you for 24 hrs. I will ban you permanently if you make any more threats like you did on User talk:12.18.108.242, specifically, this: [61]. That is conduct that will not be tolerated here. --Fire Star 22:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Tsk, tsk getting a little antsy are we, Mr. Fire Star? It is clear I was just joking around with what's his face, but who was the only other person editing that article. Hmmm ... you? For me to have reverted 3 times (which I did not do) would have meant you would have had to have reverted 3 times. But the rules don't apply to you do they? Maybe I should link to what you wrote me on my user page and on the page we were arguing over. 24.250.136.236 22:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
No, actually, it isn't clear that you were joking at all. Especially given your short, yet disruptive, edit history. Other users don't "joke" like that more than once here, either.
My job is to clean up after vandals and to warn new users when they start to look like they are headed in that direction. You don't want to be considered a vandal, do you? You did not revert more than three times, so I did not report you, it is that simple. If you look at the article's edit history, you'll see that there was a reversion back to my version by User:81.109.122.94 when they tagged the article for speedy deletion, a reversion that put me one ahead of you. FYI, that is a function of how consensus works to stabilise article disputes. My other edits were edits of the npov version, not reversions of your opinionated offering. That is evidence that despite your perception of how I am working with you, I do indeed apply the rules to myself when I need to. If I ever don't, for whatever reason, there are plenty of other knowledgeable and courteous users here who I'm sure would gently remind me of the oversight. --Fire Star 01:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

October 15

User:Harprit, also known under various socks and anonIPs (see User:Sukh/Revert War Evidence) has repeatedly vandalized my userpage and is now following me about reverting all my edits. He has also threatened me, albeit indirectly and completely ineffectually -- "Why don't you come down to Bombay so we can show you how to really play Holi. Then you will understand that you shouldn't write about something you don't know." This is wearing me down. Do I have any recourse? Zora 07:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Heptor is making what I consider bad faith reverts of the Six-Day War article after I've spent weeks researching appropriate scholarly sources. I can't see the point in trying to improve the article any more. Is there a solution? --Ian Pitchford 17:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:WivesMuhammad - revert war has been raging for two months due to a content dispute. Attempts to use page protection and reach consensus or compromise have repeatedly failed. 07:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

October 17

We are having disputes on the vegetarian pages as to what constitutes the definition of the word. Whether to use the definition as it applies to Britain and the US or worldwide. While discussion is going on, edits are being made that is further aggravating the issue. --Pranathi 16:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous user has removed speedy delete tags no fewer than three times on Secret Secret Page. They keep replacing the text with a message to "Wikipedia admins" that the page is "currently being edited." Al 16:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. It got speedied. Al 16:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Dhul-Qarnayn - Extremely controversial Islamic topic. Large group of apologetic POV pushers are making unexplained edits, deleting vast amounts of content and refusing to explain their edits. A certain user started a version fork of the article on her User pages and certain apologists have taken this opportunity to start a revert war dedicated to replacing the article with the version fork, without adequate discussion. Mediation, comments, or participation in editing is strongly requested. 01:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

October 20

User:ThomasK is persistently blanking the Talk:Michelle Forbes page, which contains exactly one comment. When questioned about it on his own talk page he reverts the question, and does not respond. 08:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Page CS 5555 was created a little while ago. According to the content, it is a class assignment given to a student specifically to create a page on Wikipedia. It does not contain any encyclopedic content. Presumably there will be other articles created from other students in the same class. Can someone head this off at the pass? 12:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

October 23

User:TDC is reverting frequently other users contributions without proper motivation. Questions on his talk page are regularly ignored. If he motivates his reverts his comments are often provoking and abrasive. He is not neutral in his revert-policy but is pushing his point of view. 09:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

User:82.47.148.236 is purging factual infomration from British Sea Power, claiming some is "not important" and including a very abusive edit summary. Andy Mabbett 11:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing, despite evidence cited, by several editors, to support the material he's removing. 15:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Andy Mabbett - Continuous instigations in an attempt to create an environment of argumentive attention and confusion, to make editors screw up then laying the blame on them with, revert wars, stalking of edits, uncivil snide edit comments, and user has been blocked on multiple occasions. User seems more concerned to cause above examples than be civil. Example is his user page and pending disputed behavior/ RFC. 15:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

October 24

User:M1ss1ontomars2k4, otherwise apparently responsible (but not a newbie either), is repeatedly inserting a sentence into the lead paragraph of Drosophila melanogaster. The point appears to be to push, as a joke, a certain alleged nickname for the species and/or a mention of "AP biology" instruction at what is presumably his U.S. high school. 13:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

William M. Connolley reverted the article of the lomborg whitout any explanation or any note in the talk pages[62]. This constitutes a violation of his parole[63]. I expect that the appropriate action is taken.--MichaelSirks 19:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This edit 19:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

October 25

User:Adraeus continuously refers to civil comments directed to him as "vandalism," and "harrassment" and the people posting them as "trolls." This has gotten him banned from Wikipedia for one month in the past, but has not helped him come to terms with the problem. Here is an example of a civil comment to his talk page made by me, which was deleted, the edit summary claiming it constituted harrassment. There are examples of where he has done the same to other users.

In the particular conflict between me and him which led up to this, I have myself behaved badly. I was tremendously annoyed by his behavior, and said inappropriate things. I will accept any form of punishment that may result because of this. Please continue this discussion on my talk page. I cannot post to Adraeus talk page without him deleting my entries. Miai 17:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner is making personal attacks and generally behaving with incivility on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Webcomics/Notability_and_inclusion_guidelines. He's been asked politely by other editors to stop the incivility but he just seems to be getting more obnoxious and hostile, becoming more and more profane and posting links to blog discussions with comments about how people on wikipedia make him "really feel" "like killing." This has turned what had been a safe, productive conversation into one that is threatening and uncomfortable for other participants. Is there something that can be done about this ? 09:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

October 28

User:Nick Boulevard - Hostile talk page comments. 19:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This is hostile? Leonig Mig 10:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

October 30

Phish / Talk:Phish - anonymous editors repeatedly reverting cleanup attempts when a previous topic RFC produced a clear consensus to do so. 21:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

November 1

User:24.88.252.207 - continues to re-add the comment

"The company is particularly noted for its low level of customer service, among the worst in the cable industry, and for employing criminals. Several senior Charter executives received felony fraud convictions in 2003."

or derivations thereof to Charter Communications. A few users that watch this page continue to either revert the statements or delete the statements. The user has only targeted this page, as viewed on User:24.88.252.207 Contributions the article has been growing slowly but steadily over the last few weeks, despite these statements. 01:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

November 2

At John_Kerry#First_Purple_Heart there is a year long edit war over the word 'minor' being used to describe Kerry's wound. User:Rex071404 is pitted against User:Gamaliel and User:JamesMLane. User:Dubhdara tried to add this sentence: "Kerry's detractors consider this wound "minor" while other people don't." But, that doesn't seem to placate either side in the dispute. 18:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

November 4

Please see Casa Zimbabwe and the associated talk-page regarding a current edit/revert war, please see page history. Calton is an ex-member of a rival Co-op, I don't believe that Calton is editing constructively. Rather than making concret suggestions, he reverts the page to a very *early* version. He even removes the house flag image. Thanks Joachimp 03:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

November 5

NSR, an experienced and well-respected editor, today appears to have used an automated procedure to create identical new stub articles for every single village in Gloucestershire. Is this a good thing to do? Wikipedia has notability requirements for persons, rock bands, etc.; does it have (or need) any comparable criteria for geographical places? IslandGyrl 17:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It was for a long time a common complaint that somehow there must be limits to what Wikipedia can hold, and therefore any move towards really trying to cover all of some paticular category (highschools, grammer schools, villages) must be a bad thing and someone needs to set up "importance" criteria. In fact, putting all the villages of Gloucestershire is still far short of putting every village in the world in (therefore, theworry is premature), and it is near impossible and kind of against the philosophy of Wikipedia to say which villages will have merit and which will not. Fact is, if push comes to shove, some village articles that seem to not move beyond a real short stub might get combined by the next Gloustershirerer. Obviously there are topics the expansion into which could produce a lot of pretty useless articles for Wikipedia ("Parts List for a 1935 Ford", for example). But all such entries can only be handled on a case by case basis. I do not think places on the planet rise quite to that level of insignificance, so I would support articles on each village of Gloucestershire or anywhere else for that matter - Marshman 18:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

November 7

A simple edit war over on Vodcast. An annoymous user is repeatedly removing external links to other vodcast directories, breaking the "3 reversions a day" rule. This has been mentioned in the discussion section but ignored. Either any directory is allowed to be mentioned or all are removed. As it is, I don't feel this behavior benefits Wikipedia users. Please help! 10:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Marshman - you're my hero! Things at Vodcast seemed to have settled down now so you can take off the cape and mask. Thank you, until next time... 00:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure they did. I blocked the jerk for 48 hours. Buit he might be back shortly. If so, we will extend the ban - Marshman

Tales From Topographic Oceans- See discussion on Talk:Tales From Topographic Oceans. Anon user has expanded article into a 'critical essay' with lots of personal opinions, etc. Needs third party view/input/severe editing and cleanup, possibly user needs clarification re. NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. 21:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies, this isn't an anon editor but user:thoss, who I assume is the previous anon contributor now signed in. Could still do with a third party look-over though... quercus robur 22:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This anonymous user has seen his or her recent additions to the Natalee Holloway article reverted three times for pushing a POV and not providing citations for disputed claims. A third party could help keep the article neutral. 00:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Two users, both anonymous, have been reverting each others' edits to sections of Greek reconstructionism for months. A heated talk page discussion full of personal attacks appears to have accomplished nothing in the way of compromise. "Assume good faith" doesn't seem to be the philosophy of the day. 00:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

November 11

HappyApple dropped by to leave a POV warning on the article I'm working on, the Cenepa War. The problem is that he doesn't seem to be too enthusiastic to talk about it. Also, the reasons he brought forward explaining the notice do not look like justifying an POV warning. Perhaps a notice of expansion would be more adequate? Thanks. 18:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

November 12

User:Cunado19 has been reverting and excising text on the Bahá'í Faith and Science page that don't conform to his POV on the matter of "Life on other planets." A great deal of discussion has occured on the talk page addressing his points in detail to no avail. He's removed text that has sought middle ground, and called edits contrary to his opinion a revert war. In my opinion the last, clean version is: 05:38 6 November 2005.

Another example of the subject user's tone may be found here: User_talk:Jeffmichaud

I'm requesting assistance. MARussellPESE 19:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

November 13

User:Jooler refuses to abide by the "football (soccer)" compromise on Current sports events. See Talk:Current sports events. -- 13:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

November 14

  • I would like to get an opinion about whether or not User:Molobo's behaviour on Talk:Zygmunt Bauman (wholesale deletion of replies that he alleges contain "personal attacks" without any indication - see this and subsequent edits) is considered acceptable practice? Thanks. 18:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

November 15

November 17

  • User:Duncharris has launched some personal attacks in the deletion discussion thread for the Jason Gastrich entry. His latest reads, "Jason, you are known liar. Did you perchance, get that job with your "degree" from Louisiana Baptist University? Do you think your bosses should know about this?" Here is another: "If anyone's ever come across this guy on Usenet you'll know he's a complete nutjob" 11:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


  • After a rash of uncivil behaviour and personal attacks on WP:TFD by User:Jtdirl (behaviour hugely unbecoming of an administrator, I might add) and User:Boothy443, my attempt at communicating the point that they have misunderstood the purpose of templates resulted in being branded with the D-word, as well as "anti-Irish" (as if that was ever a bad thing ... *ahem*), and being passively insulted in Irish (my rather poor guess being that amadáin ufuasach translates roughly to flaming idiots), and then my comment was removed entirely without response. Note that he explains his TfD votes "keep or recreate" to mean that were a given template deleted, it would be recreated, thus ignoring the result of a consensus discussion (making it difficult to AGF, since there doesn't appear to be any). Far enough for (another) RfC? Chris talk back 20:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

November 19

Is it proper to report, on all User pages the presence of a potentially fatal malfunction, such as the recent HTML Tidy malfunction, which made a mess of Wikipedia, and had taken this site down ?Martial Law 07:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

November 23

User uses threat of revert on British Sea Power if he doesn't get his own way elsewhere.

Sigh. For more information on the unsigned contributor above, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing. He's basically a POV Troll. Karmafist 15:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

November 24

Lyrebird. Dispute brewing over issue of inclusion vs. noninclusion of unsourced folklore. Guidance sought.

Evangelicalism. Dispute over the use of the term progressive in section on Evangelical politics in the United States. Original wording added on 7/26/05 was "The mass-appeal of the Christian right in the so-called red states, and its success in rallying resistance to progressive social agendas, is sometimes characterized by an otherwise unwilling, and secular, society as an attempt to impose theocracy on the country. " One user 129.252.127.142 changed the term progressive to leftist. I objected and reverted to the original wording. Codex Sinaiticus has weighed in and been fairly rude in his characterizations. I have asked several times that he refer to the articles on progressivism or Progressive Christianity. He and others simply change the term to leftist, liberal and now the very vague term 'certain' without discussion of the philosophy. While I understand the concept of works being edited, none of the revisions (OK possibly liberal) capture the socio/religious/political counter point to conservative evangelicals being discussed in the article. Is the term progressive too POV for use? Does it violate NPOV or is it rather a descriptive term which is possibly misunderstood? I'm stuck. Any ideas? Robbie Giles 04:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

November 25

Timeline of Motorized bicycle history: User nominating article for deletion believe the creator has a point to prove. The delete nomination was right away (as soon as the article was created) contrary to WP:RFC: "the first resort should always be to discuss the problem with the other user. Try to resolve the dispute on your own first." Debate also concerns the relevance of facts being submited (inclusion vs. noninclusion) and the idea of duplicating information from a timeline within the article motorized bicycle. Discussions are escallating from mediocre wikietiquette to bad. References:

21:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)~

November 28

  • [64]. User:Deeceevoice (who I would emphasise is otherwise a valued contributor to Wikipedia) is asked to respect Civility and No personal attacks policies. She obviously is not convinced, with hostile responses like, "Ha! Get a life, no-name", "pathetic", "Do you really think I give a flying ****? Some friendly advice: don't waste your time", "Oh, puh-leeze. Be my guest. Don't bother to respond. I'm bored with this -- and you're cluttering my talk page" and "Deleted annoying clutter from MY talk page". 12:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
This has now escalated into an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deeceevoice. — Matt Crypto 20:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

November 30

Scott Ritter Possibly controversial page, possible POV issues, poor structure and unclear writing. 05:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

December 5

Several articles on nations and ethnicities (e.g. Germans, Danish people etc.) started to included a detailed list of people living outside of their country of origin. This is becoming a problem due to diverging agendas, disagreements on how to obtain these numbers and which ones are less biased or correct. Nationalist sentiments are present and emotions are running high. Nobody has questioned the benefit of these numbers to Wikipedia given their controversial nature until now. It might be good to determine what population (if any) numbers these articles should contain and find a standard way of obtaining them. 16:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

December 7

Asian fetish and its talk page have several people from ModelMinority.com who have stated what sounds like a POV-pushing agenda. They are attempting to get rid of published sources on the page, saying that they are too "western" to be credible. [65] Further, User:SillyAlgebraist has been making numerous personal attacks [66] on one of the users involved, whose response mentioned possibly starting an RfC against SillyAlgebraist. [67] --04:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Two editors have been having a revert was on KTVX regarding a paragraph talking about a "cencorship" incident by the TV station. Numerous attempts to talk to the two editors involved on Talk:KTVX have failed and they are still going at it after 60+ edits over 5 days. It started off as should the paragraph be included, to what seems to now be a religous debate including elements of a pro wreastling past on the parts of the two editors involved. 07:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


An unabashedly bold edit on a contentious but obscure article on a disputed confession is being reverted to a very long and messy earlier version which may contain original research and POV in the form of long lists of arguments and opinions. If you have the time to do a read (it is actually a fairly interesting subject) can you please compare the two flip-flopping versions and either edit as you see fit, or at least offer your thoughts re: which is more "Wiki" on the article's talk page? 15:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


An article about author Robert Spencer is having trouble establishing an NPOV, with one group of contributors disagreeing with the other about how much "rebuttal" remarks should be made in the criticism section. If you have time, please take a look at the recent edits and the discussion on its talk page to provide some outside perspective. Would love perspective on how to balance the POVs presented by each side. 07 Dec 2005

December 8

The Arabic Numerals page and its wikiquette-abiding editors are currently suffering the destructive and disruptive effects of a revert and edit war against them by individuals with manifest and strong anti-Arab biases who despite repeated requests refuse to abide by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia: Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please see Talk:Arabic_numerals for details. csssclll 13:53, 8 December 2005.

  • There is an additional page where stuff has branched out into, Talk:History_of_Indian_and_Arabic_numerals. I can feel the fustration csssclll feels because the other editors do not seem interested in addressing the academic & factual points brought up by csssclll. As far as I can see, they have been sidestepping the issues csssclll raises and make unsubstantiated statements that he is trying to vandalize the page. I do not have the full picture but it seems like csssclll has valid points, especially since he cites peer-reviewed academic sources when he made his changes that the other editors rejected. -Frogular 03:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I thoroughly checked his references. He picks up a line or two completely out of context to emphasize his POV, and ignores everything else that goes against it. So, for example, if ten references of ten lines each have one line about Arab contribution, he'll pick that one line from each of those references and make a ten line article showing how the Arabs were mainly responsible for the numerals, ignoring the other 90 lines of reference that point strongly to Indian contributions. Then he would properly reference those ten lines, saying that his POV is supported by all kinds of imminent people. This kind of bias must be removed. deeptrivia (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Deeptrivia, this is typical of your replies, evasive and false, and I would like to make clear to the neutral reader that Deeptrivia is an active participant in the revert and edit war on that page and one whom I have repeatedly tried to reason with without much result. You say "for example", why aren't you citing specific examples?! You should have plenty if your claim is true and you "thoroughly checked". I have gone now over your version over three times and each I took it apart and criticised it point by point and cited verifiable and reliable sources for every little issue, why aren't you guys doing the same? Why don't you back up your version with sources for every claim made, and acceptable sources at that? Wikipedia policies demand it, especially in a dispute situation like this. Why don't you just critique my version on a point-by-point basis like I did to yours?! I wish you guys would do that, then we'd have a reasonable and Wikipedia-abiding way to work together instead of this nonsense you guys are doing. And above all, why are you editing Arabic numerals?! I have made it clear to you guys with strong Hindu nationalist biases that this page should focus on Arabic numerals, it should point out that they are derived from Indian numerals but nonetheless focus on its topic, namely, Arabic numerals, not unproven "weren't the Hindus great!" claims, and that every point should be based on verifiable evidence in the scientific literature. I have suggested to you many times that the Indian numerals page is in quite an impoverished state and would benefit from your motivation if only you'd care enough to abide by wikipedia policies and cite reliable sources. csssclll(20:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC))


  • Okay, I'll give one example, which I hope should be sufficient for the discerning audience here. You cited this reference. This reference says:
The scene now moves to India where it is fair to say the numerals and number system was born which have evolved into the highly sophisticated ones we use today. Of course that is not to say that the Indian system did not owe something to earlier systems and many historians of mathematics believe that the Indian use of zero evolved from its use by Greek astronomers. As well as some historians who seem to want to play down the contribution of the Indians in a most unreasonable way, there are also those who make claims about the Indian invention of zero which seem to go far too far. For example Mukherjee in [6] claims:-
"... the mathematical conception of zero ... was also present in the spiritual form from 17 000 years back in India."
What is certain is that by around 650AD the use of zero as a number came into Indian mathematics. The Indians also used a place-value system and zero was used to denote an empty place. In fact there is evidence of an empty place holder in positional numbers from as early as 200AD in India but some historians dismiss these as later forgeries. Let us examine this latter use first since it continues the development described above.
Then it talks about the fact that even while there are "historians who seem to want to play down the contribution of the Indians in a most unreasonable way", the latest date of use of zero in India, agreed by *all* historians is the inscription from the year 876.

After this one line, the article describes in detail Brahmagupta's (598-668) rules regarding the use of zero:

Brahmagupta attempted to give the rules for arithmetic involving zero and negative numbers in the seventh century. He explained that given a number then if you subtract it from itself you obtain zero. He gave the following rules for addition which involve zero:-
  • The sum of zero and a negative number is negative, the sum of a positive number and zero is positive, the sum of zero and zero is zero.
Subtraction is a little harder:
  • A negative number subtracted from zero is positive, a positive number subtracted from zero is negative, zero subtracted from a negative number is negative, zero subtracted from a positive number is positive, zero subtracted from zero is zero.
Brahmagupta then says that any number when multiplied by zero is zero but struggles when it comes to division:-
  • A positive or negative number when divided by zero is a fraction with the zero as denominator. Zero divided by a negative or positive number is either zero or is expressed as a fraction with zero as numerator and the finite quantity as denominator. Zero divided by zero is zero.
Really Brahmagupta is saying very little when he suggests that n divided by zero is n/0. Clearly he is struggling here. He is certainly wrong when he then claims that zero divided by zero is zero. However it is a brilliant attempt from the first person that we know who tried to extend arithmetic to negative numbers and zero.
From this article, you chose to conclude that[68]: "There is *no* evidence accepted by the scientific community of the use of zero as a number in India before the 9th century (Gwalior tablet, 876, see below), and that's quite late, and comes a century and a half after the Arabs conquered the Indus Delta region in 711, (and long before that Alexander invaded India), in fact, more than half a century after Al-Khwarizmi wrote his "earth-shattering" treatise, 825, in which he was aware of zero."


AT LAST! Here you are discussing things on a point-by-point basis like I had been requesting for quite some time now! What took you so long?! And more importantly, why haven't you been doing this in the relevant talk pages rather than just now here?! And why are you citing the talk page instead of the article itself, which should be a better measure of my current "conclusion", though I had made it clear that the article is a work in progress, and scientific consensus should be given priority of first attention over the disputable?! And why didn't you reply to that point when I made it then on a point-by-point basis?! My statement above is correct, but anyhow, why didn't you quote what I was objecting to, and then my objection in full detail?! Why are you evidently guilty of what you falsely accuse me of, quoting out of context; why don't you quote this... that in response to your version's claim "The first inscriptions using 0 in India have been traced to approximately 200 CE." I commented "Why don't you cite reliable sources?! Here, I'll cite some: According to Professor EF Robertson and DR JJ O'Connor, "The first record of the Indian use of zero which is dated and agreed by all to be genuine was written in 876" on the Gwalior tablet stone[69]. This is also verified by Professor Lam Lay Yong, an an Effective Member of the International Academy of the History of Science "the earliest appearance in India of a symbol for zero in the Hindu-Arabic numeral system is found in an inscription at Gwalior which is dated 870 AD". [70] According to Menninger (p. 400): "This long journey begins with the Indian inscription which contains the earliest true zero known thus far (Fig. 226). This famous text, inscribed on the wall of a small temple in the vicinity of Gvalior (near Lashkar in Central India) first gives the date 933 (A.D. 870 in our reckoning) in words and in Brahmi numerals. Then it goes on to list four gifts to a temple, including a tract of land "270 royal hastas long and 187 wide, for a flower-garden." Here, in the number 270 the zero first appears as a small circle (fourth line in the Figure); in the twentieth line of the inscription it appears once more in the expression "50 wreaths of flowers" which the gardeners promise to give in perpetuity to honor the divinity." The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "Hindu literature gives evidence that the zero may have been known before the birth of Christ, but no inscription has been found with such a symbol before the 9th century."[71] I'll accept mention prior to the Gwalior tablet, in fact, the article needs it and I'm planning on doing it once I'm no longer distracted by your nonsense, but such mention must be well-phrased so as not to mislead and contradict scientific consensus, and the phrasing must be limited to the exact intent of verifiable and reliable sources."" I have made it clear that "The article, and good writing in general, should give early prominence to what's factual, verifiable, and consensual, and defer what's debatable opinion till later on and balance it with with opinions counter to it in the debate." Talk:History_of_Indian_and_Arabic_numerals#Vertaloni.2C_examples_of_errors_in_your_version Talk:History_of_Indian_and_Arabic_numerals#Regarding_the_Charles_Seife_quote csssclll (23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

I hope that now since all editors have reached a consensus on the article, and have tried to explain you in clearest possible words the difference between numeral symbols and numeral system, you would play a more constructive role. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you lying again here? yes, lying! As you had been doing for quite some time now and as I have pointed out. The dictionary defines a lie as "1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression." First of all, "all editors have reached a consensus on the article" is a demonstrable false statement that you should know is not true and that we're having this exchange here is evidence enough that it isn't, nevermind others. Second, here's your other BIG lie, you say others "have tried to explain you in clearest possible words the difference between numeral symbols and numeral system", Oh really? why don't you tell everyone here that it is I who made the clearest distinction and as far as I remember and see on the page I was the first to make it between numeral symbols and numeral system, and you should know because you have been around. I clearly distinguished in my first post between the Arabic Numerals (1, 2, 3, 4...) and the Hindu-Arabic Numeral system in a paraphragh that begins with "- For a start," Talk:History_of_Indian_and_Arabic_numerals#RFC_2 and you should especially know, not just because youhave been around, but also because what you quoted above happens to be just the paragraph under it! And again I made the distinction in "the clearest possible words" when I proposed here, as my first(!) point in an suggested outline, Talk:History_of_Indian_and_Arabic_numerals#Suggested_outline.2C_please_consider_and_discuss "differentiate a specific numeral script (eg, Arabic Western, Arabic Eastern, Devanagari) from the numeral system (ie, Indian-Arabic, which includes many numerals scripts), the rest of the article should maintain this, it should also keep in mind what the readers may have searched for when looking up this article and cater for those needs (eg, is the reader looking up the Arabic Western numerals script or the Indian-Arabic Numeral system?)", and then again zocky, who prefers my version and is against yours, made the same disctinction Talk:History_of_Indian_and_Arabic_numerals#What_this_page_is_about. The dictionary defines a liar as "One that tells lies" and "a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly", if you want me to stop calling pointing out your lies stop lying! csssclll (23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC))



69.157.xx.xx repeatedly re-adds external links/ads to "VAT (Value Added Tax) Refund Specialists - INSATAX" (www.insatax.com) to the Value Added Tax and VAT (disambiguation) pages, in violation of the Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine policy. 22:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

December 11

Don't know if this is the place to suggest this, but could User:206.130.23.67 be banned. S/he persistently vandalises pages and has never made a worthwhile contribution.22:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

14:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC) Edit war in Communism, user violates 3 reversion rule, user removes "disputed" tags, user does not provide verifiable sources for edits.

December 12

  • 12:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Dispute between two editors on Grass jelly about whether and where a Cantonese translation of a Chinese food is appropriate. Three edit rule violated. See Talk:Grass jelly for my attempt at a resolution, which appears to have been rejected. Similar dispute on Chinese sausage and possibly other pages.
  • 17:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Anonymous user 65.114.180.34 has been adding advertising links to many programming-related pages. The IP address 65.114.180.34 appears to belong to the company in question, and should perhaps be banned.

December 13

  • 10:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Anonymous user 86.128.31.164 has been reverting an image that is illegal in some jurisdictions (and should not be in wikipedia) in the lolicon article. See the talk page & images for deletion page.

December 15

  • 09:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Xino has a history of calling other editors "fools" in his edit summaries. Most recent example: 18:31, December 13, 2005. I've tried pointing him to WP:BITE and WP:NPA, but I don't think he understands. Or maybe I'm overreacting.

December 16

  • patrickw 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC) I am currently having a dispute with [72]] EncephalonSeven aka Primate1 also perhaps known as Mikhail_Lebedev about what I see as vanity edits on a number of pages; for instance Neural correlate and Consciousness. In which the author is apparently adding links to himself and citations of his paper whereever possible. The paper in question has only been cited twice in the last four years (and then only by the author) so it can hardly be seen as a classic publication in the field and worthy of being listed as a key reference in a wikipedia entry. The author has edited a large number of entries in this manner and has generated some new entries which seem largely biased towards his own work. I would appreciate any advice on how to deal with this.
All the paragraphs in Neural correlate and Consciousness that patrickw complained about have been revised. The reference to the paper in question that is a review article published in a fairly new journal has been deleted by patrickw. In my opinion, it may be used as a good source of information on the topic. The review is not biased in any way, and its deletion because it has not been cited enough (is there such a rule in wikipedia?) does not seem like a good idea. Let the reader decide what is important and what is not. As far as "classical publications in the field", certainly much more will be needed. I would recommend adding references to Millner, Goodale, Logotheis, Bradley, Schall. Also, references to human fMRI studies would be worth adding. Articles initiated or edited by EncephalonSeven or Primate1 are in a reasonable shape. They have undergone multiple edits by different participants. Any volunteer-editor can modify them any way he/she likes, so the problem of bias is bogus. My disagreement with the method of deletion adopted by patrickw is that he puts too much emphasis on his speculation about the authors' intent. Using the consciousness analogy, it is very difficult to read the content of an author's mind, and this is not really important in the case of wikipedia articles. What matters is that information provided is correct, covers an important topic and may be useful to the reader.
patrickw 15:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Editing a passage to only add your own publications is a vanity edit. To state that this is not the case because people can later edit such changes is first to deny the possiblity of a vanity edit, and second not sincere since you then immediately complain about people doing this.
The objection to the deletion is that it was based on personal opinion about importance of a particular reference. I've seen references that I myself considered unimportant on other pages, but I never deleted them. In one case it was a group of references that were very remotely related to the topic. Instead of deleteting these references, I restructured the reference list by as groups of references about some specific issues. This way the reader could find what he/she needed with minimum distructions. I would say, use deletion as the last resort. It is very unlikely that we will reach consensus about "vanity edits" in scientific publications. I think that only people with ambitions can achieve anything in science — including writing good wikipedia articles (I would speculate that you yourself have certain ambitions in this respect, and I commend you for that). In my opinion, someone pointing to his own work is much more efficient, quick and valueable than revisions by a person with encyclopedic knowledge (one cannot know everything) or even worse a non-expert who is rewriting paragraphs from a textbook. However, all kind of opinions are of value — including your ethical considerations. I think the articles in question have improved as the result of our discussion, and this is the eventual goal. Thanks for your input. --EncephalonSeven 17:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

December 17

I'm sorry and I apologise if you found this offensive. I know many Iranians, and they constantly complain angrily about Arabs claiming Persian contributions as their own, and I thought this was a perfect example of that. Apart from trying to keep the article accurate I don't have much to do with the Arab/Persian problem here. Also, we know that it is Astriolok who consistently keeps reverting the version to his own, and since I am the one who's doing the talking, probably you consider me as responsible for everything that's going on. I know it might be offensive to say Iranians will be disgusted, or will consider it an insult, but I said it quite innocently, since that's what I see happening everyday. As for your content being verifiable and encyclopedic I encourage everyone to go through all our previous discussions on this. Thanks, and I still hope we can resolve any differences we have, if any at all. deeptrivia (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Deeptrivia, don't act so innocent. The offensiveness of your editing summaries above is clear and unambiguous, made twice not once. Your strong and distorting bias has been consistent and unrelenting; the page edits and talk pages are filled with my attempts to reason with you. Remember your editing summary "2 December 2005 Deeptrivia (atleast on wikipedia, we can remove the "Arabic" POV)"? to which I replied "3 December 2005 Csssclll (It's not about "Arabic" POV or Indian one, it's about scientific evidence. I don't care about your POV, where's your scientific evidence?! Provide that and we'll have something.)"? You have been averse to and evasive towards scientific evidence that contradicts your unreasonable bias, and you were under no obligation to cite your "Aryan" friends as a determining factor for whether Al-Khwarizmi was Arab or not! user:csssclll:csssclll (15:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

Note: See also: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_8 deeptrivia (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Article created and promoted by subjects of article
Paragraph relocated for refinement21:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

December 18

  • Somebody has defaced the William Wallace entry. I don't know how to revert to a previous version of the page, but somebody who does, could you please change it back.
Fixed! Antandrus (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)



December 20

December 21

December 23

  • Talk:Sonic Rush - Edit war concerning a comment at the top of the page, which keeps getting removed and then put back up in a revert. Both sides apparently view the other's actions as vandalism (as evident in edit summaries). Has also carried over to here and here. The person who wrote the comment in the first place is uninvolved, although one of the parties has tried to get him involved, claiming that his comment will "get him banned" on grammar alone.
The comment is question was in Leet, every attempt to correct this abomination to the English language was edited back to the original.

December 27

  • See Michel Thomas and associated discussion page.
  • I'm a Los Angeles Times reporter trying to present a NPOV regarding the disputed World War II claims of Michel Thomas. Someone keeps deleting information challenging Thomas' claims from the main article and adding false attacks on the Los Angeles Times and me. I have posted information regarding Thomas on the related discussion page under the heading "The Myth of Michel Thomas." --Rivenburg 20:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Arab-Israeli War - Does Wikipedia have any mechanism at all for making sure that editors cite reliable sources? As far as I can see it's possible to add a blatantly racist unsourced claim to an article and then block its removal. --Ian Pitchford 18:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Palestinian exodus - Does Wikipedia have any mechanism at all for ensuring that articles cannot be gutted of relevant sourced material? As far as I can see it's easy to wreck or disrupt an article using Wikipedia procedures as an aid. --Ian Pitchford 18:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There has been an edit war going on in Stuyvesant High School for the past few days. Anonymous users keeps on breaking wikipedia style with his edits (bolding entire paragraphs, inserting editorial comments like "verify this" inside main text instead of talk, doing reverts instead of cooperative editing). --BenjaminTsai Talk 23:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

December 30

  • User:Witzel has been repeatedly removing criticizing edits in Michael Witzel without any explanations, despite asking him several times. Also user:Dbachmann and me are not able to reach common ground on content of criticism. Also he is trying to turn any wording with criticism around to criticize the critic. I feel he is heavily balanced toward one POV (he may feel the same about me). Requesting neutral observers to help agree on content. --Pranathi 00:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/Archive/2005&oldid=442584579"