Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:52, 23 July 2005

Wikiquette alerts are an option for a quick, streamlined way to get an outside view.

At the bottom of the list, just post a single link here to the problem or issue as you see it (for example, a single posting or section of a talk page). Label the comment neutrally and post the date but do not sign and do not use names (type ~~~~~). Alternatively, if you would like to get an outside view on your own behaviour, please post it here too.

Outsiders who visit the link are encouraged to make a constructive comment about any Wikiquette breaches they see. Postings should be removed after seven days.

This page is not the place to discuss any real or perceived Wikiquette breaches. Please use the relevant talk page.

Active alerts

Old discussions moved to /archive

July 14

• There has been an ongoing edit war between User:Brazzy and an anonymous user on the page Virago, with the latter now resorting to deleting entries by the former on the talk page. 07:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• 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/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:PetSounds has repeatedly blanked criticism and negative comments from his talk page. Some users restore their complaints (many of them regarding edit wars ,) still seeking a reply, but he continues to blank his talk page. (restored version here). He also has a tendency repeatedly put inaccurate dates on music albums, defying reliable sources. 09:47, 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)

• User:Deb apparently intentionally broke the WP:NPA rule
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=19253879&oldid=19247847 (toe rag)
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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)

• User:211.150.124.34 and User:82.76.208.73 (very likely the same person) insisted a while ago in inserting a truly harebrained text into Hormone replacement therapy (trans) and became quite personal when it was thrown out. Then she left. Two days ago she came back and started immediately to attack User:NickGorton, not just on the talk page of the article, but she also kept vandalizing his user page . -- AlexR 15:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

July 21

Witchcraft where Gabrielsimon disputes that Native Americans believed in witches. I provided ample support for the claim, but he simply removes the reference to the Americas without comment, whenever I restore it. Parker Whittle 17:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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)