Revision as of 01:05, 26 October 2009

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

Active alerts

User Dori and Misleading Assumptions

A few days ago, User Dori and I had a trivial argument over an unreferenced article, the A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. The argument has grown out of proportions since. The user stubbed the article, I reverted, in good faith, the user reverted back while explaining why, and I reverted back aslo explaining why. The user insists that stubbing the article is better than to have a more solid (yet still short), but unreferenced article. The user also created a table, full of misleading information about my opinion towards Misplaced Pages standards and the subject. The user constantly claims that he's trying to keep his temper, trying to avoid losing his temper, etc... Because the user is so dramatic and has aspirations in becoming an administrator, he has drawn support against me (posting here, on my talk page, and on the article's page), while I'm only trying to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Essentially, the main reason why other wikipedians came to his support is sympathy for his cause after he made the table comparing his opinions on the subject against what mine, which he wrote (now he cleared it). Every assumption the user Dori made was completely misleading to the other people mediating. The user claims that I'm pushing him to lose his temper, while, IMHO, I feel that he's pushing me.

My main and only presence on Misplaced Pages is to make the Project Management section better, yes I consider myself an expert on the field, and no I don't consider non Project Managers unworthy of contributing. The very simple issue is that Dori's edits (IMO) have not helped the article, and that's why I reverted back, twice, and I explained why I did it.

I am a Wikipedian for over 3 years now, and I have never been involved in a conflict before.

I have no aspirations whatsoever of becoming an administrator, I love working on this little section on Misplaced Pages and I am dedicated to make it better (is that bad?). I do not own any article nor I try to own any article (as falsely assumed) nor I wish to own any article nor I think I can own any article. I know for a fact that Misplaced Pages is for everybody. But is it that bad to revert someone's edit (who's also aspiring to become an administrator). The edits were simply not good, and that's why I reverted. Is it really worth it to make all these false assumptions, misleading others, just to get someone's revert reverted? Is it worth it for me to be stressed out and have every day someone posting new and misleading stuff about me.

Small message to Dori: Dori, in case you're reading this, I had never and I will never have anything personal towards you. I don't even know you. You thinking that I'm pushing you is completely inaccurate, I'm not. I have no problem with you editing the article but I'm sure you know as a Wikipedian with history that it's very normal to have your edits edited/reverted in case another editor doesn't think they're helpful.

I have had multiple messages on my talk to assume good faith, I totally agree, but the question is, is the user Dori (who repeatedly makes false and misleading assumptions about me) assuming good faith? The user is constantly trying to besmirch my name while I was only trying to close this issue.

I would love to have objective help on this issue, I just want to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and I don't want to be constantly stressed out by the user Dori.

Thanks for the help!Pm master 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm master (talk • contribs)

I have used Dori's Talk page to alert him or her to this post, and to encourage him or her to respond. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got to leave for tonight, but I have time to ask a few questions:

• I'd like to see diffs of things I've said where I've offended you (especially where I didn't give you a chance to add your thoughts).
• I'd like to know the reason you didn't take this to WP:3O first, given that you knew that I was fine with following that process.
• I'd like to know why you didn't notify me of this, given that it's a required part of the process.

User: Dolphin51, thank you for notifying me. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dori's first request above (I'd like to see diffs ...) is reasonable. However, my view is that the other two requests are rhetorical questions and are not relevant to the matter in hand. Pm master is free to ignore the second and third request.

All Users are encouraged to come to this site to report what they believe to be breaches of Misplaced Pages's principles of etiquette. When Users make Wikiquette reports on this site they won't be subjected to questioning about their motives or methods, or questioning that might be perceived as interrogation or intimidation. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've struck the 2nd and 3rd questions above per Dolphin51's objection to them. However, I still don't understand quite what the issue is that User:Pm master is reporting here. From my perspective, it just looks to me like a simple tit for tat reaction to my complaint about him, above. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dori, in answer to your question, I didn't say you offended me (do you see the word offend/insult anywhere? Never mind, can you give me an example on where I even hinted that you insulted me?), yet I can give you an example if you want: "And I'll ask you your own question: where are the references you've added? You reverted a valid reference I'd added, removed the References header entirely, and claim that you have expertise in this area—so, why haven't you added any references?". I can only read sarcasm in this sentence. When you say that he's pushing me and I'm trying to keep my temper, you're not really helping your case either. Someone aspiring to be an administrator such as yourself should be calmer, should not waste other people's time, and should respect others (no sarcasm). When I look at the provoking triangle above, I see your attitude and I don't see mine. The point behind this conversation is that I felt that you were not accepting the idea that reverts can happen, and that there's no need to open multiple fronts to prove your point.

Now when I say that it was personal for you, I meant it, because you saying that you're trying to keep your temper can only mean you took it personally.

The whole problem is that you always give your misleading assumptions to trap others, and quite frankly I don't like to play these games. The table is an example, parts of your conversation above is an example, the "tit for tat" is another example. These misleading and false assumptions besmirched my, in my opinion, respected username, as others thought I was against Misplaced Pages standards. I'm sorry user Dori, but again, I assumed good faith all the way (I believe I told you that I had no problem with adding the PBMOK to the category books, no problem in formatting the article...), yet your only intention is to build a case against me.

My opinion is that an administrator in Misplaced Pages should have tolerance, flexibility, and impose respect with his great and lovable personality. The administrator also should understand that SMEs are vital to Misplaced Pages, and should try to increase their contributions, not waste their time. Unfortunately, my opinion about you is the complete opposite, but that's besides the point. If you want please comment on what I've said and let's just close this subject. I think we're both wasting other people's time as well. Thanks! Pm master 01:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm master (talk • contribs)

Pm master: you wrote above, "I didn't say you offended me." Generally, reports are made here because one editor feels offended by another. So, what is the reason you reported me here?

When I wrote above that "I still don't understand quite what the issue is that User:Pm master is reporting here," I meant just that; no more and no less. Given that there's been plenty of activity on this page, and the only third-party response to you I've seen in this complaint is Dolphin51 saying he'd notified me of it, I have to guess that I'm not the only one confused here. I'm sure that you know what you're referring to, so how about letting the rest of us in on it—for example, what "assumption" do you claim I made, and what was "misleading" about it? {{Diffs}} would be particularly helpful. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please can you resolve this by citing the article Pm master? There is no real point to this WQA, as you have filed it in response to one being filed about you. The way I see it, either this can be resolved via following the concensus of citing the claims in the article, or it will simply be stuck. --Taelus (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• I've added the {{stale}} tag above, as User:Pm master has responded to neither Taelus's concerns nor mine. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Schrandit

User:Schrandit has recently taken to using patronizing and sexist terms to refer to me, such as "hun" and "love". This is part of an overall pattern of behavior that seems like baiting. I'd like him to stop. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This user is a old hand, probably a blocked user, possibly User:Spotfixer. This ip has been edit-warring against consensus terms and says he/she has been conspiring with another user, I feel a checkuser may be needed. - Schrandit (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I encourage anyone who takes Schrandit's accusation seriously to look at my edit log and see for themselves that I've avoided violating even 2RR. On the other hand, he's gone on a reversion spree that I've allowed others to repair. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Today, User:Schrandit has also been changing the term for any woman who is pregnant in many articles from the medically accurate "pregnant woman" to the politically-charged and legally-incorrect (in the United States) "mother", perhaps in an attempt to legitimize claims that life begins at conception, rather than at birth. Such an attempt would be furthering the Pro-Life POV.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That does hint at his motivation, but I'd prefer to AGF. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I havn't changed anything on those pages, I've reverted the anon's work. Both terms are politically-charged, this is not the first time this disagreement has been brought up on abortion related articles. - Schrandit (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He appears to be wearing his motivation on his sleeve - his user page appears to have been stating that he was "Pro Life" or "Pro-Life" since this edit 18:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do, I try to be upfront about what I believe. - Schrandit (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It was pointed out by User:Benjiboi that he has a pattern of finding fault with liberal articles, such as claiming they need more citations, and using this as a basis for deletion. He seems to be engaged in a long-term, low-key effort to violate WP:NPOV by selective enforcement of the rules, as well as selective violation. It's an interesting case. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Some folks have made those accusations, my record has been examined and my work has always been upheld.

Speaking of interesting cases - an anon edit-wars, thows around the wikipedia-lingo and brings a case to wikiquette - are you a sock or a banned user? - Schrandit (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on, you already know I'm not. Please don't add to your incivility by throwing out accusations in apparent bad faith. It's not going to deflect attention from your activities.

I'm going to ask you outright: are you going to stop using sarcastic, patrononizing and sexist terms such as "hun", "chief" and "love"? 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't throw an accusation of that magnitude around unless I was very certain it was true. In the part of the country I'm from that just the way folks talk but if it will make you happy I'll try. So, banned user? - Schrandit (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly asking an answered question is badgering, another form of incivility. Going for a clean sweep? 69.121.221.174 (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you're referring to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Which is similarly irritating. Schrandit, if you have evidence, file an SPI. If not, drop it. --King Öomie 13:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Over time I've come to the view that using patronizing or condescending language is the most obnoxious form of trolling -- there is never any justification for it. Overt rudeness, even, is less objectionable. Schrandit, just stop doing that, please. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have filed a sockpuppet investigation. There is IMO more than ample evidence that 69.121.221.174 is Spotfixer. So, since I see no reason to believe a word of what 69.121.221.174 says after his/her deflection or denial of questions regarding his/her possible past account history, let's throw the sock back in the drawer and then get onto the content issues. Awickert (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of local friendliness, this is the internet and the use of condescending terms such as "hun" to denigrate any editor or belittle contributions is not welcome on Misplaced Pages. We may have 2 issues here (indeed, the clear non-NPOV editing might make 3), and each needs dealing with separately. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Since I've unfortunately stepped into this mess, I'll scoot around the articles in question at some point this weekend and do my best to find the root of the problems and acceptable solutions. Whether or not 69.121.221.174 is a sock, there do seem to be content, revert, and courtesy-related issues among established editors. Awickert (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Schradit came into an edit-warring conflict with Spotfixer who was, IMHO, justifiably concerned with Schradit's rather transparent agenda and tenditious approach. They seem to dissapprove of LGBT culture/people and seem to adhere to a dogmatic pro-Catholic/socially conservative agenda. That in and of itself is not an issue. How they manifest their beliefs is to run through articles on subjects which they don't approve and litter them with random {{fact}} tags no matter what the sentence says. They also install various article tags at the top and will also delete content. On a limited basis this would seem helpful, however when multiplied over dozens of articles it seems they have as their primary goal an interest in simply removing and diminishing subjects which they don't approve. And they are often keen to edit war to reinsert content removed for poor sourcing and only back down when multiple editors show unified opposition. While they may hover just within the letter of the rules they certainly violate the spirit of the project. If i could wave a wand I would compel them to build several GA articles before removing any more content so they can see the uphill process that building articles entails. Unfortunately I think they will simply recoil a bit and if we say dropping three tags at a throw seems like a bad idea they simply game things and do two instead. There can be seen a value in bringing attention to work needed to be done but as we are all volunteers here it seems coercive and disingenuous. They also have made some rather bad calls as well removing perfectly valid content and sources and restoring really bad content and/or sources. Setting the sock issue aside we have a chronic issue that has gone on for months. -- Banjeboi 00:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, because after reviewing Schrandit's contributions, I left a message at his/her talk that says just what you said above. I also got a rather unkind email from the IP, which makes me think that either (a) this is someone else using the same IP and writing about the same topics and is legitimately pissed at me for starting the investigation, or (b) this is a known puppetmaster trying to pull off an impressive scam. In any case, I agree with Benjiboi that there is a chronic problem of Schrandit fact-tagging only statements that they find disagreeable, and removing content that they disagree with. I left a message at the IP's talk which, while rather harsh in tone, pales in comparison to the email that I just skimmed. If there is a way to find that the incredible coincidence that the same IP is writing about the same articles with the same POV is truly a coincidence, I'd love to hear ideas, but atm it seems that the only evidence I have that the user is not a sockpuppet is how much harder than TruthIIPower they appealed / resented the sock-block. Is there any evidence that a checkuser could give that would go beyond that which we've been able to figure out via the IP? Awickert (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit has targeted me recently so I can't be considered impartial here but I believe accurate still. The sock issues, and there may be layers on multiple sides, should likely be set aside and handled purely on that basis while the tenditiousness and behaviours looked at by some uninvolved editors experienced in what seems to be a POV issues in a few subject areas. -- Banjeboi 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Just to make things flow better, I am a man, you can say "he".

2. I edit many, many things and have started hundreds of pages and had some of them deleted, I know the work that goes in to building an article but lets pretend that I don't. Lets pretend for a moment that all that I had done these last 4 years was flag and in some cases remove unsourced content from pages pertaining to homosexuality. Would that have been a bad thing? I content that it would not have.

3. Ben, it is rather disingenuous of you to play the victim, to pretend your motives are pure and that myself and other editors have been reviewing your work just because of our social dispositions. - Schrandit (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the focus on your behaviours here. And please use my full user name, it's not too long at all. Why you targeted me seems irrelevant as the editing pattern was seen months prior and you have called on it repeatedly. I would rather have uninvolved parties look at the issues raised here so deflecting responsibility was less of an option. I stand by my assessment and note that a lot of good editing, especially if it has devoled since, does not balance the problems noted here. -- Banjeboi 18:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've said my piece, if anyone has questions I've never been shy. - Schrandit (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the he/she thing; I should have just looked at your user page. Awickert (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I know ya'll were just being polite. - Schrandit (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

user: User:Homezfoo

This user is very disruptive on talk pages, rude to other editors, appears to be looking for fights, and uses vocabulary not suitible for Misplaced Pages as you can see on his talk page - User talk:Homezfoo and on my own talk page User talk:Alankc His messages are very self explanitory, after warnings on his talk page. Alan KC 04:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Although you linked to your talk page and his, Specific difs would be great.--SKATER 04:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

he keeps changing what he puts, the history of the talk pages are loaded with his edits, but it's all at the bottom of each talk page. here's links to the sections.. User_talk:Alankc#OH_MY_GOD.21 and User_talk:Homezfoo#VH1_Divas Alan KC 04:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at his talk page and advised him to change his tone, you should also alert him to this thread. --SKATER 04:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

alerting him now.. My talk page is even better, he admits he's been coming on to harass me in a response to someone else, I haven't even had a conversation with him personally.. waTer-thin ice? I haven't really said or done much on wikipedia except call this person a poopie head (and a few edits misunderstood as vandalism and a couple of real vandalism here and there and that's it) but I guess I'll think twice before I ever call someone a poopie head or any other silly 2nd grade bully playground names again on wikipedia since i guess they're a bit sensitive about that. Oh God, Lord forbid that I ever get blocked from wikipedia for calling someone a mr. meanie pickle face next time. Oh the horror! I guess that's a personal attack here and you will suffer the consequences! Alan KC 04:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

He's pushing it, Also adding warning against personal attacks. On a personal note, I notice your signature dosen't link to anything, is that intentional? Also WQA is not for Admin Intervention that goes to WP:ANI which is where this might me going.--SKATER 04:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey I didn't mean to sound rude or like I was "pushing it" when I wrote the whole pickle face thing. It might sound like I'm pushing it but I'm just really surprised that people find poopie head (it means shit head, now i see that soryy) or pickle face offensive or rude. That's a first to me! And I change or constantly edit what I said because of typos or such but they're still the same words. But please read what I said on his talk page and mine which is somewhere at the bottom of both pages. I have no intention to be rude to anyone on wikipedia for it does NOTHING amazing to my life at all. Please and thank you before you block me cause of this silly situation.

And by the way he quoted like a bad setence from the entire thing I wrote. Now that what he quoted from me makes me sound like a criminal 100% I'm out to get you kind of person which i am not.
And yeah that thing about what you said about him not linking his signatures. I fixed it on my page cause I thought it was wrong and I thought it was suppose to link back cause that is what I have seen so far on Misplaced Pages. That's what people here do but then he said that that wasn't him or his signature but it IS. Look at my talk page history.

This, everything he wrote to you, is HIS side of the story which is wrong and I guess I am misunderstood here. You should read the whole thing from the beginning. But anyways please look at what I wrote carefully and thank you and I hope you can fairly see my point of view of this whole silly thing. And I had no idea what the Wikiqutte alerts is so sorry if it took a while for me to come here cause I barely just cliked on this link like right now.

And AlanKC introduced me as a person I am NOT to you, so on his actions, I apologize for that as well cause I am a really great person. :D

And I called him a poopie head cause shit head just sounds much worse. And sorry i just read what you wrote on my talk page cause I didn't see it. But that guy started it first. Sounds like a he said she said situation but like i said, please read what i ever wrote or he wrote and thanks.
--Homezfoo (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The only response I have to that is you Shouldn't be insulting at all., Wp:NPA.--SKATER 14:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Myself as an uninvolved third party to all this, I have to agree with what Skater said, why pour fuel if you know that there is already a raging fire? Two wrongs doesn't make one right, you know? I'd suggest to move away if you don't feel comfortable or it's the trout for you, Homezfoo. Kapish? --Dave1185 (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Homezfoo has says he has wished the put the whole thing behind him on my Talk Page (As well as an unessecary summary of the events thaat took place.) At this time I'd like to ask Alan KC if He'd be willing to call TRUCE.

PennySeven at Talk:Inflation

I would appreciate it if someone would talk to PennySeven about Wikiquette, about using editor names in section headings, and about proper use of talk pages. He/she seems to be getting carried away at Talk:Inflation. (In case it gets changed, this is the version of the talk page that I am referring too.) I'm hesitant to approach Pennyseven myself, as that might set off another string of accusations and talk page posts. I'm afraid the behavior will intimidate anyone who may wish to disagree with Pennyseven in the future. Thanks, LK (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• User has been blocked for disruptive editing and advised by others to discuss content, not contributors. --Taelus (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The talk page has also been cleaned up by other editors, and I renamed one section heading to be more neutral, rather than attacking. Hopefully this should all cool down now. --Taelus (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Blueshirts at Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War‎

User:Blueshirts has been constantly trolling and flaming over a disputed issue on Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War, and despite many attempts at reminding the user of civility, the over-use of Caps lock, the concept of WP:TEA, inflammatory language and aggressive wording of sentences, user remains to communicate angrily and in an uncivil manner, not adhering to proper ettiquette. I have offerred to end the dispute in a number of ways, namely an offer of mutual detente, an offer of WP:TEA for a few days, and a proposed de-escalation of argument, but all non to avail. User is frequently making Ad hominem attacks against myself, namely ageist remarks and comments about my psychological, hormonal and mental development as an adolescent, in clear violation of WP:ADHOM and WP:ATTACK. User is also refusing to acknowledge that he is losing his temper , and accuses that I am the one that has been over the top . Edit summaries such as and may also be considered as inflammatory and inappropriate. Thus, it can be interpreted that the aformentioned user may be deliberately "pouring oil onto the fire", as to provoke a heated argument. User argues his case using Argument from ignorance, Argument from authority and Ad hominem against myself, and is refusing to empathise or reach an understanding of his "opponent". He also seems to see this as just a game , in which he can "win". He also makes the Tu quoque argument that I am uncivil, completely ignoring his own actions (with remarks such as "I would rather not listen to some kid who obviously knows little", "Angry kid", "And you are a kid, judging from the way you've behaved and that mugshot of yours"). He makes claim of having a sufficient argument to retort the arguments of my own, despite that they are still disputable. User's frequent inflammatory remarks stirs strong anger within myself; something like this happens commonly in all human beings when agitated beyond a certain limit (and I am sure many of you should know that), and so I entirely reserve the right to engage in tit-for-tat strategy. (Although I admit that the both of us may be at fault, as a result, but WP:TEA is sadly not something only one user should bear.) I am not here to complain about a content dispute; rather, I am appalled by the state of behaviour and level of aggression that I have to bear with while discussing on an article talk page. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• First, remember that this is the English Misplaced Pages. Much of what you are apparently complaining about has been written in Chinese and so there is no way for any non-Chinese speaking/reading people to understand what has actually been said that you object to, nor to properly understand what you have said either. It seems to me that you are both at fault in this regard. I know that I have asked you before to change your sig in the English Wilipedia to show some respect for your fellow editors, but you chose to ignore that request. I make it again. As for you complaint against User:Blueshirts I find it hard not to see that you are reponsible for most of the aggrevation. You should tone down your own language before you complain about that of others. After going through the the entirety of the discussion you are complaining about and checking all your diffs and edit summaries, I am afraid that I feel Blueshirst probably has a point when he says that you have been acting childishly. You are quick to throw out accusations to others for the very things you are doing yourself and you plainly fail to assume good faith. This forum is not a place to come to get support for your dispute with another editor, rather it is a place to seek mediation in a dispute - this requires good will on both sides to be successful. I have seen no attempt by you in the discussion to attempt to resolve the issues you have with Blueshirts and no attempt to assume good faith. That is what you should try first. - Nick Thorne 07:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While the dispute is something about the construction of a particular sentence in Chinese, it is not the dispute itself that I am referring to (and no, I am not fishing for support regarding the dispute), but rather the attitude of the particular user, and Wikiquette. Yes, I realize that I am reluctant to adhere to WP:AGF, which is bad on my part, however I feel strongly disappointed by the particular comments made by the said user, leaving the dispute itself out of this. All users on Misplaced Pages have the right to be treated as equal, and age should not be something to which leverage can be applied to, as with race, gender, ideology, political affiliation and the like. By stating that only individuals over a certain age, with certain qualifications can contribute to Misplaced Pages, one has made a violation of Misplaced Pages:Five pillars. I am greatly angered by his remarks, which may be the reason behind my stubborn retorts, however I still firmly feel that I have been wronged in a way that should not have been as so. If I am granted respect, then by tit for tat I will return respect; do you honestly feel that I have the moral will to personally give respect with all my heart and soul if my actions will never be reciprocated? Misplaced Pages:Etiquette states "Treat others as you would have them treat you", "Argue facts, not personalities", "If you are arguing, take a break"; from looking at these, I personally feel that none of these have been fulfilled by this user. As I am beginning my first degree at university, I feel personally degraded by this user's remarks about my age, as an African American would feel of "nigger", as a female would feel of "slut", as a Socialist would feel of "red" or "commie". "Kid" is a term designated for small children, and by using such terms, I feel strongly degraded as a human being. Do you think that I would be emotionally happy to even think about things like WP:AGF after seeing such comments? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with all this is that your comments while valid so far as they go, apply equally to your own actions and words. Furthermore you are asking us to mediate in a dispute where much of what has been said has been said in Chinese. This is disengenuous, at best, and could leads someone to question your bona fides. However, I will assume that it is simply your inexperience that causes you to not understand this point, rather than a deliberate attempt to dissemble. Seriously, if you want us to take this matter further you both need to provide accurate, idiomatic translations for all the Chinese words and phrases you have each used (I suggest you each provide translations for your own words). This is, as I have said, the English Wiki. Failure to do this IMO simply means that you are not serious about wanting assistance with the issues here and are simply fishing for support for your dispute and/or have something to hide. And please do something about your sig. - Nick Thorne 11:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Adhere to the current discussion; talk about my signature can be discussed elsewhere (preferably my talk page). I would rather have my signature the same on all my unified logins on my Wikimedia accounts, as it is on the Chinese Wiki, Japanese Wiki, and Commons. I also have the right to utilise my personal name, a right guaranteed by the United Nations. I don't see how it may affect another user in any way; there is a clear link to my userpage, talkpage and contribs, and it isn't too hard to find out my actual username by heading for my userpage, or going through the history list (it would be just as hard to obtain the actual username of Mr. E. Sánchez, which is User:ESanchez013, for example). As for "knowing what it means", you don't have to know what it means to deal with me; I've seen editors writing their sigs in the International Phonetic Alphabet (which I do not understand), and Cyrillic, and they seem fine. Plus, its my name, it isn't important to know what it means. Misplaced Pages:SIG#Non-Latin encourages the usage of the Latin alphabet, but it is not policy. Misplaced Pages:Username policy#Non-English usernames also affirms that usage of non-Latin characters should not form the root of great controversy. As for the current dispute at SSJW, I'll disengage and wait a few days. Perhaps once everything has calmed down, I'll return to the discussion, and maintain WP:AGF and WP:COOL as you have said; if the attitude continues, then I will request for further mediation. Or, I might start the discussion from scratch, as a compromise for the sake of keeping the peace, and hope that Blueshirts will start from scratch as well. Now, for translations as requested (in order of appearance):

Resolved – IP blocked by Chillum. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 23:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution