• 一萬餘: The current point of dispute. Literally "in excess of 10,000". I interpret this as an idiomatic phrase, just like in English "I told you a million times"; User:Blueshirts interprets this as the Chinese Communist Party claiming that they have litterally engaged in 10,000 or so battles. (Note that "10,000" in Chinese is synonomous with "million" in English, as it is the largest base. Just like how we have "ten million", "hundred million" in English, we have "myriad" (10,000), "ten myriad" (100,000) and "hundred myriad" (1,000,000 = 1 million) in Chinese. This makes it all the more idiomatically significant.)
  • 千: one thousand
  • 萬: ten thousand
  • 萬歲: ten thousand years
• 千山萬水: name of a poem, literally "1,000 mountains, 10,000 waters"
• 狂姦三千次: tabloid headlines regarding Sora Aoi, copied from Taiwanese website. Translates to "(NSFW) three thousand times". Used as an example to disprove Blueshirts' claim and prove how absurd it is, as that would mean that Sora Aoi would have literally been (NSFW)ed 3,000 times, which is practically impossible.
• 成千上萬: by the thousands and tens of thousands
• 一万个理由: song by the singer 郑源. Song title literally means "10,000 excuses". I use this as another example, as this singer cannot literally describe 10,000 excuses, as this would be physically and mentally impossible for any human being. "10,000" is clearly being used as an expression; such language is universal in this usage, as in the Communist Party example that is currently disputed.
• 一千年以后: song by JJ Lin, similar example. Translates to "1,000 years later on"
• "美脚美女の挑....": This is Japanese.
• 咱们是爷们，不是娘们: Commonly used phrase in Beijing. Means "We are all men (爷们), not women (娘们)" (note Beijing slang used in brackets), referring to something similar to "play it like a bloke" in English.
• 對不起，我的中文不是很好: Plagarised from my Chinese Misplaced Pages userpage, in an attempt to discredit me, by arguing that my Chinese is poor. (Reads: "Sorry, my Chinese language skill is not all up to scratch") Explanation provided later a few paragraphs down.
• 你有脸说这句话吗？: "Tu quoque?" (Literally "And you have face (social concept) to be saying that?")
• 大小一萬餘次: "More or less 10,000 times" - Official quote from the Communist Party, see above
• 愛河一萬餘尾魚...etc: a handful of example quotes from Blueshirts to make his argument that the "10,000" refers to an exact number, and not an expression
• 大小一万公斤的米, 大小一万个红枫: example that show that they do.
• 我已经感觉和你争争吵吵是没啥意思。从现在开始，不说人话，我不会理你的。: "I have had it with constantly (having to) bicker and argue with you. From now on, if you do not talk properly/nicely/humanely, I will not respond to you."

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, scrap the last part. It's definitely not going to work. To hell with it all. WP:AGF doesn't work. "I have you given you FIVE DAYS since my question and this is the best you've come up with" - I ain't sucking up to anyone no more, man or god. To hell it goes. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It begins all simple, a normal, basic discussion; Blueshirts gets a bit impatient and stings me like how a mother smacks a child (八路軍... section, 2nd post by Blueshirts), which feels rather unpleasant for me; by tit for tat I sting back a bit harder (2nd post of mine); then come the ageist remarks (3rd by Blueshirts) and whatnot. By this time, I feel that all WP:BLAHBLAH is pointless. I try to talk sense in my 10th post, but it is utterly dismissed in the following post by Blueshirts ("I don't care how many sentences you come up with...so just quit giving more useless examples.") First olive branch comes out directly after ("Just back down, and end this now. Like men."), which is replied by a double standard remark ("I agree, let's end this stupidity once and for all. No more what you "think" is right and porn titles.") (quick question: how would you feel if you faced this kind of attitude?), and soon we have more flaming attitude (""However, you keep on yapping."") after comments from me that were not inflammatory in any way. Then we have accusations and "ownage" ("Give me a break. You've been the only angry one here...YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS...YOU GOT PROVERBIALLY OWNED IN THIS ARGUMENT"). I remind him of etiquette and Caps lock, and that nothing is a competition, he retorts with more Caps. I feel helpless but to vent a little at the 06:43, 21 October 2009 post. User:Arilang1234 attempts to mediate between the two of us ("end these school classroom kind of talk"); Blueshirts, refusing to back down or show weakness (how I interpret it, you may see it differently), replies with "Hey, I've never lost my cool here" After consulting WQA, I take the advice to follow WP:AGF, etc. and so I ignore the previous comments, and try to talk sense again ("Alrighty, let's have a look at the examples you have given a few clicks up...") I even try to compromise to get him to calm down ("Your first example was a good one; we've established that "一萬餘" can be used as figurative language and as something literal, depending on the context it is in...") and make a simple request for civility ("And please reply like a gentleman this time"). Blueshirts sees this as a weakness (again, my interpretation), and retorts "You've not established they are used figuratively, because None of them are used figuratively, because they all mean one ten thousand plus...I have you given you FIVE DAYS since my question and this is the best you've come up with...Honestly, this is getting ridiculous." I give up following this. I've given enough olive branches, and my tree is now stripped. I don't care anymore, further talk is hopeless. I don't care about my arguments', I don't care about his arguments, and I don't care about anything else that you, me, him, or Joe Bloggs thinks, I just cannot bear this attitude. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

On reviewing the exchange I think you have actually been the one most at fault, for initiating and driving the aggression. (Initial part of the exchange is edits Oct 15 to 17.) You also seem to be factually incorrect on the point at issue and have resented been told so. Blueshirt's worst fault has been that he is a bit dismissive, which makes it hard to work with other editors, and you have evidently found this hard to take. But his first reply was clear and unobjectionable, and you were actually the one who started with the belittling language, as well as the one who started the rudeness. I recommend you simply avoid the topic for a while. There's no particular reason to think that figurative usages in other unrelated texts have any bearing on the matter. Of course the phrase can be used figuratively in other texts; I see no reason or argument for thinking it is used figuratively in the extract you should be talking about.

If and when you return to those pages, just try to forget the whole thing. People have just as much or more reason to complain about your own conduct, so perpetuating the animosity will end badly. I have no prior involvement with either of you or with the topic in question. Best of luck with it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I note Benlisquare that you failed to advise Blueshirts of this discussion, one of the clear instructions on how to use this process. I regret that I did not check this earlier - well that is a lesson I have learned. The lack of notifying the complained about party seems like a clear lack of good faith on your part. You came here to complain about the behaviour of another editor, but I agree with Duae Quartunciae that your behaviour has been the most at fault. You should in future make sure your own house is in order before you criticise others.

BTW the issue of your sig is a matter of courtesy to others in the English Wiki. There is no attempt to try and take your name away, I don't care "what it means", I just cannot recognise it since I don't read Chinese characters and nether do the overwhelming majority of editors here. There is no reason you could not for example make your sig look something like this: Benlisquare 李博杰. That way you keep your chinese characters and English speakers have something they can read. - Nick Thorne 07:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Am I in the right place...

to make notice of "Gross Incivility" on a Talk page. I'll put up with it once, but twice from the same IP range is getting a bit much. Exit2DOS 22:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The best approach to moronic IP edits is to ignore them unless they reach a level that impairs your ability to edit. It is of course a breach of wikiquette, but there is no percentage in trying to impose sanctions on unregistered editors with dynamic IP addresses. Feel free to remove the messages from your talk page if you want to, but paying no attention whatever to them works better in my experience. Looie496 (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Abuse from anyone should be first prevented and then ignored. If you ignore it without preventing it then you really have not accomplished much. I have blocked this specific IP. I will make an offer to Exit on his/her talk page to semi-protect it. Chillum 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

user:Slp1 changing others' comments

Hi. User:Slp1 has changed my comment twice and . I asked him not to do this however he keeps doing it. Slijk (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

He is editing correctly. Editing other contributions is what we do on wikipedia. You need to engage the discussion in the talk page. This is not a matter for wikiquette. It is normal business of editing that changes get reverted in some cases... and this is one of them. You need to engage the discussion at the talk page; and it seems to me that there is a very good case for removing your additions to the article. It's certainly not appropriate for you merely to ask people to leave your changes in place. Talk about it on the talk page; not here. Good luck with it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, but he's editing my OWN comments. Something that I sign with signature. I don't think it's ok with the policy. Slijk (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I merely refactored a section heading, as required by WP:BLP. Your comments were left untouched. --Slp1 (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Usually the first comment begins with a heading. So they're one part. Slijk (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Slp1 is correct to refactor the heading. He has explained why in the talk page. This discussion belongs in the talk page, not here. I see you are still fairly new to wikipedia. Welcome aboard. Slp1 is a very experienced and helpful wikipedian, who will not hold any grudges over this and will be a good guide to you on what is appropriate in wikipedia. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:TALK#Others.27_comments. What of those conditions where meet so he changed my comment? Slijk (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details". Slp1 has explained very clearly - given the context that the claim appears to be an unsubstantiated slur (which means we might be repeating a slander) - how the heading comes under WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (their bolding). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the WP:TALK guidelines, the very section that Slijk links to, it is explicitly stated that section headings are communal and can be edited when appropriate... as it most definitely was in this instance. Here is the relevant paragraph:

• Section headers: Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss changes with the editor who started the thread, if possible, but it is generally acceptable to change section headers when a better header is appropriate. This is under the purview of threads themselves being shared property rather than a single editor's comments.

This is an exceptionally clear cut case; Slp1 absolutely did the right thing to alter the heading. You do not own the headings in the same way that you own the comments. They are not the same. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted accusations of disruption

I cannot explain the whole context of the underlying dispute in a few sentences. So, before I do that, let me start by giving a few diffs that point to the problem as it exists right now:

User:AGK accuses me of disruption:

see here

User:Jehochman did the same:

here

Ok, so two Admins are accusing me of disruption, so I'm doing something terribly wrong, right? Wrong!

The problem is a direct result of the outcome of an Arbcom case in which User:Brews ohare was topic banned from all physics pages. We don't need to revisit all the details of that Arbom case here. The most relevant aspects of that case are that Brews was seen to dominate the talk page of a few physics pages far too much to get his way against some consensus. In the technical dispute about the physics I disagreed with Brews. In the Arbcom case I argued against a total ban on all physics pages. My reason for that was that Brews did have many good contributions to physics articles. He is an expert in applied physics who so far had only contributed to physics topics. A topic ban would not directly address his problematic behavior, the problem was not inherently caused by the physics Nature of the topic he was editing at all.

Anyway, right or wrong, the topic ban has been implemented and Brews has to stick to it. As an answer to a clarification of the topic ban requested by William Connelley, the Arbitrators said that Brews cannot engage in any discussions about physics, not even on his own talk page or on other editor's talk pages, not even if he is invited to do that.

Again, as much I disagree with that, I have to accept this ruling. Until it is modified on appeal, the topic ban will stay as it is.

Now, the dispute I'm finding myself in now started a day before the end of the Arbcom case. Brews created pages on his user space Which irked User:Jehochman but I didn't see what the fuss was about. If these were attack pages, then they should be deleted but in principle, Brews had the right to do that. So, I started a thread on AN/I about this.

User:Jehochman can say that I was wrong to raise the matter at AN/I. Ok., but he used quite strong language against me in that AN/I thread. If from his perspective I was wrong, then that does not mean that I was deliberately undermining the Arbcom proceedings or was intending to otherwise do something improper. But he assumed bad faith here.

Then in the last few days, Brews and I were discussing on my talk page about dispute resolution. Brews was quite interested in contributing to that on Misplaced Pages. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that. There could be some potential problems, given Brews history. But then that also true for anything else that Brews could decide to do on Misplaced Pages.

Brews then made some edits to an AN/I thread discussing User:Likebox and on that thread Jehochman wrote: "Brews ohare was recently topic banned from physics. Does this discussion relate to physics? Why is one editor who was sanctioned for tendentious editing commenting repeatedly on a discussion about tendentious editing? To me this looks like disruption or very poor judgment".

And on Brews' own talk page his involvement on that AN/I thread is now under discussion

Now, if you read that discussion you see that some editors are advising Brews to keep away from contributing to AN/I threads. User:Finell says:

I am not complaining about Brews' behavior. I am trying to keep him out of getting himself into more trouble.

And AGK explains here that:

I did not say that your participation in the discussions in question was in violation of your topic ban. What I did say is that those discussions are prone to be controversial and/or heated, and are therefore likely to bring trouble your way.

Now,I saud to Brews that I dd not see any problems with what he was doing at AN/I. It is neither a violation of his topic ban, nor did he behave in a problematic way at AN/I. I also addressed some possible issues that he should pay atention to:

What you have to be careful about is to stay focussed on the particular problem under discussion and to be as concise as possible. Make your point once, avoid repeating it over and over again. You can give clarifications if someone asks you, of course.

So, I do not think that I'm that out of line with what others are saying, just that I come down on the side of being more positive about Brews participating in dispute resolution.

The issue I'm now complaining here about is not about who is right or wrong in the dispute about Brews making some edits to AN/I threads. Rather it is that two Admins who would rather see Brews not editing there and who would like to see many people giving this advice to Brews, cannot expect that everyone would have exactly the same opinion on this matter. When they find that someone has a slightly different opinion, they should not see that as "disruption" and certainly not make explicit comments saying that it is disruption.

Instead, what User:Jehochman and User talk:AGK should have written is that they disagree with me explaing how (according to them) things could evolve in the wrong direction. That would have been more civil toward me and it would have been more effective from the their POV of trying to keep Brews out of AN/I threads.

Count Iblis (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have just used a wall of text to say not very much. If you can be brief and stick to essentials, you might find it easier to get people to be responsive to you. Looie496 (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

First 6 lines of my post: Incivility by User:AGK and User:Jehochman and then the last paragraph: "Instead, what User:Jehochman and User talk:AGK should have written is that they disagree with me explaing how (according to them) things could evolve in the wrong direction. That would have been more civil toward me and it would have been more effective from the their POV of trying to keep User:Brews ohare out of AN/I threads." Count Iblis (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Looie496, you can still rewrite this section, BTW.

First of all, copy and paste what editors say here, why force editors to click on those links?:

For example:

AGK: "Please stop involving yourself in matters relating to Brews ohare. You are becoming a disruptive influence." 25 October 2009

Is much better than:

User:AGK accuses me of disruption: see here

Second, don't ask questions and answer them.

Third, write in a neutral tone, let the reader draw ultimate conclusions, not you.

Ikip (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Conduct of discussion in a proposed article move

I started a discussion at Talk:George_Gordon_Byron,_6th_Baron_Byron#Requested_move suggesting moving the article to Lord Byron. The subsequent discussion has been tendentious and filled with accusations of incivility and assumptions of bad faith. It would be nice to have a neutral editor take a look and try to mediate, because things are only escalating. In fact, it'd be best if you don't have an opinion on the matter at hand; it's the civility issue I'm worried about now. Powers 01:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument was pointed out as being inappropriate as 1. the claims that there was a "common name" were completely debunked that no reasonable person could honestly continue the claims and 2. that precedence was on the matter since 2002 and falls under a standard that applies not only to thousands of British peer articles, but that anything else would be completely inappropriate. The unwillingness to accept these is the very definition of tendentious, especially by three people who have -no- actual interest in Byron and can only be seen as disruptive when it was pointed out multiple times that their claims were 100% false. The above is merely LtPowers continuing on yet -another- forum to drum up support for what would go 100% against our policies and guidelines. It is pure disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the fact that LtPowers didn't even have the decency to notify me of this is further evidence that they are not actually contributing to this encyclopedia or following our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

LtPowers... the title you have chosen for this report is not really as neutral as would be appropriate for a Wikiquette alert; and belies your words that your major concern is incivility. Ottava Rima, the dispute is not worth this level of aggression. The content dispute on the proper name of the article belongs on the talk page, not here. But you in particular need to calm down a bit; and it is not appropriate to call this disruption. There really is a problem with incivility and assumptions of bad faith; and those are certainly against policy; and a proper issue for asking the opinion of other editors. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am 100% calm. All of my posts and entries portray complete rationality - I cite evidence, I quote language, and I deal with facts. The responses from the above and others to my entries "I say so" or "my mysterious knowledge says otherwise" or "your expertise doesn't matter" or "who cares what the library of congress says". I have not made any personal attacks or been incivil. I am very careful in my language and take pains to be completely precise. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I am going to be bold and fix the heading of this alert to be better aligned with the proposed focus on civility. I hope this is okay with everyone. Ottava Rima, your initial comment above looks to me that you can do better assuming good faith, and I further think that there is every reason to assume good faith here, even though you disagree strongly on the suggested move. But that's just my reaction to the talk page and to the exchange above; and I'll leave it at that for now. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith is not 100% nor is it permanent. Once they started dismissing the Library of Congress as meaningless and saying that scholarship was pointless, they no longer had any claims to not being there for disruption. Misquoting policy, fabricating numbers that were proven as wrong, etc, are further evidence of disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the responses - I state how it is, RegentParks puts out a falsely inflated number. I point it out along with pure cold facts, and he claims I am "ranting". Then he goes on and on about "George Byron" when he knows that it would put up false results (quotes conditions the responses, as he proved by quoting as opposed to without quotes in the previous comments). He quotes WP:NAME when WP:NAME says at the top to follow the specific guidelines, and Peer's guideline was already quoted. This is a way to dodge what he knows clearly contradicts him. This is a winning comment - "perhaps the readers of your numerous articles in the Keats and Shelley Journal expect no less than George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron (though, looking at the references in the article, I find none from that august poetry journal!)". The number one journal devoted to Byron's poetry and he attacks it as being meaningless merely because it contradicts him. This is egregious misbehavior and the fact that these people continue such actions and yet have no interest in editing the articles or working on them verifies disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The average reader is most likely to look under "Lord Byron", which takes the reader to the actual page, which is his full name and title. There is too much time spent on wikipedia debating the names of things. Let's say I want to look for the article on a well-known Swiss flower. So I enter "Edelweiss", which is the name everyone outside the botanist community knows it by, and it takes me to Leontopodium alpinum. Oh, yeh, right. That was my next guess. The same thing with this. But why does it matter? The average reader doesn't care what the specific name of the article is, he just cares that he can get to it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The average reader of what? As pointed out, the Library of Congress system does not have a "Lord Byron". Thus, if your claims were truly then there would be no readers of his works and no one would be able to find it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm defending your viewpoint and you're yelling at me. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I was pointing out that there are no readers if there was even an issue with the name to begin with. :P If you want to see me attack you, I can show you. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The average wikipedia reader is more likely to have heard of this guy as "Lord Byron" than George-whatever-Byron. My concern is that too many debates occur over "common names" and such. Who cares what the article is listed under? As long as the reader can find it, that's all that really matters. "Common names" debates are a waste of time and energy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Got some sources for that? As I already pointed out, Norton and all of the other collections clearly state "George Gordon Byron" in their text books and such used by students. Besides that, there is little exposure. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying the article name can just as well stay as it currently is. You got a problem with that? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, you are ranting. And calling everyone liars. You;ll just work yourself up into another tizzy, you know you will. No-one's going to move the article - redirects and pipes are there for instances such as this where the proper name is one thing, and the word on the lips of the hoi polloi is another. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Elen, your comments are completely inappropriate and incivil. There is no -rant-, nor have I called anyone a "liar". I have stated that they have put forth things that are completely untrue and even verified that. For instance, over 300 articles do not simply and magically disappear. Pointing out that using the wrong terms to come up with a false number as misleading is also perfectly correct. However, Elen, your following me to various pages as of late and involving yourself in such issues is very interesting. It makes me curious as to what other names you may have used, because there is no history in your current contribs that would explain such. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Elen. Ottava, you are not assuming good faith. Not here, not in the talk page. You should. The way you are engaging, including the repeated accusations and imputations of dishonesty, is pretty much guaranteed to get people mad at you. It doesn't help. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith no longer applies when it was proven that numbers were falsified and that people were being purposefully misleading. Please read WP:AGF. It does not mean that you are not supposed to point out directly problematic behavior. Per the policy: "If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, then please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence so that people can understand the basis for the concerns" I proved those concerns. As such, your comments above are inappropriate. Furthermore, Elen's behavior has been suspicious and I am not the only one who has stated such. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I expect that you will retract your claims above per the policy stating "and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut." Since I have provided evidence as per the previous statements, it is clear that the policy states that I am acting appropriately under AGF and that your concerns would be the direct violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, it looks to me that you have a significant problem generally problem with failing to assume good faith. My comments above are my honest attempt to identify some changes which I believe will improve your engagements with wikipedia if you can address them. My exhortations to assume good faith are indeed an indication that you are not doing so at present, in my opinion. Your opinion is, apparently, that you have sufficient justification to drop the assumption of good faith. I disagree, strongly, with respect. That probably puts us at an impasse. But there you go. My comment on the wikiquette issues remains as given. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Duae, I pointed out above that WP:AGF states that you are 100% incorrect and your reiteration of the claim after this is incivil. I will once again ask you to refrain from these incivil comments and to strike your policy violating post. The policy is -very- clear on the matter and you are violating it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa, I disagree with you on how you are reading that policy; it does not rule out all admonition and in this page especially it is more than usually appropriate to comment on wikiquette issues. But I agree that further continued harping on AGF is counter productive, and would become a case of being aggressive about citing the policy; which is against the policy. I love the recursion of that. My advice remains as given, but it's time for me to leave it at that and let others comment.... on how any one of us can engage better with wikipedia. Good luck and farewell. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"I disagree with you on how you are reading that policy" - I quoted very simple sentences that are not ambiguous. If you would like me to break down the individual words, supply definitions, and the rest, to elucidate how these are very straight forward sentences, then I will be willing to do so. However, it seems that you are selectively misreading all of what AGF means to make a point that AGF does not support, which is a violation of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies all around for the incorrect focus in my original section title. I would prefer it if further comments related to the renaming were kept to the linked thread, so as not to split discussion between two locations. The reason I did not notify anyone of this posting is because I expected comments to go there, or to individual users' talk pages, not here; if that was mistaken, I apologize again. Powers 03:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, just picking at random from your posts on the article talkpage - "That is completely bogus." "If you are going to play these games, don't do it with someone who is an expert" "I straightforwardly proved that you were spreading blatant falsehoods." "Your comments are filled with 100% incorrect information" "Lying is incivil." "Your arguments are so incredibly wrong that you must know that they have no basis and is further proof of your intentional disruption". Given that the opposing argument to yours is that the poet is most frequently referred to as Byron or Lord Byron, and not by his full name, this escalation of abuse is absolutely astounding. Calm down already - nobody is proposing to do anything horrible to your teddy! Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By "abuse" you mean pointing out contradictions while linking to actual reliable sources and proof for it? Furthermore, how can I "calm down" when I am calm? Merely making an assertion does not make it true, and your constantly claiming such on multiple pages in which there is clearly nothing "passionate" about my actions, along with your clouded background that makes it seem like you have probably used another name or some other to establish this relationship that you seem to be continuing really reveals a troubling matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I have read your posts here and on the article talk page with utter disbelief. When everyones else says one thing and you another, has it not occured to you that you may be the one in error? The question here is about the name of an article, not the correct, formal name of the person who is subject of the article. Misplaced Pages policy is pretty clear and your slant on it it is disengenuous to say the least. It is high time for you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and accept that the consensus is not what you want it to be. Build a bridge and get over it. - Nick Thorne 04:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By everyone else, are you ignoring the two people who agreed with me? "The question here is about the name of an article" And it was proven that policy upholds the standard, that "common name" is completely false. You can say "Misplaced Pages policy is pretty clear" but I have already completely debunked it. Your pursual of the matter is quite telling. Furthermore, naming is not -consensus- based. The policies are. The names are -verifiable- based. I have already proved that all major libraries and groups classify the author as "George Gordon Byron". No one can debunk that. There is no recognized author "Lord Byron". There is one common use, and you cannot selectively ignore 90% of policy and all of reality to claim otherwise. The mere fact that YobMod and Peterkingiron are ignored in your post above is just evidence that there is something very troubling with your statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you any idea how ironic it is to hear you talk like that in the Wikiquette alert forum? I thought not. - Nick Thorne 05:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth; there have been proposals to move the article in the past, and they have failed. I would expect this new proposal to fail as well. For reference, here is a link to a fairly comprehensive archived discussion of votes on an earlier similar proposal: Requested move archived debate Oct 2006. The consensus was easily to keep the current name. There have been a couple of other such proposals which did not get as far. All the same reasons continue to apply, and I do not expect this new move proposal to do any better. You can debate that on the talk page if you like; though I don't think the discussion will go well. The real problem for wikiquette remains how the debate is engaged; the proposed move itself is not the topic for discussion here at wikiquette alerts. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I also think the suggestion to move is not appropriate. The current title sits within an information structure - redirects, dabs and piping are there as tools to aid navigation. The manner of the debate and the conduct of the parties is the issue to be examined here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk like what? My comments are 100% straight forward, civil, and to the point. Furthermore, you selectively ignored 2 people that agreed with me. Seeing as how there were six individuals and half were opposed to the issue, your claims that there was consensus or that everyone was against me are demonstrably false and reveal that you were making claims without evidence. Your response to it was incivil and inappropriate. When pointed out that you are wrong, it is only appropriate to admit such things. Misplaced Pages is not a game, nor are there "winners" or "losers". There is right, wrong, and articles that are supposed to be the best. You do not "lose" if you admit that you were wrong about a situation. It would, however, go to prove that you are here with the encyclopedia as your primary concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, we're not talking about the content dispute. It doesn't matter if two or twenty editors agree with the sentiment that the page should not be moved. We're talking about your aggressive, escalating, furious, uncivil, uncalled for and totally over the top attacks on the two or three people who disagreed with you. You called them liars. You called them disruptive. At one point you called one of them a troll. Your behaviour in the current debate is simply unconscionably, unbelievably rude. There is no need to behave like that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Elen, my comment was very clear. He stated that I was being disruptive by not looking to consensus that was 100% against me. I pointed out that his statement was factually wrong, as the split was clearly 50/50. Your response above is wrong and inappropriate. You have been rude above and incivil, and your statements are clearly incorrect. Elen, you have done this at many other places too, and you are starting to violate WP:HARASS. The fact that you would try and claim that I was off topic is only further inappropriate and revealing of this. Your actions suggest that you are not a new person, but a user who had another account with interactions with me. Your pursuit of me has clearly crossed the line, and your comments are inappropriate. You were asked to back off multiple times before, and yet you continue. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, your characterizations of me, such as "furious", are highly inappropriate and a major violation of WP:CIVIL. This is your warning to stop, as you were warned multiple times before to not make such blatantly false claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, please stop tossing around assertions without taking steps to back them up. Either open an investigation, or stop accusing us of being sockpuppets. Either take steps to have us blocked, or stop accusing us of editing in bad faith. In short, please start interacting calmly and rationally with your fellow editors, or this situation is only going to escalate further. Powers 18:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Us"? When have I accused anyone of being a sock puppet, let alone -you-? I have stated that Elen is a restart account or an alternative account. Sock puppetry is something very different. There are many individuals that have arbcom approved secondary accounts. Elen is most likely one of them. However, what I made explicit is that as such, her pursuit in the manner that she has done since the RfC (and during it) crosses what is acceptable per the secondary account rulings, so she must stop. Finally, I have already provided evidence for all of my statements, so your claims are blatantly incorrect. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User David A

• Reintroducing section as offender continues to repeat. Asgardian (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I think David A needs cautioning as he has a habit of inserting inflammatory comments in his Edit Summaries about other users, particularly myself . This is at times taken to an extreme as he's taken a shot across my bow in a summary at an article I haven't even looked at for over a year . Although there are disputes about some of the content he inserts, I'd just like him to tone it down in discussion and not deliberately try and bait others. A glace at his contributions and comments also paint a picture

Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have used David A's Talk page to alert him or her to this post, and to encourage him or her to respond. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian is asking that he or she not be named in David A's edit summaries. This request is entirely reasonable and must be respected. In future, David A must not name Asgardian in edit summaries, and probably should not name any other User in edit summaries except where it is unmistakably a positive or neutral reference. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a few years and literally hundreds of instances of experiences with Asgardian's brand of systematic information-distortion, methodical deceit, and heavy manipulation, and am the type that's virtually unable to lie/filter in any way whatsoever, so when he consistently creates the same types of situations over and over again it turns impossible to not point it out. I have a major hang-up just about deceit and deliberate/the same pattern repeated over and over again information-twisting/misinformation, whereas I always speak the truth as I see it at all times. It's both a part of my lifelong medical condition, and the resulting personality stemming from it. I've had Misplaced Pages experiences with death-threatening stalkers, people who start chewing my head off for very little reason, and people who want to wantonly delete pages I've invested a lot of time in, sometimes in combination, but not even all of them together have given me nearly as bad an experience/impression as Asgardian to my perception unbelievably calculated "every-dirty-trick I can get away with" deceit and disinformation, which has gradually completely worn down any layers of benefit of doubt, and almost erased my energy for even helping out at Misplaced Pages. Not to mention that accusing me of "baiting others" (as opposed to pointing out word-by-word exactly what he does, which is what I always do. He lies, I tell the truth, it's why we don't get along) here hardly rhymes with his old tactic of calling me "shrieking, unbalanced, and unhinged".

Just to use a few more easily found examples. We are talking about a few years here after all, and as the greater amount of long-time ongoing "completely rewriting the content of fictional publications in the summaries" parts are harder to refer without you personally actually reading them all:

Asgardian being proven sockpuppet user, and that's just the one that's been discovered, which to me further underlines his overall willingness for systematic deceit, and turns especially suspicious whenever various anonymous ips have reverted to his edits:

Asgardian's block page for consistent edit-warring (although he's since started to simply do one revert a day to get away with it, regardless if anyone agrees or not):

Newer conflicts:

User: J Greb also noticing my ongoing hair-tearer (which makes it impossible to make useful corrections or matter-of-fact logical discussion, which I've repeatedly tried with him to no avail) that Asgardian has continually written edit-summaries that have little, or nothing to do with what he's actually doing, or even flat-out contradict it, and Asgardian characteristically stating that he'll continue to do so as long as he can get away with it/until the specific regulation is pointed out: "I've grown very, very tired of edits like this where the editor does multiple things and then puts in a partially truthful edit summary." Response: "As for J Greb's concern, I've made a request to be directed to the relevant rule on Misplaced Pages."

User: Nightscream also noticing Asgardian's systematic tendency for manipulation, i.e. the whole "drive people insane with annoyance over what I'm consistently actually doing in my edits, and not being honest in my edit summary rationalisations" and then accuse them of "incivility" simply for pointing it out, which given that he does what he always does makes it completely impossible to even respond:

Asgardian recently apparently systematically vandalising page-structures just to make a point, and various other users making a plea to finally shut him down:

Only the most recent situation of distorting profile content and deleting multiple references regardless that the information was entirely correct, and that the entire Talk population disagrees with him, and again going by my experience on other pages such as Thanos no matter the result he will eventually sneak in there and revert everything at a time when everyone else has mostly lost interest, even if he has to wait half a year to do so, previous middle-road solutions and adjustments be damned:

In addition, what started to make me see him for what he is was in an old Talk (1-2 years ago) edit wherein he expressed amusement at my outrage over his lies, and considered it infantile to have that kind of perspective of decency: ""insidious misrepresentation"...heh. How old are you?"

It's what he does... and I suppose getting pissed off about that he gets away with it is what I do. This is just the latest in a very long line of tactics that he uses as weapons to do so. Dave (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does any of that mean you have to take potshots at him personally in long, wordy edit summaries? Without getting into this specific situation, dealing with editors you have problems with is part of life on Misplaced Pages and we are supposed to deal with it in the appropriate way. Being "the type that's unable to lie/filter in any way whatsoever" doesn't give you the right to get personal in edit summaries. There are so many better ways to deal with this kind of thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking "potshots". That's not the way I think. I'm pointing out exactly what he's doing in them, since he's trying to hide or detract from them with his misleading summaries, and someone has to point out every instance of what he's doing. I mean, it would be impossible for me to find the time to sift through his years and hundreds of instances of this behaviour, and literally have no patience whatsoever with him anymore, so I'm pointing it out all the time instead. He's also specifically making it extremely hard to respond to him in any other way anywhere. He seems to be using the "civility" excuse towards everyone, as seen in the Nightscream comment and the Dormammu discussion. I have no idea how to handle him in any other way sicne he seems to have an inexplicable get out of jail card for things that are hundreds of times worse than anything I ever did, and he's using loopholes in regulations to make a case that lies are ok and truth isn't as a weapon. For that matter why wasn't he permanently banned after his first sockpuppet was discovered? I'm so incredibly tired of him. You try dealing with the same manipulative person several hundred times in a row dragged out over a few years and see how you like it, even without a medical condition (I have some weird overlapping Asperger-ADD-bipolar-OCD-Damp-Tourettes-Schizophrenic condition or whatever the theory I'm presented is this year. There have been a lot of variants) Dave (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this situation requires some expert advice. Dave has been asked to be civil, and despite this, remains openly hostile and abusive towards myself, as can be seen in his overall Edit Summary: . I am repeatedly targeted and openly slandered in Edit summaries. I have repeatedly counselled Dave regarding some of his Edits and why they are inappropriate, he continues to revert and be abusive. I have tried to speak with him with no success. While I realize that Dave has, by his own admission (see above) a medical condition, I do not believe that this gives anyone a free pass to harass other users. I feel Dave needs to try and follow the Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith policy when editing. I am not unsympathetic, and will state again that I am happy to discuss almost any issue. I just want the abuse to stop.

Can someone assist with this, please?

Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, can someone PLEASE PLEASE get Asgardian permanently banned. His lies, censorship, manipulation and so forth is completely systematic and never ever stops. He's using this as yet another excuse to state that telling the truth is unacceptable and systematical disinformation and deceit is completely ok. Again, I have no other way of handling him, and multiple users are consistently making pleas to have him removed. I'm so very tired of him. And no I'm not "abusive". I'm telling the truth- Asgardian methodically abuses my nerves far more than I abuse his, and I can't remotely "assume good faith" with hundreds of experiences with him personally that contradict this. In fact Asgardian is the by far least trustworthy Wikipedian that I have ever encountered. Dave (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Making personal attacks against the other party in a Wikiquette discussion is hardly going to get you anywhere. Your first post here is a wall of words, a very effective way of getting you off-side with anyone who might try to help out here. Please be concise and leave out all the uncivil comments. I have not bothered to look behind the issues in the article that have brought this case to Wikiquette, but based upon what you have written here - and especially how you have written it - I am disinclined to accept anything you say at face value. Maybe you are completely blameless in this dispute, but given that the complaint was not about the actual content of the article so much as the way you have gone about making changes (and reverting changes), your allegedly abusive edit summaries and the way you have conducted yourself here, I am rather inclined to think that the complainant has a point. You need to calm down, stop throwing accusations around and beging to demonstrate that you assume good faith. Frankly if you continue on the way you have apparently been going I would not be surprosed if a passing admin did not block you on the spot. Whatever the merits of your case about the content of the article in question the way you seem to be deporting yourself is not acceptable. - Nick Thorne 09:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't talk any other way. If I consider something to be the truth I will say it. I have no idea how to say the same thing in what you would consider a non-"uncivil" way. He does lie, he does manipulate, he does twist information. All the time. As linked above other users also notice this. How am I supposed to say that in any other way? Dave (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, let's not forget that he called me "shrieking, unbalanced, and unhinged" as a weapon ti be used, despite likely knowing about my disorder from the Galactus Talk, so me stating exactly what he does in each edit is far less in comparison. Dave (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Truth is not a defense, even less so your version of the truth (or indeed that of any Wikipedian). Being civil is not optional, it is policy, as Wikipedians we are obliged to follow it or risk being blocked. If you cannot say things in a diplomatic way in what is supposed to be a collaborative project then don't say them at all. If the actions of other editors on a particular page lead you want to say things in a rude, abusive or uncivil manner, then leave that page alone and go and find another corner of Misplaced Pages to work on. I have no idea what your post above this, time stamped at 10:00 26 October 2009 (UTC), means and frankly it is none of my business. Please confine future comments to the matter at hand and leave personal things out of it. - Nick Thorne 10:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Given this latest comment in an Edit Summary , I think I'm going to have to put a case to the administrators. If an editor's only response to repeated attempts at interaction is abuse, I have no choice. Asgardian (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I _don't abuse you_. I'm _reacting_ on what you do over and over and over and over and over and over, year in and year out, by stating exactly what what you do. You're abusing _me_ by consistently inserting inaccurate information which you know full well triggers my compulsion, to never let me go, undoing my hours of research for references, to replace with none whatsoever, and by manipulating and distorting what's really going on, not just with me but with everyone else. I don't lie, or use any multi-layered deceit whatsoever, so that makes me a very convenient target in the . "He made a comment about how I lied here, and nobody has the time to check my more intricate subterfuge, so that's easily solved" manner. You have plenty of choices. You could simply go for compromise solutions as I have tried on most instances with you, but no, you always sweepingly restore your inaccuracies in story content, reference-deletions to be replaced with POV-insertions, censor inconveniences, misleading edit-summaries, and so on. How in the world am I supposed to respond to that when you do it completely relentlessly? Seriously? How? It's not in my nature to say something else than what I really mean, so how am I supposed to respond? How is anyone supposed to respond in fact? You seem to use the convenient "civility" excuse towards virtually anyone, and that's people who have lost their patience with you for less than a tenth of what you have put me through. You've singlehandedly virtually reduced my contributions to minor obsessive fact-corrections rather than more ambitious clean-ups which I used to do more frequently, and really strained my nerves in that regard. So again, _how_? Is there any way I or others could respond honestly to what's actually going on whatsoever, rather than forcing people to try to say something other than what they mean? Dave (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dave, try this. If Asgardian really is removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced, revert him ONCE using words like "please discuss removal of sources" or "this appears to be OR, please discuss" or "I have reverted to referenced version, please discuss". That way, if he continues to revert and doesn't discuss, you can report him to the administrators without the first thing that comes up is your edit summaries, which are likely to earn you a block.

Ok, I'll try that again, but keep in mind that I used that tactic over and over even back 1-2 years ago, and that to my POV he ignores any valid Talk disagreements and middle-road solutions. I've also asked him again to start being more specific rather than sweeping with his edits/synchronising what he specifically does with his stated reasons, and at least try to compromise rather than delete everything, if he wants to convince me that he's trying to turn a new leaf. Dave (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dave, I agree with you 100%, and am dealing another user of similar temperament to Asgardian. (see User:Rmcnew below) The influx of habitual trolls like these is the greatest single issue on Misplaced Pages these days, and I think we should work together to drive them out. I'm all for civility, but since when did "being civil" mean that we had to hold our tongues when other people misbehave? Yeah I'm all for "don't worry about other people's behavior; worry about your own", but the admins are too often looking the other way. The policy just does not work, nor was it intended to allow the insane to have their way. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Question Time British National Party controversy: user MickMacNee destructively edit warring

Hello. I spent a great deal of yesterday evening editing this piece, which had known problems. Before finishing last night, I posted a polite 3RR notice on user MickMacNee's talk page, since he had persistently reverted most of my previous work.

I also tagged the page with the multiple issues and weasel words tags. And I tagged another section with NPOV. I had found, and annotated, evidence of multiple unsupported/unattributed statements. In one case, there was reference to research that was wholly unattributed, but controversially so.

This morning, I found the article reverted back to a far earlier version - wiping out tens and tens of very thoughtful and annotated edits on my part. The £RR notice had gone from MicMacNee's talk page, and all the tags I put in place had been unilaterally lifted. It is clear to me that MickMacNee is now engaged in a personal attack on my work - a unilateral edit war. I had already politely warned him about this (see article talk page)before putting the 3RR note on his talk page last night.

Please read the history on the talk page and see that I have consistently broken deadlock over problems on the page by coming up with solutions that move the position forwards positively.

I can't find the version of the page which is the very latest that I worked on. This one (and I don't just mean the highlighted sections I mean the whole body text ) - must be close to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=321990942

Please note that in the current version, all sorts of problematic material has been reinstated. I propose locking these pages until somebody sensible has had a chance to comment on the last version I produced, and to compare that with the wholesale reversion by MickMacNee.

I don't have all the time in the world and will simply walk away from this page if it continues to produce poor behaviour in this editor. This is a shame. I do have under my belt the completion of a page that reached Good Article status, and am solely motivated by achieving the highest editorial quality and accuracy possible.

This is an article dealing with controversial material, and requires the highest standards of judgement and consistent attention to accuracy and clarity of expression. Opinionated as he is, MicMacNee has so far failed to demonstrate these qualities in his edits.

Thank you for your help.Astral Highway (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't notify me of this report as you are required to do so, but not to matter, I fount it anyway. I had already replied in part on the talk page , but to simply address some of these points - the article has already been praised by multiple people for its quality - see ITN/C. Astral highway seems to think he is an expert editor, but I've already seen multiple examples of basic lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages policy or procedure, such as wp:lede or wp:talk, let alone wp:cite. Just to pick two examples of these 'controversial' tag removals - he wants to know who The Times used (presumably the name of the research company, or indeed person) to analyse the camera work , or exactly 'who' in Hammersmith and Fulham council asked the BBC to consider another venue, also reported in the Times. . Maybe Astral simply doesn't like The Times, because there was nothing controversial about these parts of the article from an attribution point of view, they were already adequately backed by high quality references. I am just bemused by comments like "Note: a reference does not replace an inline citation", when the article only uses inline citations! There are no general references. This highlights what I think is serious problem - it seems to me to be that Astral Highway never even reads the article references, and seems to want to impose his editorial opinion on the article, for example, even though the BBC in its own words called it a 'policy change' , he thought that that did not justify a header called 'BBC policy change'. On this flimsy basis, he believed could blank that entire section, half of which wasn't even about the BBC. Unsurprisingly then, multiple people revert these sorts of changes, not just me. I too have time pressures, I cannot update the article in a timely manner, or properly source new additions from others, while I am dealing with these edits of Astral's. He charges edit warring, but none of his specific concerns, which are quite obviously disputed, have been raised on the talk page. He seems to think that edit summaries alone are the only justification needed, and if people disagree, it is an 'attack' on him. MickMacNee (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

rmcnew

I would like to inquire about the conduct of User:Rmcnew. From what I can tell, he is guilty of WP:Advocacy (see ), and is very controlling besides and is making Misplaced Pages a much nastier place than before he came, but I'd like a second opinion. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)