| Revision as of 19:27, 12 July 2006 editMightyMoose22 (talk | contribs)2,297 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:37, 29 November 2020 edit undoJPxG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators118,942 edits diff links more clear | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{short description|Historical document}} | |||
| {{shortcut|WP:WQA}} | |||
| {{historical}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| '''Wikiquette assistance''' was an informal process, ], available to editors who felt that they were being treated uncivilly. There was about its effectiveness, and a consensus was formed to eliminate the Wikiquette assistance process. This page was formally ]. | |||
| Wikiquette alerts are an option for a quick, streamlined way to get an outside view. | |||
| If you require assistance with resolving a content issue, please see ]. | |||
| ==Procedure== | |||
| At the bottom of the list, just post: | |||
| *A '''single''' link to the problem or issue as you see it (for example, a single posting or section of a talk page). | |||
| *Label the comment '''neutrally''' but do not sign and '''do not use names''' (type <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>, which gives only a timestamp). | |||
| *Please avoid embarking on a discussion of the points raised on this page. Carry on discussing it wherever you originally were — editors responding to posts here will come to ''you''! | |||
| For a similar noticeboard which was also discontinued and marked historical, see ]. | |||
| If you would like to get an outside view on your own behaviour, please post it here too. | |||
| {| class="wikitable" style="float:left;vertical-align:top;" | |||
| Outsiders who visit the link are encouraged to make a constructive comment about any Wikiquette breaches they see. Postings should be removed after seven days. | |||
| | width="300" style="text-align:center;"| '''Search the ]''' | |||
| |- | |||
| ==Archived alerts== | |||
| |<inputbox> | |||
| *]: June 2005 - September 2005 | |||
| type=fulltext | |||
| *]: October 2005 - December 2005 | |||
| prefix=Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance | |||
| *]: January 2006 - February 2006 | |||
| break=no | |||
| *]: March 2006 - April 2006 | |||
| width=40 | |||
| *]: May 2006 - | |||
| searchbuttonlabel=Search | |||
| </inputbox> | |||
| ==Active alerts== | |||
| |} | |||
| ===8 June 2006=== | |||
| *] (who appears to also contribute as ]) has been adding disclaimers to the top of ] (an African goddess, though Mwhs disputes even this) essentially dismissing the article's anthropological approach to the topic and stating that " overall depiction of Mami Wata known to those born and initiated and trained to serve in its priestess- hood is considered suspect." Judging by ] uploaded by the user, this person is apparently affiliated with a Mami Wata-worshipping group in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, who host the website . I am sympathetic to the point of view of those who actually worship this deity, but all attempts to reason with this person are being ignored. See ] for the discussion. Other users have branded this person a vandal, but I have been trying to reason with them. In particular, the disclaimers placed on ] seem to violate ], ], and ]. Help in getting this person to engage in a dialogue is appreciated, but if they refuse, administrative help would be needed (as an active disputant, I must recuse myself from administerial duties regarding this person). A similar notice has been posted at the ]. Thanks. 17:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * {{user|Gzlfb}} is adding dozens of links to ] in response to requests for verifiable sources (see talk page) and has referred to other editors as nazis (on talk page). 17:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * A user at {{IPVandal|216.45.219.162}}, {{IPVandal|216.45.224.76}} and {{IPVandal|216.45.156.46 }} has been deleting the article {{article|Willis Stephens}}. They may be part of a political campaign. I can understand their interest in removing content that may be damaging to a candidate, but they have not responded to any attempts to contact them. Several other editors have been reverting the deletions which I think shows that there is no merit to deleting the article. I am not a registered voter but I did compose the original article, which is why I am dismayed that it is being removed without any constructive edits. | |||
| ===9 June 2006=== | |||
| *Re: ] (a porn actress) -- an anonymous user insists on placing a screenshot of Ms. Alighatti performing ] on the page. I don't think this is appropriate for WP. Any thoughts? ] 13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've already reverted it at least once as vandalism, and I suggest that you continue to do so as well. (Also although I clearly have no idea where the picture is from, and have no intention of finding out, it's probably copyrighted). --] 14:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The image is fair use. No images are too offensive to be inappropriate for WP, as it has far more offensive pictures than that one that was uploaded to the ] page. It is not vandalism, and don't go to wikipedia if you can't handle it. ] 18:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :BTW I removed the unsourced and unsigned slander of this actress I found on her talk page, as per the ]. - ] 05:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Re: ], ] makes personal attack and refuses to understand an element of ] which is pointed out to him 10:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===12 June 2006=== | |||
| The ] article is pushing an Ulmanis apologist POV as explained in ]. 18:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===12 June 2006=== | |||
| User:142.22.186.7 ] has a long history of vandalizing articles. Some edits of note include Mexican Cuisine, Michelangelo's David, Ant, Chinese Civil War, Seven Years' War. | |||
| The articles noted are only a small sample of the vandalized articles the user has caused since November 2004.. While the IP Address is a shared computer network those who choose to use the system to vandalize far outweight those who actually contribute. Please considering banning this IP Address. ] | |||
| ===13 June 2006=== | |||
| ] made several incivil comments in regards to people that have different opinion: | |||
| '' ::: It's a Polish nationalist masturbation, that's why.'' | |||
| When another user commented his remarks he replied: | |||
| ''I don't think my comments in this respect were overly harsh. You have to understand that for eastern Europeans the English language is like a international ethnic property court, putting the name in one language claims ownership for that ethnic group, and gets one over their rivals. That's why all those Ukrainian nationalists want to rename the Russophone city of Kiev Kyiv on English wiki, but don't give two craps what its name is in other languages; and why the same people who were propping up the Polish name Władysław II Jagiełło were going around calling Vilnius Wilno.'' | |||
| --] 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :LOL Molobo, you are the last person who should be posting here. To think I thought you'd changed. Sad day. - '''] ('']'')''' 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===13 June 2006=== | |||
| The dispute tag on this article has been repeatedly removed. The article's content is being disputed for accuracy. <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> | |||
| :No comment, but the link is ]. --02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===14 June 2006=== | |||
| A rude comment has been posted on ] by an unregistered editor, apparently someone with a similar name. Is there a recommended way to handle this sort of thing? <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> | |||
| ] is currently undergoing a dispute over whether to include a section on Islamic terrorism or not. The discussion has been going on for some time, but my attempts today to actually insert a summary style section from ] have been reverted repeatedly. I think the inclusion is important, but an outside opinion from people who don't frequent Islam-related articles would be useful. Thanks. :) ] 17:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| On ], a user by the name of ], in the course of an as-yet unresolved dispute over a claim in the article ] regarding the band's Holocaust denial, has begun to make offensive accusations and insinuations against the other editors of the article. He has been to remain civil on Misplaced Pages. His comments on the article talk page do not specifically target an editor but accuse all editors who oppose his views of ''"obsessing over these two young girls"'' and ''"cyber stalking"'' them. Overthrow has responded by the editor who welcomed him to Misplaced Pages. I am in the process of composing a reply to his substantive points and have no desire to be put in the false position of defending myself or other editors against his odious insinuations. He clearly won't listen to me on the subject of civility. Could someone else please try explaining to him why ''ad hominem'' arguments are inappropriate here? Thanks, ] 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| User 213.237.21.242 has taken over the ] page with lengthy "rebuttals" of perceived slights. Attempts to answer the points raised have only led to more lengthy responses. Users have attempted to resolve the dispute and to continue the discussion on an archive page but nothing seems to stem the flow. Any help available? -- ] 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{user|Maddyfan}} has performed several wholesale reverts of edits made by {{user|Extraordinary Machine}} to article {{article|Christina Aguilera}}, violating the ] in the process. Aside from reverting edits related to an NPOV dispute and whether a section of the article is too detailed (currently being discuss on talk), Maddyfan has rolled back removal of uncited material and MoS/formatting corrections. She seems to have a misunderstanding of the ] policy, as seen by comments such as "We will boot your butt right out of here!", "please edit again, so we can just boot you", "You come here first, discuss and WE will decide what to do. Not YOU"; she has also falsely accused Extraordinary Machine of vandalism. Maddyfan is generally incivil, and personal attacks directed towards Extraordinary Machine include "don't be ridiculous" and "Get lost". Generally, she seems unwilling to work collaboratively with other editors. 18:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| A heated discussion over the security of the networking application ] has been ongoing at the ] page. One editor is take a strong stand against the security of ] on what could be seen as unfair grounds as his major concerns are not necessarily ]-specific. The other editor is involved with the company developing ] thus make POV balance tricky. A diversity of opinion would greatly benefit the resolution of these differences of opinion.21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===15 June 2006=== | |||
| ''']'''--- I was requested to render 3rd opinion in a dispute where one editor appears to be avoiding debate. ] requires 2 people in a discussion. This issue appears to be wikiquette, not content so I referred it here.(If this is not correct please tell me proper location for this)]] | |||
| ===17 June 2006=== | |||
| ''']''' has an ongoing discussion on whether the number of consecutive qualifications to World Cup can be used to make a comparison between teams from different continents.00:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''' has active discussion with many people backing up their positions with general knowledge but reluctant to cite sources. 11:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''' is turning into an nonproductive, escalating war between two editors with no end in sight. I think this page, and the dispute over the ] article in general, deserve more attention from the community. | |||
| ===18 June 2006=== | |||
| ''']''' is spamming Weblogs with links into their history; e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:MeridiaInfo&oldid=59274662. I assume it's in anticipation of that page being edited away. | |||
| 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===19 June 2006=== | |||
| ''']''' rapidly approaching a revert war. Two users (1 registered, 1 anon) have posted edits to the main article which are highly critical of the game structure and administrative policies. Two registered users have reverted the edits (or re-worded them to be more neutral) for not being NPOV. The first two have then continued to revert their disputed edits back, claiming attempts to exclude or reword their edits amount to "vandaliz by proponents of the game." A neutral NPOV opinion would be appreciated to prevent a revert war. Some discussion on talk page, although last revert by anon user was not discussed. 17:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===20 June 2006=== | |||
| ''']''' (account created today, and probably connected with anon edits under ]) has been adding sections and external links to the following UK bank articles ], ], ], ] and ]. The links are to the Bank Action Group website and the text details their standpoint in a relatively unimportant real world dispute over the application of the UK Consumer Credit Act. I feel that I have too much involvement in the subject to get too involved, but feel that these edits are very close to ] and ], and perhaps give undue prominence to the issue. Opinions and suggestions welcomed. Many thanks 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''' ] and ] are getting rather agressive in discussion with ] over NPOV of the article (it has recently been delisted as a ] for NPOV reasons). They also seem to be in a minor revert war on the article.02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''' Has reverted three times in less than 24 hours. He continues to insist on adding a category to the ] category list that has been discussed and removed many times. This is a regular pattern of behavior. Invitations to discuss, and other such remedies have not proven successful. Many of the editors on the ] page are tired of the fact that Doright apparently is allowed, with impunity, to launch personal attacks and revert like this with impunity. Efforts to have admins deal with this have not produced positive change. A ban is in order. ] 11:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The place to report 3RR violations is ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''' causes disruption in his zeal to personal attacks, and attempts to influence AfD votes and processes with improper accusations, witness the freshest reasonoing of his for wholesale deletions: ] where Cfvh uses following reasons for deletion of article: "...was created by a user with a penchant for moving articles and creating peculiar redirects and articles...." In anyone's objective opinion, such accusations do not belong to reasons of AfD, and moreover are just personal attacks, but Cfvh has presumably recently found AfD process as his tool, apparently to insult other editors. A long block for Cfvh would be in order, so he can contemplate his behavior, style, and how disruptive such are for Misplaced Pages processes such as AfD. ] 16:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please review ObRoy's ] and in consideration of the dubious veracity of this alert. He has become a source of extra work for editors of royalty-related articles with his undiscussed moves and ill-thought articles and redirects. I feel, as someone who attempts to clean up the messes he creates, that this alert is merely a way for him to vent his personal feelings under the guise of a breach of etiquette. ] 17:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Consider also: ], ], ], ] and done upon a AfD entry, in retaliation to the nomination of his obscure articles (compage ancestry of Queen Elizabeth II). ] 17:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :All the above numerous replies from user:Charles just tell how intent he is on making personal attacks. Nothing of those are reasons for deletion, but anuway Charles tries to use them as such - actually, doing personal attacks. Charles has celarly not understood instructions how to make a proposal for AfD. Also, this Charles seems to edit warnings away from his usertalk page: , (Accumulated earlier warnings to Charles are not easy to dig, beceuse sometime two months ago he had had his user talk pages deleted, on pretext of "leaving Misplaced Pages" - which did not come to happen, the only that happened was deletion of the talk edit histories and warnings). A long block for Charles would be advisable. ] 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, I am merely proving a point: You must be accountable for your actions before you can hold anyone else to be. I understand how to make a proposal at AfD. What you need to understand is that your work will be removed and edited if it falls below par, you will be warned for infractions on WP and you must stop holding double standards. Consider the things you have said about many fine administrators and editors. You are guilty of personal attacks but your victims can obviously handle it while you label constructive criticism and observations as personal attacks. It is understood between myself and other users that your work needs to be combed through and the many, many errors must be fixed. Many of these violations of basic WP "law" occurred after warnings for such (i.e, your undiscussed page moves). Maturity gains respect. ] 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The "warning" by you is unwarranted, and something you are guilty of. The (late) warning by Shilkanni was for an extremely old page move done in the infancy of my time at Misplaced Pages. The latter is irrelevant, the former is absurd. ] 18:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The complaints mad by ] against ] are absolutely justified - and not the other way around as ObRoy maintains. ObRoy has moved dozens and dozens of articles, leaving an absolute mess behind him. Several editors, including Charles have asked ObRoy to cease and desist, but he just continues. Now ObRoy has started creating a number of new pages which are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. When challenged, he claims it is a personal attack on him. ] 00:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do not think ObRoy's edits are as obnoxious as Charles claims. Nevertheless, the naming of European nobility is quite controversial here; probably more controversial than it in reason ought to be. ObRoy is relatively new, and may not realize this. While I sympathise with several of ObRoy's moves, they should not have been done without discussion, as many of them appear to be. I cannot hold Charles's words unwarranted: they serve to justify a collective deletion, and alert the rest of us to actions which may require consideration. ] 14:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===22 June 2006=== | |||
| ] created an account less than two hours ago and has already reverted over twenty articles exactly twice, see . When warned he has responded with incivility and personal attacks, see ]. 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| On ] we are having a debate about calling it Portal:Taiwan or Portal:Republic of China. The mediator has suggested we have both portals but one of the participants is insisting we should only have one. 07:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] is the subject of yet another NPOV dispute. It was over 200KB and was archived yesterday by ] and today is again over 72KB, with no apparent progress towards resolution. Was the archiving inappropriate, is the NPOV issue clearly stated and what can be done to move the work on? 10:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Is ] occurring at ]? If so, what could the editors on that talk page do to help things be more civil? 14:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *]. User ] is trying to ] the article, and he makes some interesting and . Basically, he's telling me not to edit the article because I don't buy Steven E. Jones's arguments. That's like saying only Republicans can edit the ] article. Currently the page looks like the subject's home page, with links to the originator's original research, and every conceivable media link.--] 03:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===23 June 2006=== | |||
| ] have deleted content and made unauthorized changes to my user page. After this he protected the page so I cannot undo his changes. I see this as a clear violation of user page guidelines. --] 06:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Also under discussion at ], the content in question is a personal essay asserting that autism is the result of cross-breeding with neanderthals. It has been deleted from article space numerous times, but Rdos flatly refused to allow its removal from his user page, so I nuked it. ] 11:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*It is not a personal essay. It is a summary of the Neanderthal theory that is at my homepage. --] 12:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*... and which you have freely acknowledged is unpublished ]. An essay, in other words. ] 12:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::* ] once more violates policy. He removed the link to the theory, which is totally separate from the "essay" --] 12:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* No policy is violated when removing external links, unless they are reliable sources used in an article. ] a link farm. ] 12:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* You must be kidding. I've nerver seen anybody remove external links from talk-pages, let alone in discussions that are about those links. Are you altering people's comments in AfDs too? --] 14:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* I have seen links removed from pages of every kind. ] refers. And this discussion is not about the links, it's about your using user page as a soapbox. ] 15:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| User ] has been posting profane and abusive posts, plus posting promotional language over and over again. Please see and as just 2 examples. User also has posted 10 images which had to be removed for false copyrights and continues to post promotional lanugage on the ] page. User is related to the Bambu company and therefore is trying to use Wiki to promote his family's product :( 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :User warned. Please take this to ] if it happens again. ] 13:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Dispute over inclusion of an external link and appropriateness of an informal poll to try to achieve consent at ] 22:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Will nobody help out with this? 03:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===25 June 2006=== | |||
| {{user|Michael Trigoboff}} and {{user|Wasted Time R}} want to add information into the ] article that is ]. For a comparison, see . I have tried to rationally discuss and quote policy as to why this can not be used in the ]s page, specifically ] and ]. I would like some outside assistance, preferably an admin or a well-versed user to evaluate my stance and please tell me if my actions are wrong so that we can move on from this debate for the good of the article. If this is not the place to bring this dispute, please direct to where it should go, since this is my first time seeking help in such a matter. Thanks! -- ] <sup>] | ] | ]</sup> 01:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, Waste Time R is now going to be using the Usenet rec.music.gdead postings as sources (]). I would really appreciate some input on this, since as it stands it is two-to-one against me. -- ] <sup>] | ] | ]</sup> 06:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{user|Rjensen}} removed sourced material from ], alleging a pro-slavery POV.. He repeated on the talk page that {{user|Pmanderson}} was . | |||
| The disputed text summarizes some of ''Hamilton's'' views, as expressed in ; Pmenderson/Septentrionalis does not agree with Hamilton, and has said so., last paragraph of diff. Jensen replied that pro-slavery agitators would have minimized Hamilton's work, so Septentrionalis must be one of them. . | |||
| This personal attack , by itself, does not warrant a Request for Comment, so it is here. If any light can be shed on the underlying content disputes, which are discussed at some length on ], it will be welcome. | |||
| ===27 June 2006=== | |||
| Anonymous user ] (] • ]) is adding to ] brief mentions about supercomputers that can supposedly perform a petaflop or better (making it the fastest supercomputer yet). He/she's adding these claims to the "Current fastest supercomputer system" section even though they haven't been tested yet, and some haven't even been built yet. The only sources provided are short, uninformative technology blog articles. Further, he/she at one point blanked out the entire section to mention a new (untested) Japanese supercomputer, and also removed my comments on the talk page discussing the edits. I would appreciate it if someone gave this user a stern talking to, or maybe even a short block. Thankyou. 07:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] I feel is imparing me from contributing to articles by Reverting every article i contribute to and is making my time here on wikipedia Very frustrating ] 03:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===28 June 2006=== | |||
| ''']''' has been repeatedly and increasingly abusive on ], ], and more than a dozen other articles. (See ]) 13:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :For clarification, the discussion referenced by ''']''' is being carried out at ]. A categorization war between ''']''' and ''']''' is already being mediated there by at least two other editors, ] (mainly) and myself. Sorry that it spilled over here, ] 15:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Argument at ] over whether to include numerous fact tags or not. Editor is refusing to discuss and threatening to revert on sight. 22:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''' has become increasingly abusive and launching personal attacks on other editors who challenge him. He has | |||
| *dared editors to revert him | |||
| "I dare you to revert that, unless you believe you are a more reliable source than Grumman's original test pilot" | |||
| *Made personal attacks on the qualifications of editors: "As far as I know, I have no reason to believe that you have even a bachelors degree, ever taken a course in writing or logic, ever wrote a computer program, or even held a job, let alone an IQ over 100, purchased, borrowed, browsed or even read a single book, magazine, watched any media or even visited an aviation museum exhibit on the F-14." . --] 04:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have also been involved in a dispute with this user, and it started when he debated with me on the issue of the ] being the successor of the ]. During that debate, he called me a "menace" and "nuisance" (through one of his IP addresses), accused me and ] of vandalism when we had no such intent, and repeatedly added in unverified claims. He seems to have stopped after I performed a partial rewrite of the Matador article, though. Here are the related pages to my dispute... | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :I feel that this user can contribute postively to Misplaced Pages, but if he continues this abusive behavior, I'm afraid action will have to be taken, which is something I want to try avoiding... --] 04:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===5 July 2006=== | |||
| In my opinion, User:Quiddity has been ] & libeling User:Chuck Marean verbally (see: ) and by reverts ( for example, ).--] 16:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :For more history, please review removed talk page content: . 16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===6 July 2006=== | |||
| ''']''' tried to from the "see also" section of an article. Her response to the reversion of this was to with irrelevent links. Her actions have been reverted by multiple editors, but she persists. 00:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Anonymous user ] (] • ]) has been vandalising ] and adding derogatory and abusive personal remarks to ]. S/he has not edited any other article, does not sign comments, and has already been warned on her/his User Page. 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''' Provocations and probing for edit war on ]. Removing sourced material and adding provocative and discredited maps to the article. 04:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''' Commonly makng joke edits and vandalising articles by adding made-up words to them. Has been commonly repeated and over many differant articles. | |||
| ''']''' has added links to a number of non-existent Greek-language articles. I politely suggested to him that the articles should exist before any links to them are created. His response is unfathomingly offensive and I've never seen anything like it on Misplaced Pages, writing: "Get off my face. Who are you spending your time snooping over our backs for misplaced commas and the shadow of pagan penises going all the way allah's rotten anus. Little snoop. Ha! I didn't know Misplaced Pages was turning into a corporation. . . a power structure with deadlines, übercontrol and the like. Oh I didn't know! Honestly". This guy has written some highly offensive stuff about Turks, referring to them as "oppresing pigs", with "furs", and their religion as "creed of backward imbecile sand-humans". I think somebody should have a word with him.17:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''' is amending articles for a long time, specifically removing redundant AD/CE tags, and uniforming the article where mixed AD/CE usage is present. One side-effect of this action is that, in articles where no years/centuries BC/BCE are involved, he removes all of the tags, according to Manual of Style, Eras section. ''']''' wants to keep at least one AD (he is apparently interested only in ADs, not CEs) in every article dealing with 1st/2nd century. ''']''' is simply reverting most or all of Panairjdde's edits on the matter. The Panairjdde/Codex Sinaiticus discussion is on ] and ], the request for explanation of Panairjdde to Crculver is on ]. Would anyone mind to come and express a POV on the matter?--] 23:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===8 July 2006=== | |||
| ''']''' has deleted information on ] and ] (and it appears ] as well) without comment, has chosen not to resolve the dispute on the talk page, and has left personal attacks on the talk pages of editors who disagree with him (e.g. "You japanese bitch. it is none of your biz." and "Fuck you bitch"). Assistance would be appreciated. 21:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===10 July 2006 === | |||
| admin ] seems to think I work for him. Summary of what happened on the ] page and on my talk page. Would like to know if his behavior is inline with site guidelines. ] 05:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes it is. Suggesting an editor provide sources is standard. More on your talk page. ] 15:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===12 July 2006=== | |||
| ''']''' regarding edits and general attitude displayed at ] over the past month. The issue was attempted to be resolved (]) and a concensus was reached, but the user refuses to acknowledge it, instead encouraging a revert war and making claims they don't seem to understand. Thanks. 19:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:37, 29 November 2020
Historical document | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Wikiquette assistance was an informal process, set up in March 2005, available to editors who felt that they were being treated uncivilly. There was discussion among the community about its effectiveness, and a consensus was formed to eliminate the Wikiquette assistance process. This page was formally marked inactive in September 2012.
If you require assistance with resolving a content issue, please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.
For a similar noticeboard which was also discontinued and marked historical, see WP:PAIN.
| Search the Wikiquette archives |