Misplaced Pages

:Wikiquette assistance: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:45, 6 July 2012 editSecond Quantization (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers24,876 edits →Uncivil behavior: close, this isn't going anywhere← Previous edit Revision as of 21:54, 6 July 2012 edit undoSecond Quantization (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers24,876 edits →Wikiquette violation in summary: replyNext edit →
Line 224: Line 224:
:::Smiley to make thing slighthearted in case it was construed as aggressive. :::Smiley to make thing slighthearted in case it was construed as aggressive.
:::But i did starta talk page discussion at said page. Though i handled well not perfect, but well] (]) 19:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC) :::But i did starta talk page discussion at said page. Though i handled well not perfect, but well] (]) 19:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

::::You should avoid being so harsh when you are deleting talk page sections. You can simply remove them with "archiving" for example. Alternatively you can just leave them, or archive in bulk. ] (]) 21:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:54, 6 July 2012

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to wikiquette assistance
    Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks.
    • Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s).
    • No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead.
    		 Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    		 Shortcut
    Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
    Search the Wikiquette archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

    Active discussions

    Gauge00

    While much of this dispute seems to be inflamed by the apparent language barrier (Guage00 seems to have limited facility with English), there is an ongoing discussion about the range of years covered by the Records of the Three Kingdoms, a classical Chinese work. Gauge00 is convinced that the beginning year in the article, AD 184, is incorrect, and to support his position he has been arguing that the book fails to mention certain events prior to 189 that it "should contain" (, , , , ). Three different editors (myself included) have pointed out that this is an illogical argument(,,), constitutes original research (), and that wikipedia operates by consesus (see previous diff ). Gauge00's response, despite repeatedly admitting that he has not read the source text(,,& others), has been to assert that the particular editor who made the date change in the first place must have been at fault because a previous version said something else (, ), that his interlocutor's are "incompetant" (,) and "stubborn" (), and has also focused on his belief that I'm advocating the consensus position because he believes I'm Chinese ( -- for the record, "siafu" is a swahili word). I tried to remind him to WP:NPA twice(,), but he made no acknowledgement, and continues to argue on the same lines. My personal belief is that this dispute is being fueled both by a lack of familiarity with wikiquette, and a failure in communication due to Gauge00's lack of fluency with the English language, but I honestly don't know how to proceed here. The dispute has not really risen to the level of an edit war, as yet, but could, and I'm hoping that outside help could resolve the situation better than I and others have been (not) able to thus far, and especially some advice on how to deal with editors unfamiliar with wikipedia policies and with limited command of English would be appreciated. siafu (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

    On the discussion regarding deletion of a page he created (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Assassination_plots_in_the_Three_Kingdoms), Guage00 has been extremely hostile, in the discussion and in notes to his edits of the page referring to other editors as "dogs", "dusgusting morons", and "shits". Snuge purveyor (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

    Nobody involved has any intention of chastising Gauge00 for his faulty English, but that cannot be used as an excuse for attacking other editors and flaunting self-perceived authority he does not have any right to. Hurling abuse at other editors should not need a wiki page; it's quite simply polite, in any respect, to refrain from insulting others. Benjitheijneb (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

    Is there really no assistance available here? Was this a complete waste of time? siafu (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

    Yeah that's pretty sad. Why is no admin responding or helping you guys out on this page? 119.224.27.62 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

    Gauge00 today attacked an IP editor at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms, where the IP suggested an AfD be created to remove the List of people of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which he created WP:POINT to prove a point from (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Assassination_plots_in_the_Three_Kingdoms. I have nominated the article for deletion as the IP requested, but Gauge00's continued abuse MUST be dealt with; there is no reason why well-intentioned editors must suffer his self-aggrandising insults. See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms for further details. Benjitheijneb (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

    He's even abusing admins now! Benjitheijneb (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

    Hi guys. I'm just dropping by this page because I want to know more about how to use this forum in the future. I didn't really read through all the diffs but I did get the chance to read through Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms. I think that users from both sides should review Misplaced Pages:Etiquette. Even if a user's post is hurtful it might be best to ignore it and kindly tell the user what you feel without commenting about their behavior or applying the policy guidelines because they may interpret it as an insult and could retaliate by insulting you guys again. If you guys have already done this then I apologize for not reading all the diffs in detail. I'm afraid that your last option should be to going to WP:ANI if no other administrator or editor responds to your posts here.119.224.27.62 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

    User:Darkwarriorblake


    Very simple. I asked a good faith question on the talk page for MOS:FILM. I received a few replies that disagreed with my inquiry but were not directed toward me, but DarkWarriorblake said I was naive to think that way. I asked for him/her to redact the comment, but I received a cold reply and not even an apology. This type of behavior is contrary to WP:CIVIL as the comment was directed toward me on not on the content of the discussion, as he/she clearly said.."It is naive to think that...", meaning I was naive to think these things. I tried to ask for a redaction but was rebuffed with more incivility, by saying "How you translated that into a personal attack and inferred information suppression is some Back to the Future style time-travel reality warping chicanery."--JOJ 22:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

    Having interacted with DWB in the past, occasionally finding him/her to be a bit terse, or even impolite at times, I really feel that this situation does not merit intervention. Perhaps both parties involve could take a deep breath, shake virtual hands and move on? Two pennies, that is all. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    And please don't take that as me implying that you aren't allowed to be offended... I'm just asking if this is worth offense. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    It takes two to tango. I asked for an apology and was tartly rebuked. JOJ 01:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

    My advice is to just drop it and move on. Ignore the user if possible. Just a suggestion in the future if a similar incident is applied by another user towards you, just ask them politely who was the user referring to as "naive" in a short statement. I don't think that there is any need to tell them that you took it as a personal attack such as "I ask a question and now I'm "Naive"? Is this personal?....Is that an attack of some sort?". Some users may think that you're making direct accusations or taking their posts out of context and they may feel intimidated so they could retaliate and insult you back to defend themselves because they don't appreciate being misunderstood. I know this wasn't your intent though and I understand what you really meant but remember that when you're online some people might interpret other people's words differently. I'm pretty sure DWB didn't mean to insult you either and may not be aware that others could find his/her own post as uncivil. Remember to follow the Dealing with incivility #4: Even if you're hurt, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. The other editor probably didn't mean to cause you pain or harm. I hope that my suggestion helps :-) 119.224.27.62 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

    Fairlyoddparents1234 v. DreamMcQueen: Edit warring


    Hello there. I am currently involved in a dispute with User:DreamMcQueen. I have added a link to CBS Television Stations to List of CBS television affiliates (table) after where it says "This list does not include independent stations or stations affiliated with The CW". I am not sure why, but he decided to remove it, citing redundancy as an explanation. What makes me concerned is the fact that he has not yet removed such links from List of NBC television affiliates (table) (for Telemundo O&Os) and List of Fox television affiliates (table) (for MyNetworkTV O&Os), all three which I have added. To make matters worse, he sometimes deliberately leaves the edit summary field blank. I have attempted to revert my edits until I decided to give up and report this, on account of the policy WP:3RR. Also, for List of ABC television affiliates (table), he has been repeatedly removing the designated market area from the O&O list, even though I still kept it in alphabetical order (see edit history). He reverts my edit. I revert back again. I recently had the article put on a one-week edit lock. What concerns me is that there would be consensus at the TV station WikiProject before the DMA's could be removed from article lists. There WAS a discussion, but it was NOT supposed to affect affiliate lists of the "Big Six". Apparently, DreamMcQueen is not part of the project. In addition, the NBC, FOX and CBS (oh wait, he stripped the DMAs off the CBS table too) have not been affected yet. This has made me think that he is effectively attempting to claim article ownership; clearly a violation of "Da Rules". In addition, I am starting to be concerned about his edits in general, as it seems he is abusing the vandalism marker. In my personal opinion, I think he should begin to familiarize himself with the policies and guidelines here. If he does not comply, I think it's safe to declare him a vandal. Further problems with this issue and it's headed for the RFC noticeboard. Thank you. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 12:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

    It is best that you refrain from constantly applying policies and guidelines towards this user's post as it may be interpreted as a personal attack where the user will just ignore it and take it as an insult. Also your tone of language at the user's talk page such as saying "Piss me off via edit war or any other method and I WILL IMMEDIATELY REPORT YOU TO AN ADMINISTRATOR AT ALL MEANS!!!!!!! You've been warned. And don't you even dare respond to this at my talk page. Don't you dare get me hot or else you will find yourself hanged above the flames of WP Admin Hell!" will definitely not help get your own point across this user at all so I'd advise that you review the Misplaced Pages:Civility so that in the future conflicts like this won't happen anymore. Remember that the more civil you post the easier it will be for administrators and other editors to help you both resolve your differences and carry a proper discussion.119.224.27.62 (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    Well I have already tried to be civil to him, but he keeps making the problem worse. Besides, I have tried WP:DRN, but he wouldn't get in the discussion. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 18:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    Hi again. Just remember to be civil at all times. If the user insults you next time, just ignore the insulting parts of the comment even if its hard not to and focus on what is the user's point. If that doesn't work then put then you can finally take the problem to either WP:DRN or WP:ANI where the administrators can take action(such as what had happened here). The easier it is to identify who is more civil the faster it will be for other's to help you out. Anyways it seems like the problem has died down now and an admin had already helped you so that's great progress. Well done. :-) 119.224.27.62 (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    Obotlig

    Obotlig, at Misplaced Pages, we have policies, and above those, we have what are called 'pillars'. These are strict non-negotiable policies that all members of the community are expected to abide by. One of these pillars is WP:Civility. While you may strongly disagree on content, making personal attacks or namecalling is inappropriate for the encyclopedia. If you need advice on how to proceed in the debate, please go ahead and ask, but understand that the behavior shown in the above diff records is not in line with our core policies. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)



    FYI, I just redirected that shortcut for WP:DNFTT to the WP:Civility page. Actually, I think it needs to be MfD'd or PROD'd but it is an inappropriate shortcut in terms of civility. -- Avanu (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    Bbb23 reverted the change I made for that shortcut, suggesting I either leave it or actually MfD it. That has now been done. -- Avanu (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    Areaseven

    Material has been voluntary taken off the user talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    A while back, Areaseven and I had some minor disagreements over some article content (mainly images), a wrong button hit, and a patronizing comment he made towards me. Early last month, I discovered that Areaseven had retained a comment I made on his talk page months ago where I used wording that he construed as racist (my response to the previous diff). When I discovered this fact (despite the fact that he removes everything else that ever makes it onto his talk page), and also had added commentary. As he had refactored my original post, I removed his comment along with a harsh word, but then left a comment unrelated to that issue. He then reverted me. In any attempt I made to explain myself, Areaseven ignored it and continued to fail to assume any sort of good faith on my part. After a long and heated discussion with him, he removed everything I said from his page and I avoided dealing with him after leaving this final message where I attempted to end the dispute, which he reverted 2 minutes after I pressed save.

    The other day, I attempted to extend an olive branch, once more, and request that Areaseven write some content before another less experienced editor did. After refusing, Areaseven proceeded to add back every discussion we had. My inquiry into this behavior was ignored and Areaseven instead added his own commentary to year old occurences.

    Areaseven continues to fail to assume any good faith on my part, whether it be from accidentally hitting the "rollback (vandal)" link instead of the "undo" link, from an unintentional combination of words that he has latched onto as being a racist remark, or feeling referring to an action of multiple image uploads as "overboard" is a slight against him. I understand that he has some personal choice over its content, but at this point he is just being spiteful in keeping his consistent misconstrued opinions over what I've said to him. I will admit that conversations between myself and Areaseven delved into incivility, but there is no reason he should enshrining the discussions he and I have had to mock me.

    Also I've posted here, because the last time I posted to WP:ANI regarding a similar situation, I was told it was not meant for that board. If I'm incorrect, again, please move this and tell me where it's gone to.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    Just to ignore the problem and the user per WP:DENY. If the editor wants to reject an olive branch or do something childish on their usertalk, let them, it only reflects badly on them and not you. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    But clearly Areaseven should not be allowed to retain this content in a means to spite me.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    Just wondering, what do you want to get out of this? - Areaseven (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    First and foremost, I want you to undo your "Never Forget." edit (and related edits). And I would like to end this unnecessary hostility between us. I am sorry that I have been uncivil towards you, but that is only because I have not once received any sort of civility from you in any of our discussions that I can recall or that I found while writing this up.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    Fine. Consider this a truce. - Areaseven (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    Uncivil behavior

    No incivility on the part of Guy. The section is degenerating into a content discussion, WQA isn't here to discuss content issues. IRWolfie- (talk)

    Guy Macon is following me around in talk pages, where I participate in on topic discussions, and follow my comments with off topic negative comments related to me and to other discussions:

    Regards. --Nenpog (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    I was really hoping to be able to agree with Guy on this. Proper process for dealing with a person who is alleged to be interfering with WP:Consensus process (like forum shopping) is to notify an administrator. Typically, this would be at AN/I. Guy is advised to follow that process.
    Please do keep in mind that if you don't get a consensus at one place, you should try to avoid hopping around until you get what you want. In many cases there is an escalation process, and its possible that you are trying to use that process, although it appears Guy doesn't see it that way. I haven't bothered to read the specifics of this, but please honor consensus, or come up with a novel argument and re-argue the dispute. If you feel like people simply aren't listening, feel free to ask for advice on how to approach it next, but don't try to win by taking something to 10 different places. Nenpog is advised to follow this process. -- Avanu (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I looked at the links and do not see a wikiquette issue. It is standard procedure to use the contributions list provided for each user to see whether any follow up to an issue is warranted. The way to respond would be to address the substance of the claims made by Guy Macon, preferably on one talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    • OP appears to be forum shopping; nothing wrong with Guy Macon pointing this out. Nobody Ent 10:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    Its also not in line with consensus building to hound people though. At this point, if it is indeed forum shopping, it needs to be brought up in a place that can adjudicate it, not pushed into discussions as a poison pill. -- Avanu (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    What? Above you say you haven't read the specifics, and now you think it's hounding? While supporting editors is great, some judgment is required to choose which side of a disagreement should be supported. I looked at the links, and there is no hounding—as I mentioned, it is an entirely standard procedure and it appears highly appropriate in this case. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    What I meant is that I didn't read the specifics of whether Nenpog was "in the right" in going to all these forums. What I can easily see, however, is that Guy is putting a fairly similar set of notices in each place. If Nenpog is forumshopping, there are places for recourse, specifically AN/I is one example. -- Avanu (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    Are you withdrawing your statement suggesting that Guy Macon is hounding another editor?
    If not, some evidence should be provided very soon.
    Anyone with a large number of comments at noticeboards should be aware that people at ANI are tired of every little problem being taken there—it's up to people participating in the community to sort out what they can. Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    I've given my advice on this, in fact, I was first, so lay off, relax, and read what I said, or don't, your choice. If you have a particular problem with the word 'hound', please point out exactly what *I* meant by it. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    It is hard to comprehend how an experienced editor could imagine that it is acceptable to imply that a named editor is hounding another editor. From WP:WIAPA, "What is considered to be a personal attack?...Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". This is a noticeboard, not a 101 Philosophy course where we discuss whether "hound" has an intrinsic meaning. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)There's no benefit to Misplaced Pages to hash out exactly what noun (gerund?) is most appropriate to describe GM's behavior. Posting a notice at the various forums that the edits where in response to a particular situation was a reasonable thing to do. Starting an ANI thread is a legitimate alternative. Personally I think GMs action was the less inflammatory course of action to take. Nobody Ent 11:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Sorry, maybe you could point out exactly where I said that Guy Macon is hounding anyone? Please go read what I actually said which was "Its also not in line with consensus building to hound people". Followed by "if it is indeed forum shopping, it needs to be brought up in a place that can adjudicate it". So, again, relax, stop looking for additional problems, and focus on the issues brought before us here and the two editors involved. Have a great day. P.S. Although I agree with Nobody Ent's comment about this possibly being the less inflammatory approach, we find ourselves here now, and so he should decide whether to continue the method that brought us here, or take it to AN/I. Wouldn't you agree? -- Avanu (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    I think ya'll should just agree to disagree and take no further action. Nobody Ent 11:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)It would be best if Guy and Nenpog could figure out an amicable way to relate going forward. I don't think AN/I wants to see a post where Nenpog has to report Guy, and I doubt Nenpog wants the reverse. I went ahead and read through a bit more of the debates. Nenpog sounds like a person with a very deep understanding of X-Ray technology and seems to be well received in the discussions. Obviously something led to Nenpog going to outside forums for review and advice, but just as Johnuniq says above, if we're going to make a claim, we should back it up. EdJohnston said Nenpog seemed "to be eager to draw attention to the risks of ionizing radiation to the patient" and advised him to "negotiate patiently on the talk page to see if you can reach agreement with the others". I can't say for sure how much of that has happened, but following an editor from page to page and putting up a 'disclaimer' is not a valid approach to consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    Since it doesn't seem to be staying closed I'll respond instead. I am not involved in this dispute and don't know all of the background. What I do know is what I observed at COIN and on IRC: Nenpog has been consistently pushing his views on the wiki on multiple noticeboards/locations etc, including IRC. On #wikipedia-en IRC for example, related to this dispute, he joined the channel to argue that being a doctor in a hospital that has a CT scanner is a conflict of interest. He also tried to argue beyond what was reasonable about basing WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims off an unreliable source as well. The level of reliable sources required for this exceptional claim just don't exist. He appears unable to accept any of the responses or points made against his point and continues on, a case of WP:IDHT. It's also clear the content is just not going to go into the article and the consensus is against it, he should drop the WP:STICK and walk away. Guy is fully correct to keep tabs on what Nenpog is doing, because so far it has been consistently disruptive to the point of exacerbation. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    Do I need to respond to these not related allegations? Why not related? Because it is clear from reading my posts, to which Guy Macon has uniformly replied, that each post of mine was about a separate subject. One was about the operational procedures of the COIN, one was about the MEDRS rules, one was about if simple logic is a synthesis, and one was about due weight. Two of these discussions were opened by other people, and I have only joined them and responded to the discussion. Guy Macon came, and has put there his message, that is not even related to the topic being discussed.
    IRWolfie joined the discussion here and claimed, well yes, but this is all justified because I am a non related person, that don't know the background, but trust me that I know these non related facts, that prove that Nenpog is the bad guy here, and so he deserves to be followed around with a disclaimer, so that all the other innocent editors will be careful, and this is my own disclaimer here, to warn you of that bad guy, and to remind you, that even if this is not fair, he deserves it. Does this sum it up close enough to what you meant IRWolfie?--Nenpog (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    I would like to point out that before Nenpog accused me of uncivil behavior he accused me (without evidence) of having an undisclosed conflict of interest. I would have ignored that -- if you volunteer at WP:DRN you will get a few false accusations from disputants -- but he also accused another editor who, like me, chooses to reveal his true name and who is an Emergency Room Physician in Canada. That is totally acceptable behavior.

    This started as a content dispute on Talk:X-ray computed tomography where Nenpog faced a lack of consensus (every other editor opposed the changes he wished to make.) My only involvement is as a dispute resolution volunteer who tried to help resolve the conflict when it reached WP:DRN.
    He was then blocked for edit-warring and tendentious editing.
    He then started Misplaced Pages:Forum shopping, taking his dispute to:
    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine,
    Talk:Ionizing radiation,
    Misplaced Pages talk:No original research,
    Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard,
    User talk:Elen of the Roads,
    Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard,
    Misplaced Pages talk:No original research (Second time, in a different section),
    At least one IRC channel (I don't follow IRC),
    And now he is at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance. I have no intention of reporting Nenpog at AN/I or anywhere else, for the simple reason that his behavior is not harming me. I considered ignoring the behavior, but Nenpog has wasted a large amount of other editor's time time in a large number of places, so I decided that I would simply post a short, fact-based explanation of where he has been with this previously each time his forum shopping takes him to a new noticeboard and not comment after that. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    The only place in which you haven't comment 'after that' was the NOR talk page, and that is so probably only because you didn't have time to, as your first comment there was made recently in the last day.
    BTW, at the NPOV talk page one of the editors responded to Guy with "Cannot fully agree. Nenpog has asked quite a legitimate question"Paul Siebert and then Guy's friend started talking about wolves, and naturally Paul Sibert wondered "What do you mean under "virtual wolves" in this particular case?"Paul Siebert. And I ask too, what do wolves has to do with a discussion about due weight, and what all of the above has to do with someone following me around and posting off topic content where it doesn't belong. I don't get it. --Nenpog (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    Update: I have split the fresh disclaimer of Guy from the NOR discussion into a subsection, as it was not related, in accordance with WP:TALKO sectioning. Guy have undone that split, and accused me of POV pushing that his disclaimer is off topic. Seems like at this point Guy Macon still think that his disclaimer is in its proper place. --Nenpog (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    Please WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You wasted my time at WP:NOR after repeatedly being given perfectly good answers elsewhere. I fully approve of that notice there to give the background to what your query was about. My guess is you will eventually be blocked indefinitely as you don't seem to be able to drop the stick. Dmcq (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    Dmcq, you claim that I was given a good answer to the question ("Is simple logic a SYNTH?"), that was asked at the NOR elsewhere. Please supply a diff of the good answer given elsewhere. --Nenpog (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    I believe a month ago is about the earliest saying essentially that to you. Dmcq (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    That wasn't an answer to whether simple logic is a synth. --Nenpog (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    You said 'This is not original research. CT inflict ionizing radiation on patients, and ionizing radiation cause adverse effects' and were responded to with ' When you use a source which does not explicitly mention the article's subject that is WP:SYNTH'. That was pretty clear about you basing the insertion on simple logic and a person telling you it was SYNTH and not admissable under the original research policy and they pointed you at the relevant place which explains it in more detail. Dmcq (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    It is pretty clear that that person wrote nothing about simple logic, and gave me an advice that is in line with use of simple logic: "I think that the way to post this is to provide a source which states the range of radiation to which CT machines expose patients, then state that range and reference a source which says what happens at that range."Blue Rasberry. There was no suggestion that I would find an answer in the WP:SYNTH section, as WP:SYNTH was used as a noun ("that is WP:SYNTH"Blue Rasberry). A referral was given to the WP:PRIMARY section, which doesn't include anything discussing logic. The claim that the source must explicitly mention the article's subject was not accompanied by any quote from any policy. For staying on topic, I didn't include here arguments that show that following the links to the mentioned WP:terms wouldn't have provided me with an answer to the question, since that is not relevant to the current question, of whether I have gotten an answer to the simple logic question by Blue Rasberry, and I think that what I wrote proves that I haven't.
    Do you have an other diff, that you think is a good answer given elsewhere?--Nenpog (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    This is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. No matter how many times Nenpog is told that he is wrong, he won't listen. In regards to Nenpog's latest complaint, he put my comment into a separate section which he labeled "Guy Macon's disclaimer" while putting his comments and the other responses into a new "Main discussion" section. I reverted with the comment "Nenpog, stop modifying or moving comments that are critical of you in order to push your POV that they are 'off topic' or in any other way not replies to the comment above them." he ignored that edit comment as he ignored Dmcq's response to his complaint above -- more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    Funny that you come up with WP:ICANTHEARYOU that fits your behavior. Did you hear Avanu comments btw? Do you think that you are being civil? You once wrote that if anyone find your behavior not civil they should tell you. Consider yourself told. --Nenpog (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    Wikiquette violation in summary


    I created the Syria Files article and Lihaas added quickly some tags: notability, original research. I added more references easily, it is an event covered in mainstream media (hundreds of news in Google News). Soon, I was reverted again by Lihaas and he wrote this comment in my talkpage. After other users removed the tags he put in Syria Files, I noticed him the changes. He has named my comment as "nonsense" and deleted it. I don't delete his comments using that summaries, so I prefer he doesn't do it. Regards. emijrp (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    i was perfectly polite in asking him, and he responds aggressively and starts to revert things on my talk page (that was undone by others). . Im entitled to withdraw stuff from my talk page, as is anyone.
    "You should not delete the comments of other editors" shows a misunderstanding of WP policies. His inclusion of the other editors who reverted him on my talk page is more deceptive as theyre not involved in anything. Only points to WP:BOOMERANG
    At any rate, tag removals require discussion per BRD as i politely requested. This wasnt done. And a discussion is ongoing on that page. Lihaas (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    I'm sure Lihaas could improve his way of dealing with other editors, but in this case, "nonsense" was a description of Lihaas' opinion of the edit, not of the editor. It's not unduly rude. Further, the comment that Lihaas put on Emijrp's talk page was completely unproblematic - it was a request to discuss and not edit war. (Although I have no idea what the smiley at the end of it was trying to imply). From the diffs given above, Lihaas is only at 1RR on the article page itself. Emijrp is at 2RR on Lihaas' talk page - Emijrp seems to have misunderstood what it says on WP:TPO. Lihaas was being slightly aggressive on the article and dismissive of Emijrp's disagreement, but the problems are not as described in the complaint. Both editors should go away and discuss it politely on the article talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    Smiley to make thing slighthearted in case it was construed as aggressive.
    But i did starta talk page discussion at said page. Though i handled well not perfect, but wellLihaas (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    You should avoid being so harsh when you are deleting talk page sections. You can simply remove them with "archiving" for example. Alternatively you can just leave them, or archive in bulk. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    Category: