Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timeshifter (talk | contribs) at 18:58, 7 June 2007 (→[[User:Timeshifter]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    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 Wikipedia: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 alerts

    April 28, 2007

    Alleged Incivility from Calton

    Myself and another user have noticed problems with this user's tone. See [1] and [2] and his response to the latter [3]. Is it too much to ask for some uninvolved editors to keep an eye on this user and let him know when he is being uncivil? It seems he believes his is entitled to uncivil to users he disagrees with. IPSOS (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems he believes his is entitled to uncivil [sic] to users he disagrees with. Wrong, but you just keep thinking there, Butch, it's what you're good at.

    I certainly believe that stalkers, spammers, edit-warriors, trolls, fanatics, nannies, busy-bodies, and people who actively make attempts to insult my intelligence shouldn't be coddled, encouraged, or enabled, no. I certainly hold an entire page devoted to encouraging unwarranted and intrusive nannyism -- like this one -- ought to be laughed at at every opportunity and its cast of do-gooders looking for chances to exercise their self-assigned moral superiority be treated with the disdain they deserve. You want to be a missionary instead actually, you know, editing and/or writing an encyclopedia, perhaps your local church has some openings for overseas missions.

    I certainly think anyone who shows the generalized attack on some users that you, IPSOS, have on your user pages makes you a particularly rich choice for gassing on about civility, not to mention the general immaturity and contempt for other editors the "practical joke" on your page shows. Clean up your act, first, and maybe I'll listen. --Calton | Talk 04:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the above speaks volumes to Calton's incivility and his "holier-than-thou" attitude towards others. It also shows that Calton has no interest in changing his behaviour and will continue to be incivil towards anyone and everyone until he goes over that boundary between assertive and blantant incivility that he sits on, on a daily basis, and gets blocked or banned for it.
    I suggest, regardless of the history that him and I might have, that he get himself back on the assertive side of that boundary and tone himself down alot. You can be assertive and civil at the same time. - SVRTVDude (VT) 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...his "holier-than-thou" attitude towards others. Nope, simply my dislike of the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.
    In any case, given your complete inability to follow your own advice in general or keep any of your promises in particular...well, let's just say that your advice isn't worth the electrons it took to put them up on the monitor for anyone to read. Personally, I'd suggest to you that you knock off the petty stalking, mmmkay, before you get blocked or banned for it. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "petty stalking"....oh, here we go with that again. Calton, first, I am not incivil with anyone not even you and second, this is about you and your incivility and has nothing to do with me. Anyway, you have and are clearly demonstrating that very incivility for us with your above statements. Calling anyone you come in contact with "dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical" is incivility at it's best (or worst in this case) and it is a surprise it hasn't gotten you in more trouble, but if you keep it up, it will and fast. You can't go head-to-head with an admin (as you have done in the past) and not expect some kind of consequence. You can't snap everyone's head off and give the "holier-than-thou" "don't insult my intelligence" routine or the "I'm being stalked" routine and not expect to have no one listen to you, have everyone think you are an egotist, and it get you in a helluva lot of trouble. You can't make a mistake and when someone politely let's you know of it, go on a paragraph and a half tirade. You can't berate anyone because they have a difference of opinion or revert an edit you have made. You have been blantantly incivil with no less than 100 people here on Wikipedia and you show no signs of stopping.
    Personally, I would rather not deal with half the people I come in contact with on a daily basis and would LOVE to tell a ton of people exactly what I think, but I can't. It's that whole common sense and civility thing, that same thing you seem to be having a problem with. As the old saying goes, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar". You may not like it, but in life, you have to deal with it...and if you don't here, you are going to get blocked or banned.
    Now, let's address that incivility and try and not make it about me, shall we? - SVRTVDude (VT) 09:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    His response to my "spamminess" was completely uncivil. By dealing with "stalkers, spammers, edit-warriors, trolls, fanatics, nannies, busy-bodies, and people who actively make attempts to insult my intelligence" in such a manner he provokes them doing even more harm to wikipedia. While his 14 archived talk pages have probably done some good to wikipedia he makes many others "like me" want to jump ship and never edit another article again. If wikipedia would like to retain its loyal editors I would suggest dealing with users like calton in a more up front way (maybe a few day block so he can cool his head). Andman8 03:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ..he makes many others "like me" want to jump ship and never edit another article again - If by "like me" you're referring to your permabanned business partner MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs), that won't be a great loss, since your own major contributions seem to center around a) pimping a commercial site for your own benefit; and b) writing about your relatives. And, of course, accusing me of incivility is a bit rich, given your Talk Page response when I answered the questions you asked (See his questions and my response). And then there's the whole issue of posting while drunk. If you want to use Wikipedia to line your own pockets, expect a response, like here.
    So, any questions? --Calton | Talk 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Calton, this is why you will never get along with ANYONE here. You have an ego the size of Jupiter and growing quickly. You think you can break any rule that suits you, you think you can berate people as you see fit, you think you can stalk people around Wikipedia and it's OK, you think your behaviour is acceptable, you think your "intelligence" is something to be in awe of (please!), and you troll around Wiki with that "holier-than-thou" attitude and expect people to kiss your ass. Dude, you would have had the crap smacked outta you a long time ago if pulled this kinda behaviour in public. You need to grow up....and don't make us post all our "favorite" diffs about you. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing WP:CIVIL violations. User Calton should be banned from WP. 76.166.123.129 05:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from non-involved third party. I've read this discussion since it appeared here over a month ago. After reviewing the comments and the diffs, I do not see in Calton's comments a pattern of violating WP:CIVIL. Maybe he has done so at times, but I have not seen it in the discussions I've reviewed. My impression is that Calton's method of communicating may be a bit abrasive at times, but also that his comments seem to be very much on point and his quoting of the Wikiguides seems to be appropriate, and not an example of Wikilawyering.

    On the other hand, regarding the comment by Neutralhomer here... (According to his user page, he is the same person as Orangemonster2k1 and SVRTVDude, who posted in this section earlier - if I am mistaken about that, please post a comment to clarify). Neutralhomer's comment contains several instances of uncivil communications. For example: "You have an ego the size of Jupiter and growing quickly." - this is a statement about the user, and not about the user's behavior, making it a personal attack and a violation of WP:CIVIL. Neutralhomer accuses Calton of stalking and trolling but does not provide evidence of those behaviors, and uses uncivil language, as in this statement: "you would have had the crap smacked outta you a long time ago...". Of all places to make such a comment, placing it on a page devoted to improving etiquette between editors seems somewhat ironic and inappropriate.

    To be clear, I have had no prior communication with any of the editors involved in this discussion and I am not "taking sides". It is my opinion that everyone needs to calm down and concentrate on editing the articles and not on the personalities of the people involved in the editing. If someone writes something that bugs you, just ignore it and respond to the content of the discussion and not to the possibly abrasive personality of the editor you are debating with.

    Beyond offering that possibly over-obvious advice, this page cannot help solve a sustained dispute involving emotionally charged communications like what we have seen here. Perhaps a more formal dispute resolution process will be needed. Personally, I think those procedures are a lot of work and everyone has better things to do with their time. The best solution is for all the parties to relax and to each decide to not take the other's comments personally, and move on with good faith editing. --Parzival418 Hello 04:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no incivility on the part of Calton. This, [4]. this and this from Neutralhomer indicate a pattern of abusing Wikipedia processes such as here and WP:AN to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute. Such disruption violates WP:HAR and WP:DE and will result in a block if it continues. FeloniousMonk 05:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ::You want proof? Gimme about an hour (trust me, I will need it. - NeutralHomer T:C 05:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Ah, to hell with it...it ain't worth my time. Calton, do what you want. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    From User talk:75.62.8.225:
    Hi. I saw that you did clean-up on the Jeanne Marie Spicuzza article. Do you know why the record of your contributions were erased? Just wondering 76.166.123.129 23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Because the article was deleted as per the discussion here, as you very well know, Jeanne. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    Uh oh. I hope Ms. Spicuzza is aware of this. 76.166.123.129 06:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    Also see comments on my talk page. 76.166.123.129 06:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    May 22, 2007

    A grudge held by User: The Prince of Darkness

    I merged some character articles a while ago, and ever since, he has held some petty grudge against me. It involves calling any sort of merging I do vandalism, commenting on every complaint I get from people (usually just fans after a merger), and things like that. The most recent thing is when I try to cut down cruft on Waluigi (a minor video game character) he just reverts it without a word. Any sort of comment on his talk page is just ignored. If anyone does look there, there are probably a few uncivil comments left by me. I was just dealing with four people just like him at one time, so I was a little annoyed. TTN 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarah777

    Sarah777 is an Irish editor who has objected to the existence of an article on the "British Isles" because she considers the term offensive in Ireland. She has advocated redirecting the page, either to Britain and Ireland or to British and Irish Isles. Recently she has posted long comments on the talk page whose purpose is to criticise the conduct of the British (whom she often calls "the Brutish") - in most of them she attempts to draw an unfavourable comparison between Britain and Germany under Hitler,[5][6][7]. Additionally she frequently leaves messages and edit summaries calling other editors "vandals" and "trolls" and accusing them of personal attacks[8][9][10][11]. While anything that might constitute a personal attack is always mild, she has been treating the talk page as a soap box for quite a while.--Lo2u (T • C) 01:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think she is a bit out of control; I left a note on her talk page. However, she's not really hurting the article itself, just being an irritant on the talk page. Illuminatedwax 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in responding to this alert, this user decided that my response wasn't civil or coherent enough and left a warning template on my page saying so. Illuminatedwax 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a problem I had too. She increased her talk page vandalism count by one when I posted something. And her comments on the talk page are as strident as ever. She's been warned by at least five users, including one admin and responds to all of them with the same accusations of incivility, vandalism, trollery and "imperial myopia". Her response to the above "please keep your opinions about the issue to yourself." is pretty typical. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    May 25, 2007

    Uncivil remarks by User:Fabartus

    On this arbitration talk page [12] User:Fabartus attributes User:MK and his supporters' objections to User:Piotrus's behavior as stemming from "a healthy dose of differences in cognative capability (sic) and training". Novickas 16:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ronz & User:Levine2112

    I've (Ronz) asked Levine2112 to not post links to a dispute I've unable to settle with User:AGK [13] after removing such a link from Talk:Stephen_Barrett [14]

    Over a day later, and after making 10 edits to Talk:Stephen_Barrett, Levine2112 restores the link [15] and replies to my request [16].

    Since then, we are edit warring over these links on Talk:Stephen_Barrett and User_talk:Crohnie. --Ronz 22:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The link which I restored contains information from our mediator describing why he felt that mediation has proved and will prove to be unsuccessful. I think it would be of great benefit for all parties in the dispute to read our mediator's comments. Ronz is taking the mediator's comments as a personal attack, rather than a neutral party's observation about the state of the discussion environment. I agree with the mediator that the environment is far too hostile for civil discussion. For the past week, I have been trying to get all parties to work together and agree on a compromise; however, the incivility has quashed my efforts. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue concerning the links has been resolved. As for Levine2112's comments above, I'm ignoring them as just an angry outburst. If anyone thinks otherwise, I'm happy to respond. -- Ronz  17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    May 27 2007

    Disruptive personal attacks and NPOV - Indian Rebellion of 1857

    Repeated edit wars and abusive language, personal attacks on editors, on Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857‎. Disruptive editing on Indian Rebellion of 1857‎ connected with a right wing nationalist POV. Comments welcome on User:Jvalant, User:Bobby Awasthi, and on the article in general. srs 00:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    May 28 2007

    Edit war at Spylocked

    The edit war is about the external links in the article. See the talk page. Involved editors: Miked1d, some anonymous editor and me. Comments or advise from the community is welcome. Otto 07:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war over Nonogram#Solving_via_computer_programs

    There has actually be a lot of argument over the whole of this article, but in particular over ths section. See the article's talk page for discussions and so on, and the edit history. I don't wish to influence anyone by giving my perception of events, but I feel there is one editor who using false arguments against other editors' edits. Any comments or advice appreciated. Tim (Xevious) 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    May 29 2007

    Please help: Edit war Non-standard cosmologies Administrator User:ScienceApologist

    Normally serious acting ScienceApologist (see many good Big Bang discussions) steadily erases here only by RV without answering seriously in related DISCUSSION or giving a rational(!) reason, using Speech-bubbles only instead of serious arguments - last series:

    • 18:30, 29 May 2007 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (39,274 bytes) (rv continued POV-pushing.)
    • 15:41, 29 May 2007 84.158.252.114 (Talk) (43,044 bytes) (We have asked now >demon [17] for MEDIATION and for a fair DISCUSSION (why is there no answer, since beginning?) and without bare Mickey Mouse speech bubbles by ScienceApologist.)
    • 13:36, 29 May 2007 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (39,274 bytes) (rv -- Wikipedia is not a place to soapbox.)
    • 13:04, 29 May 2007 84.158.237.19 (Talk) (43,044 bytes) (Dear ScienceApologist, please accept our old previous offer in DISCUSSION, before permanently, blindly - additionally without comment! - erasing serious physics you don't like? please act seriously!)
    • 15:06, 28 May 2007 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (39,274 bytes) (rv continued POV pushing.)

    POV named serious WIKI-Links as:

    Since weeks stable, then erased... Pardon, is this a fair style of a WIKI-Administrator to unloved but historical physics? Nothing in related DISCUSSION (Now repeated same phraseology)!

    PLEASE REFER ONLY TO IP 84.158.210.97 or clubs-speaker wfckehler@aol.com,

    NOT to following club's distributed cluster IP: 84.158.252.101 21:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Although you would prefer lengthier answers, User:ScienceApologist does have latitude under WP:FRINGE to expect stronger than usual evidence to justify uncommon theories when discussing a hard-science topic. Note that he is not an administrator. It will not be easy for regular editors to have a dialog with you since you seem to have a different IP address almost every time you log in. Do you have some objection to creating an account? At present, it will be nearly impossible for anyone to leave you a message on your User_talk, and the effect may be that people may not give full credence to your arguments. EdJohnston 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit War with User:Baseball Bugs

    User Baseball Bugs has been engaging in what I would deem a revert war with me. Despite my attempts to communicate and suggest appropriate ways of dealing with a difference of opinion, he/she continues to revert edits of mine regardless of their validity. I have expunged information that does not belong from various articles. This started with a discussion on the Black Sox Scandal and has expanded elsewhere. I would appreciate some help in resolving the matter. //Tecmobowl 03:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above user refuses to actually discuss anything, it's his way or the highway, and continues to POV-push on articles such as Ty Cobb, and to post spam in the Shoeless Joe Jackson article, and to undo my edits in Babe Ruth while giving no specific explanation as of the moment, at least, as to what he thinks the problem is. Baseball Bugs 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Case in point, I explained my reverts in the summary and have done so when necessary on the appropriate article's talk page. I requested that further commentary be made on those pages so that anyone who might be interested in the discussion can chime in. Instead, reverts are made and my talk page has been littered with comments. My edits are explained, and I see no reason to use the same explanation over and over again when they have been explained once. I will remain quiet on this until some others can offer up a suggestion. All I ask is that the information that belongs in articles is appropriately referenced and that information that does not belong is expunged. // Tecmobowl 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked him what I consider fair questions about his continued reversion of these articles, which he labeled "harassment" and deleted from his talk page. I have already asked an admin for help. The admin advised the user to talk to me. The user said he would no longer talk to me. He continues to POV-push on the articles in question. I don't know what to do. Baseball Bugs 04:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Case in point, he continues to delete the official MLB.COM career stats for Ty Cobb, with no reason given, which is obvious POV-pushing; and nearly tricked me into a 3-revert violation (which he also escaped doing, by minutes). Baseball Bugs 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He refused to explain why he keeps deleting the official stats, and told me I should fix the article. First, I already did that, several days ago, and he deleted my changes in the process of rewriting it. Second, he continues to refuse to answer my questions and deletes them as "harassment", and presumes to tell me where I may post questions to him. Baseball Bugs 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I posed the same issue on his talk page, and of course he deleted it again. I have also informed the admin about this situation, as we seem to be at an impasse here. Baseball Bugs 04:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have concluded that the only solution is avoid including any page on my watch list that is also on Tec's watch list. I think he is a bully, and the way to avoid bullies and stay on an even keel, in the absence of any authority figure, is to stay away from where they are known to frequent. Baseball Bugs 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My assessment was correct. The complaining user here got himself into edit wars with several other users also, and is currently on 48-hour suspension for two separate 3-revert violations. Baseball Bugs 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    May 30, 2007

    User:Matthew ignoring WP:EPISODE

    I have been cutting episode articles due to WP:EPISODE. They fail the required criteria of being more than a plot summary by having sourced real world information (also failing WP:FICT and WP:WAF). Then he mass reverted them and used his own twist on the guideline to essentially ignore me. He just states that "All episodes have sourced information. You just have to find it." and "Google it" as his defense even though the guideline states "verifiable information." He claims that I am the one with no argument and only seems to be humoring me with his responses. I believe he has been blocked for running an unauthorized bot, so he hasn't replied lately. Though, I assume his replies will be exactly the same after, so some help would be appreciated. TTN 10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Completely agree regarding Matthew, he appears to actively dislike secondary references. Addhoc 13:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    May 31, 2007

    user:Valrith

    Valrith is using Wikipedia guidelines to frustrate other users. On the surface that may not sound that may not sound like a bad thing, but the user in question often misinterprets those guidelines (i.e. by calling small mistakes "vandalism" or making every sentence in an article with "citation needed"), abuses tags and reverts, and engages in trivial disputes. If you look at the user's talk page, you will see that his/her entire page is filled with warnings, blocks, and disputes. The user has been asked to tone it down numerous time from administrators and other bureaucrats. I don't know what should be done to remedy this situation, but this user does not appear to be making valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Chicken Wing 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.157.73.83 / User:IP-81-157-73-83

    On Talk:Mandrake Press, this user seems more interested in making accusations against other users than in discussing the article. GlassFET 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jüri Uluots

    Edit war by User:Digwuren, whose contributions are biased and POV. He has already been blocked for it. Digwuren does not react on motivation for corrections on talk page. Otto 07:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    June 1, 2007

    possible COI at Chemspider

      Stuck
     – this article has been referred to Afd for deletion. To comment, visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChemSpider

    "WIKICHEM" Editors promoting own or related commercial projects such as "CHEMREFER" and "CHEMSPIDER". They create/tolerate articles about these commercial websites. Martin Walker is part of the Chemspider Project, see: http://www.chemspider.com/Advisory.aspx It seems as if there is a conflict of interest and I would recommend that Wikipedia and Wikipedia users clearly define, which kind of articles are helpful! I do not think, that "Chemspider" is a helpful article that need to be part of a Encyclopedia. Please stop the commercialisation of Wikichem! 213.188.227.119 17:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The allegation of a conflict of interest is absurd as Walkerma has not edited the article. Cacycle 20:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was completely unaware that this article even existed until now! Walkerma 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pray tell, dear 213.188.227.119, what are your connections with the chemical databases you cite? ChemSpider exists (as a beta version), it seems to be used and is certainly a novel (and ambitious) method of collecting chemical data. Notability for an article of this length seems to be established. Am I to be banned from editing articles about my employer? Physchim62 (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Chemrefer probably just about passes our notability guidelines, however Chemspider doesn't appear to, accordingly I've proposed speedy deletion. Thanks for raising this. Addhoc 11:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Chemspider seems like it MIGHT represent an advance useful to chemists, and thus get written about somewhere in the secondary literature, I removed the db-spam tag and replaced it with an nn tag. This would allow time for other sources to be found. If none are found, I would suggest that someone favoring deletion apply the prod template, since this article doesn't appear to be blatant advertising, so db-spam seems excessive. COI alone is not a reason for deletion, but lack of notability is. That needs to be determined. I will leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry asking for comments. EdJohnston 15:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean by 'other sources' - this is an advertisement for a service that is entirely lacking any reliable sources. I've prodded the article, though given the conflict of interest problem, I suspect that AfD is going to be required. Addhoc 19:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The website might not be notable, but the article is not blatant advertising, it short and kept in a neutral and factual tone. Therefore it is NOT a speedy deletion candidate, please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Cacycle 20:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note my COI mentioned above (I'm Martin Walker) - I was unaware of this article's existence. I should mention that the site is still fairly new. Antony Williams is the driving force behind Chemspider, as is clear when you visit the site. I'll let others judge the notability here. Walkerma 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I could not find any reliable sources that have commented on Chemspider, so I'm withdrawing my objection to deleting the article. If the service establishes a track record it is likely that it will receive some acknowledgments in published papers. At that time we might reconsider allowing an article on it. Note that the service is currently free, but it does not qualify as an open source project. If it were truly open source we should jump through more hoops to try to keep the article. EdJohnston 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the anonymous editor's accusations of the "commercialisation of Wikichem" are nonsense. As a long-time contributor to chemistry articles here, I have seen no evidence of Wikpedia's chemistry editors promoting commerical websites. In fact, there is a concerted effort to limit links to commerical suppliers, etc. However, the concerns that others have about the notability of ChemSpider have some merit. As a practicing chemist, I have never heard of it and a brief websearch turns up no significant references to it. --Ed (Edgar181) 00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from uninvolved editor. I'm not a chemist and have read this debate only as part of helping out with this page. It seems to me that there is no hurry to delete the article. Even it it turns out later that it is a non-notable service, it can easily be deleted later. For now, its presence is not hurting anyone, and it's possible that the service will turn out to be useful. Regarding thge COI issue, I concur with the multiple comments above that this is not a problem of commercialization at this point.

    Regarding notability, Google turns up 21,000 pages mentioning the name and while none of those are published papers, many seem to be blogs written by chemists. I am not qualified to say if there is enough notability to keep the article, but with so many professional and academic blog entries there is at least some notability, so I suggest that you remove the PROD template and give it a few months to see how it develops.

    If you do decide to wait, make sure to remove the PROD template before the listed deadline, because sometimes articles are deleted immediately when the five-day PROD period expires. Sometimes, it takes a while, but deletion can be quick and once the article is gone it can be challenging to bring it back. --Parzival418 Hello 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTICE: Someone removed the PROD tag and referred the article for deletion. To post your comments, visit: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChemSpider. --Parzival418 Hello 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PubChem cites and links to Chemspider, Please DO NOT delete. The notability is hence self evident. The following link form Puchem is evidence - http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. As regards quality, I would say, it is very painstaking and an excellent effort to provide such an invaluable database. Finally, I do not agree ".com" domains should be discouraged. This is not true, you have as many of them that are notbale and worth being included.Nattu 19:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    June 4, 2007

    Growing edit war on "Unsportsmanlike conduct"

      Work in progress; comments welcome

    Unsportsmanlike conduct is a stub page; recently, at least one editor (Obdej1 (talk)) has been adding non-encyclopedia information about a local sports radio show with the same name. I have reverted several times with WP:NOT#SOAP and provided warnings on the user's talk page, but the same content is now being re-added, either by others or by the same person without being logged in.

    It seems to me that the content fails on a number of counts: it's blatantly ad-like, cites no sources, violates stylistic guidelines (it's just dumped after the "stub" marker with no headings), makes no attempt to display notability, and borders on nonsense ("Stacie "the sports sack" has HUGE...eyes. Nobody cares about anything else.").

    At the same time, I'm trying to avoid an edit war and 3RR violations, and it seems silly to have to protect a stub page.

    Opinions? Tlesher 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tlesher, it looks like you're doing everything by the book. If you stick to that, including escalating the warnings you've placed on Obdej1's talk page as appropiate, etc. the end result of such behavior will be a block for Obdej1 and no repercussions for you. In truth, it appears that Obdej1 was set up exclusively to create this spam and I would suspect that the person who did so has already forgotten the login password to that account. If the issue does not recur soon, with your consent, we should mark this issue as closed. (Oh, and don't think that the irony of the article's title is lost on anyone here.) Gruber76 17:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Give peace a chance in Indianapolis, Indiana

    Once a user has declared: "I will just delete naptown from the list nicknames every time it is listed....." in an RFC and declines invitations to engage in discussion, etc, how do you proceed? Gruber76 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me there is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing happening on that page, and that "naptown" satisfies WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY and should be included in the article. I have entered detailed comments at Talk:Indianapolis, Indiana#Request for Comment: "Naptown". --Parzival418 Hello 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    June 6, 2007

    User:Timeshifter

    I've tried multiple times to engage Timeshifter in discussions about proper approaches in handling articles that consist almost entirely of lists of links. Timeshifter's responses have been and continue to be hostile, to the point where I do not want to interact with him at all. I find Timeshifter's behavior counter to many of the policies and guidelines concerning talk space, civility, and consensus-building. I'm looking for approaches other than an RFC/U. See User_talk:Ronz#Timeshifter.27s_behavior Talk:List_of_mind_mapping_software Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lists#List_of_mind_mapping_software -- Ronz  18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Ronz. I've noticed that User:Timeshifter frequently violates WP:MULTI. It seems unlikely but I wonder if an admin would issue a block for repeated violations? (Requestion 18:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Actually, it is your blanking team that frequently posts the same misinterpretations of wikipedia guidelines on multiple list and chart pages. It is interesting how you too wikilawyer and accuse others of what you two are actually doing. I believe that is called "projection."--Timeshifter 18:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ronz. I have to agree with you that User:Timeshifter's behavior is incredibly rude, uncivil, hostile, and disruptive. I feel that it's practically impossible to build any sort of consensus when Timeshift is involved. I apologize in advance for this improperly bumped and indented threaded message. (Requestion 18:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Actually, you two are in the minority at Talk:List of mind mapping software. Timeshifter (me), Belorud, Quiddity, Argey, and Parzival418 have spoken out against removing/blanking source links from the article. So it looks like parachuting into an article with a group blanking team is not that popular.--Timeshifter 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is interesting that you link to your own talk page where you censored a reply of mine to YOUR request for discussion, and called my reply "harassment". Here is a direct link to that section before you censored it a second time:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronz&oldid=136542002#Timeshifter.27s_behavior
    Very curious. But anyway, I have little desire to duplicate discussion on user talk pages that would be better done on article talk pages where others can participate without censorship. I believe I have answered all questions put to me. If not, let me know. --Timeshifter 16:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please explain to Timeshifter that bumping and pushing other comments out of the way, like was done above, is incorrect threaded discussion and poor WP:TALK etiquette. I've lost count how many times I've seen Timeshifter do this. (Requestion 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    We have discussed this before. I have many years of experience with message boards and email lists. I moderate some. There is nothing wrong with using adequate indentation to make a reply right after the person one is replying to. Especially when the list of other comments is so long that to do otherwise would cause confusion as to who one is replying to. The 2 pages you link to say nothing against what I am doing. Please try to read what you link to. Please stop the gamesmanship. --Timeshifter 17:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No message board or email list allows you to push, bump, indent, and insert comments like that. Slashdot and Usenet do not allow this. Please show me an example that does. (Requestion 18:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    You obviously have not seen the message boards, wikipedia talk pages, and other wiki talk pages that I have seen then. Or you did not notice what I have noticed. It is common to indent as needed to establish threading. As I have said elsewhere it is not a plot to move ahead, push, bump, etc.. I suggest you read up on the non-medical uses of the word "paranoia." --Timeshifter 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed the pages linked above and added a comment at Talk:List_of_mind_mapping_software#Footnoted versus embedded citations.
    I do not see examples of hostile behavior by User:Timeshifter. He has made some assertive statements about his understanding of the Wikiguides but I see no personal attacks, disruptive editing, or incivility in his comments. My impression is that Timeshifter is editing according to WP policies in good faith. If you have specific examples of incivil comments from him, you are welcome to provide diffs to make that clear. Unless you have those examples though, I don't see what else we can do here.
    Regarding your comment that you are considering an RFC/U, it's your choice of course, but keep in mind that formal procedures like that are difficult and time consuming. If you are considering that you should read the instruction page first in detail and think about how much work it will take for you to structure your case. Every step of the procedure has to be done just right or you won't make any progress, and even if you do manage to structure the case perfectly, the outcome is not a sure thing. I recommend you put that off and try to resolve your differences without requesting administrative intervention unless the problems heat up a lot more than they have so far. Here are a few pages with some good ideas that could be useful: Wikipedia:Truce, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Best Wishes! --Parzival418 Hello 07:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry you feel that way. He assumes bad faith and accuses everyone that doesn't agree with him of being a vandal. He even suggests that there is a conspiracy of vandals working together. This is far beyond anything appropriate per WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CON. While he's avoiding WP:NPA by the letter, he's missing the whole purpose of it. Thanks for looking into the matter though. I'm going to continue to avoid and direct contact with him, and minimize what he is fed by me. -- Ronz  15:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (Unindent) I have never used the word "vandal" in reference to you. I used the words "blanking" and "group blanking". I stand by those words. To see the context, people can see: Talk:List of mind mapping software#Group blanking. And here is some related guideline and policy info below. Emphasis added to quotes below. Quote from Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked guideline:

    What should be linked. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.

    Quote below from Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism policy:

    Blanking
    Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.

    --Timeshifter 16:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:だってばよ

    I made a perfectly civil request to this user asking them to please change their User ID because it contains non-Latin (I never said non-English nor non-American) characters. And since that time, I have received nothing but personal abuse and attacks on America. I have asked the user to please quit posting on my Talk page, as I have no desire for further communication, but they persist. [18], [19]. They have been admonished by others about No Personal Attacks, yet they continue. And yet they continue with attacks on others, as well: [20] Corvus cornix 16:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, I don't normally post here (I lurk), but after looking at those comments, I seriously suggest you post at WP:ANI and request administrator intervention. --Iamunknown 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kwork

    Sethie believes user Kwork is grossly misunderstanding wiki policies and crossing the line numerous times with civility- and it is starting to affect the Alice Bailey page.


    WP:CIVILITY/WP:NPA issues:

    Thank Sethie for his input. Let me know if he has anything intelligent to say; or, perhaps, Sethie could contribute something to the article, rather than to the talk page. Kwork 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

    You really manage to write the silliest sounding stuff. I do think that AAB let her personal prejudices into the otherwise good books.... My real problem is with the 6th Ray types, such as yourself, who distort and harm the teaching while genuinely believing that they are protecting it. I know that you mean well, but it is clear that you just never had proper training. It is quite sad to see that the teaching represented by people such as you, because I can remember how little AAB's own students were bothered by these criticisms, and to what extent they would go to maintain unity in diversity. Kwork 21:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC) [[21]]

    The word that comes to mind when I read this sort of stuff from Sethie is "nebbish". I see, for instance, that on the TM article (like here) Sethie engaged in an editing war, and on its talk page a psychological war; but, when it came to arbitration, Sethie did not have the guts to fight. Kwork 13:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC) [[22]][reply]

    (Neebish meaning "A weak-willed, timid, or ineffectual person")

    His response when Sethie asked him to cool his tone down: [[23]]


    Misinterpretion of wiki policies: Kwork claims that an autobiography is not "neutral" and is "self-published" so not allowed and/or makes the entire article not neutral: [[24]]

    He attempted to nominate the page for deletion [[25]]

    His understanding of WP:COI is that someone who is close to a set of teachings disqualifies one from editing per WP:COI

    It is a question of "closeness" to the Alice Bailey teaching. That is a consideration. Kwork 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    It does not have to be a personal relationship. "Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal." In this case the devotion to the Alice Bailey teaching would be called religious, and it is problematic. And it is not problematic just for Jamesd1, but virtually every editor of this article....including, perhaps, SqueakBox.Kwork 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


    extreme lack of WP:AGF

    really feel good knowing that all you guys are so concerned about keeping me safe from making a mistake. (By the way, what is the punishment inflicted here for making a mistake?) The problem for me is this: since there is not one of you guys that I trust, I am unwilling to trust your advice, and I must (as a result) try to get to what I think is right by trying things out. I will assume that the system at Wikipedia will not fall apart because of this. Kwork 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC) [[26]]


    And it is not problematic just for Jamesd1, but virtually every editor of this article....including, perhaps, SqueakBox [[27]] Sethie 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=136657403"