User talk:NE Ent/Archive/2009

Science and technology in Mexico

I've reverted you edit to my talkpage. I have my own way of building articles, and I know about preview system. And please remember Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report

ok, thanks. TastyCakes (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User contributions?

{{helpme}} Help:User contributions says If the user has an account (username): bring up the user page and click User contributions - this works even if the user page has not been edited yet (i.e. an edit box displays). but I don't see User contributions on folks's user pages. Am I missing something. (I just commented out everything in my monobook.js to make sure that wasn't causing any problems, still not seeing the link.)

The link appears in the "toolbox" on the left side of your screen, that last box under the puzzle globe. The link should appear on their main user and user talk pages. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aether22

I have deleted the above as SSPI is not yet live. Please try WP:SSP. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I went to WQA for help

...and was told, talk it out. The problem is that the same two individuals are continuing to malign other editors (including myself) because of their affiliations (essentially dismissing anyone who belongs to a certain group), implying that anyone who disagrees with them is insane, intentionally distorting what I said, stating their feelings on what my emotions must be without any grasp on my current emotional state, etc. In short, this "discussion" is quickly growing hostile and you tell me to just go back to it?

This isn't a solution to anything!

This is abdication. I'm not asking you to have an answer, but there has got to be a better way to handle this than what you are saying. If you have no advice, then please understand if I refile at WQA. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that I wasn't the editor who marked it nwqa. See "diffs".. Would you like me to unarchive the discussion? Gerardw (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you changed it to something which stated "Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere". In short, nothing was resolved and we were told to just go back to what we were doing. This didn't solve anything and nothing has changed. If I'm in the wrong forum, please let me know. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've unarchived the discussion and removed the tag. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Distortions.2Fslander_by_User:ESkog_and_User:Hammersoft Gerardw (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

not to harp on this...

...but I think I found something that pertains to the discussion: Wikipedia:Don't_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#Gaming_the_system#7 is what I'm talking about. Claiming consensus to justify actions where no consensus exists is inherently disruptive. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Towns in New York

Shhh!, New York
Shhh!, New York Location within the state of New York
Coordinates: 42°35′37″N 76°42′0″W

[1] --KP Botany (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Gerardw - and while the essay is great for dealing with rare or occasional personal attacks, I believe that the policy of civility is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia. Orangemarlins responses to me have been way out of line. For now I've posted a warning about civility on Orangemarlins Talk page (it's the 2nd warning I've posted on his Talk page). Hopefully he'll tone it all down a couple of notches. --HighKing (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mostly I was suggesting ignoring the "Hounding" section Verbal added. Gerardw (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Forsena

I really can't believe what kind of garbage I found here about me [2]. You did not mention that the user you are mentioning Angelo De La Paz (I still say he is a POV editor because he was and he will always be, just take a look at his edits) insulted me many times (called me a Serbian vandal and a nationalist fanatic) before I even knew anything about him. Of course when I answered you used that as an argument to ban me. What you didn't mention was that the user insulted me first, created POV edits (which he later reverted). One more thing, if you warned me I would have listened to your warning but I DO NOT CARE for the warnings of an Albanian extremist who insults me and then warns me for reverting his POV edits. Your block really shocked me and proved to me that Serbophobia is spread on Wikipedia too. --Forsena (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see [[3]]. Gerardw (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of message

It was removed because telling people to go elsewhere isn't a solution, like I briefed in the edit summary. Also it could be considered spamming.--Otterathome (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

That was quick! Thanks so much. Any suggestions for DYK? We could try for that just for George. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No matter, I'll tackle it – so that's how recent changes goes (I learned something new). You have my respect, :) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

3rr

I noticed this - the edits in question were nearly a day ago, and the other editor has retired. How then, is Noclador 'currently engaged in an edit war'? — neuro^(talk) 03:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

3 reverts in a 24 hour period, listed below. Gerardw (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That was not my point. My point was that the editor was in no way 'currently engaged in an edit war'. — neuro^(talk) 12:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Steinerner Steg

Hi Gerardw, you're a bit mistaken. I did a single revert within the last 24 hours and the article hasn't changed for over 13 hours. Also the user that caused all this commotion (user:Icsunonove) and edited against all other editors involved is currently at the centre of this inccident report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Icsunonove and IP 192.45.72.26 and additionally two Wikiquette alerts Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:Icsunonove Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:Icsunonove II. Therefore I removed your notice on my talkpage. --noclador (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

[4] 1

[5] 2

[6] 3 Gerardw (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

that was 2 days ago, not "You currently appear to be engaged..." There was no 3RR vio. there will be no 3RR vio. so, unnecessary warning and btw. the book is wrong and that is verifiable. --noclador (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Icsunonove

I went to the noticeboard and re-read his accusations again from top to bottom. It is clear to me what is going on now. I'd appreciate it if you look at my responses in bold. I was making valid corrections to wikilinks, and he used this to accuse me of 'italianization' and all-out slander me. Nice... :) Icsunonove (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking my advice, I'd go back to AN/I and lose the bold. Then strikethrough the Mussolini reference and the like. No third party editor or admin really wants to sort through a lot of mudslinging. Focus on specific, verifiable actions in as neutral a tone as possible. The best advice for the more outlandish statements, such as "You have 3 Wikiquette alerts," is to ignore them. Calm is best, if hard sometimes. Gerardw (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, though that part was a bit comical of him telling everyone I had so many alerts -- all that he was posting. Anyway, I will make the changes you suggest. I also want to remove these references of him trying to search where i live and work. That is obviously out of context in this discussion, smells of stalking (!!), and I've already said 192.x.x.x is the IP I use. Thanks for the advice; I REALLY do appreciate it after being treated this way by this individual. Icsunonove (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've done as you suggested. I've also removed him trying to state where I live and work (which he has wrong so far, but beside the point). That is obviously out of place in the discussion, and if he continues that I would like you do please handle that as an Admin. Also, if he continues to try and expose information on users here, I'd like to know how to formerly report him for that for a perm. ban. Obviously if users try to stalk others in real life, that is a major issue for Wikipedia. Icsunonove (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A tangent I choose just not to deal with

For the record about this abstruse concoction of stalking: I copied two lines from two sources- namely: Icsunonove user page and Icsunonove IP page. --noclador (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Oh no you most certainly did not. :-) You added more than that, you were trying to identify corporations and cities in california as well. I said I use that IP, and I also made valid and proper edits from that IP. You still try to re-add what may be personal information. That amounts to stalking, and is very serious on Wikipedia. That you are in such fear of me trying to eradicate South Tyrol by FIXING bloody wikilinks, dude, those are personal insecurities you must seriously evaluate. I have made it one of my goals on here to make sure we preserve all the history, languages, and names of Italian provinces. I am indeed sorry you can't realize that, but then again, how poorly you misread this overall situation might point to a general trend. Hey Gerardw, sorry for thinking you were an Admin, your advice was very Admin'ish. :) Icsunonove (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin, just someone who tries to be a good Wikipedian.

I'm not seeing the outing you're referring to. I wouldn't consider localizing a user to a particular city outing. If you do feel you've been outed, follow procedure at Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight

With regards to the IP, it's best to either always edit loggged in but not strictly required. If that is a static IP that only you use and you're going to be using both -- because you forget to log in or whatever, I'd suggest annotating the accounts per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet#Alternative_account_notification -- this should prevent accusations of Sockpuppetry. Gerardw (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've done a good job, and thank you -- sincerely. Right, I sometimes was too lazy to log in when just trying to do cleanup on these articles. I should just go ahead and log in all the times. Regardless, as I said before, I was fixing links and context in articles. Even those edits Noclador accused me of were all very valid, I don't get his going nuts over them. More so, the link changing from South Tyrol to Province of Bolzano-Bozen is what we are supposed to do given the page moves, and also Bolzano-Bozen looks like Italian AND German to me.. again making me wonder why all the claims of Italianization. @_@ Anyhoo Icsunonove (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Krayeske

GerardW

Obviously, everyone thinks what happened to them is important. While the entry about me in Governor M. Jodi Rell's wiki page was unsourced, plenty on the internet exists to verify what occurred. http://www.the40yearplan.com/Ken_Krayeske_InauguRell_Arrest_Story_Repository.php If you don't trust my resository, go here: http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/mt/mt-ctnj.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=ken krayeske or for the original story: http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/courts/reporter_arrested_for_politica.php or ctlocalpolitics, which is a prominent political bulletin board in Connecticut. http://ctlocalpolitics.net/?s=ken krayeske arrest or even the New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=ken krayeske&srchst=cse

Additionally, what exactly is your bar for determining what is important? Is the state police jailing a non-violent political opponent of the governor on trumped up charges important? Whether in a developing nation or the United States of America, I tend to think that it is valid to note that an executive law enforcement agency overseen by a sitting governor was involved in harassing and intimidating a political opponent. Is important the front page of a newspaper? Multiple days on major local television news? In reading the Wikipedia references on notability, it seems to me that this incident meets the bar for notability.

I think it is valid and wise to include this. I think it does a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia to eliminate references to the consequences of the Governor's rule. To that end, I will reinclude it.

Thanks, Ken Krayeske Ken _at_ the40yearplan.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.141.212 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion belongs here. Suggest you review WP:COI. Gerardw (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

May want to watchlist

On all the other stuff, I would be grateful if you could watchlist and monitor Talk:Horses in warfare, Talk:Equidae and Template talk:Equidae. Montanabw^(talk) 21:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't make any promises, as my Wiki time isn't consistent. Gerardw (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too, that's why I asked! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hapsala and 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Gerardw, Thank you for your efforts. Because you so kindly took the time to take some action, I have further elaborated on the WQA page, especially in the Comment on Comment, plus added info section. I hope you have time to look at it and perhaps even revise or extend your remarks and maybe even participate in helping with some corrective action for the identified problems. Less significantly, if you search on the page for: "Please accept my apology," I provide an explanation that touch on some of the other points you raised. I will wait a bit before deciding on replying to your other comments so you have a chance to incorporate the new info. . Thanks again, Doright (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh

Regarding your advice: [7], see: [8] I'm messaging u this since u were the one who closed the report.Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert

This is a minor issue, but I noticed when you put the tag on my alert, you stated "No consensus of significant incivility". That title implies to me that there was consensus of minor incivility and disagreement as too significant incivility. My reading of the discussion was that there was consensus that there was no incivility and no consensus as to whether I had over-reacted. Perhaps I am reading too much into your note (overreacting?), but I thought I would ask for clarification as I have worked on Wikiquette Alerts before and never seen a note like this.LedRush (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing is just my style and I really didn't mean to imply anything negative by it. If I write "no consensus of incivility" then I'd be concerned someone else would become argumentative about it. Mostly I was marking it resolved because that's I thought you were requesting. Gerardw (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I requested that it be resolved because I thought that no one had found any incivility on my part and therefore the alert wasn't necessary. As I said above, I asked the question because I've never seen a Wikiquette alert closed in this manner..."No incivility found" or something to that effect is more common. Anyway, I take you at your word and thank you for taking the time to look into the matter. Sorry if I wasted your time with it.LedRush (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: WQA

Hi. Please don't refactor others comments; particularly in the case of experienced editors - I'm not just familiar with WQA conventions, but have regularly helped resolve disputes at this venue. I've reupdated the page.

Wikiquette issues cover questions over civility, so it's inappropriate to label such a report with a NWQA tag - those tags only apply in cases where there are no real civility issues or questions over civility (eg; editwarring, blatant vandalism, etc.) I suggest that you yourself take a read on what sort of reports get what sort of tags here.

In the case of Teledildonix314, a party escalated this to ANI - that doesn't mean that there was no question over civility. However, when a dispute is escalated to another venue, the discussion isn't just tagged as stale/stuck/resolved, but is closed, so discussions do not become disjointed and stay at one venue at one time (in this case, ANI).

If you look through the archives, you should find that most Wikiquette alerts have been handled this way in the past year too. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The convention for the tags is explained at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Instructions_for_editors_responding_to_alerts. Stale is not appropriate. The tag is generally considered a current status, not a talk page comment. For example, a discussion may be tagged WQA in progress for a few days, and then become Resolved, and any third party editor may adjust when appropriate.

Nor is it appropriate to place an archivebox on a discussion without the consent of other editors. Please remove the discussion tags. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I consider your edits unconstructive and you've been reverted. If you are unhappy with the norms of the past couple of years, I suggest you invite wider community input. You have no extra privilleges to warrant overriding another experienced editor's closure of a WQA. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, a tag is indeed a current status - by escalating a complaint to ANI, either a party is forum-shopping, or considers the report stale and would like to try elsewhere. Under the AGF doctrine, we assume the latter. And again, the norms for closing may be found in the archives - if you are unable to find specific examples, I will be more than happy to point you to some. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have twice [[9]],[[10]] referred you to the instructions. If you do not feel they are appropriate please initiate a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette alerts. Gerardw (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are showing all signs of being a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT editor. I've been responding at WQA for well over a year. I'm trying to give an allowance because you appear to be new here, but you are simply not helping anymore. The instructions clearly state "For items that should not have been posted to WQA at all -- blatant vandalism, accusations of sock puppetry, a request for adminship, etc., please refer the original poster to the proper forum, and place the

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

template under the section heading." The complaint did not qualify as such so it was inappropriate for you to tag the complaint as NWQA, and it was doubly inappropriate to override an experienced editors closure of a thread. There is nothing in the instructions to support your position; on the other hand, you continually ignore the norms that appear in the archives for the past year. If you continue to act in this manner (especially in inappropriate closures of WQAs, and in overriding others closures when you lack the experience), then I agree, a wider community discussion will be needed. Please stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You've inappropriately closed another WQA - Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Manutdglory clearly was correctly reported to WQA, and the sanction that was imposed was purely due to Wikiquette (civility/personal attacks) issues as evidenced by the block log and VS's final comment. As such, your closure has been changed. Please familiarise yourself with when it is appropriate to use a NWQA tag and when it isn't. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WqA

"Kangaroo court?" Oops, was that a "Personal attack"? :-) Sorry-- I meant, I don't hang around the wiki-lawyer-drama areas (not that there's anything wrong with that), but prefer to spend my time editing. And it looked to me like this thing was being set up simply because I was starting to improve the targeted articles with citations to reliable secondary sourcing... Looking in at the discussion, it seems that voices of reason are prevailing. I tend to get over-emotional and blustery around things like this, so it's probably in my best interest not to comment there further. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For notifying me of the WQA thread. :) Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

D.C. Meetup, Saturday, June 6, 2009

The 7th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, June 6th, starting at 5 p.m. The event will be at Bertucci's, near George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom metro station. It will follow the Apps for Democracy open source event at GWU. For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 7. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.)
Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) to report errors, please leave a note here.

Civility

Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer opportunity in Bethesda, Thursday, July 16

The Wikimedia Foundation will be conducting an all-day Academy at the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, on Thursday, July 16. The team that will be teaching at the Academy, a mix of paid staff and volunteers, is looking for four more volunteers to be teaching assistants, providing one-to-one assistance in workshops whenever a workshop participant has a problem following the instructional directions. (We currently have two editors signed up as teaching assistants, and are looking for a total of six.)

The NIH editing workshops are only for two hours, but volunteers are asked to meet the Wikimedia Foundation team at the hotel in Bethesda at about 7:15 a.m. (time to be finalized shortly) and to stay for the entire day, which ends at 4:30 p.m. Lunch will be provided. (The full schedule can be found here.)

The team is not necessarily looking for expert editors (though they are welcome), just people who can help novices who might get stuck when trying to do some basic things. If you've been an editor for at least 3 months, and have done at least 500 edits, you probably qualify.

If you're interested, please send John Broughton an email. If you might be interested, but would like further information, please post a note on his user talk page, so that he can respond there, and others can see what was asked.

(You have received this posting because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland or DC. --EdwardsBot (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

D.C. Meetup, Saturday, September 26

The 8th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, September 26, starting at 6 p.m. The event will be at Burma Restaurant (740 6th St, NW near the Gallery Place-Chinatown Metro station). For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 8. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.) --EdwardsBot (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking your advice

I took your advice to delay commenting on the RfC/CU, and I think now that it was very good advice. At this point, it doesn't appear that there's any need for me to comment, so I'm not going to unless an admin instructs me to. CarolineWH (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:CarolineWH

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of CarolineWH (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolineWH. -- Paularblaster (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC) --Paularblaster (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. What I intended by the RFC suggestion was to solicit third party input as to the article, not CarolineWH's behavior. Gerardw (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At that point I was rather more concerned about the behaviour. The article isn't going anywhere - we can work on that now that the air has been cleared of groundless insults.--Paularblaster (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a name for it

it's called you not assuming good faith. My comment to CarolineWH was intended as lightly self-deprecatory, it not even having crossed my mind that it could be read as including me in (rather than juxtaposing me to) her betters. If your outrage is genuine, I hope this explanation will satisfy you. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Driving editors away

Well done. You've successfully driven away an editor who prides himself on this kind of thing, and gained one primarily interested in doing this kind of thing. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Incivility.

I tossed out the WQA, because I can't deny that it may well not be very productive at this point. Nonetheless, I do see a pattern of persistent obstructionism, edit-warring and incivility on his part. Mostly, he keeps saying things that just aren't true, and I can't keep assuming this is accidental.

Besides the RfC/CU, which a number of people have judged as baseless, I now have User:Bwilkins, who doesn't understand the difference between outing and doing research in self-defense, pursuing yet another bogus claim. My patience with this sort of hostility is not endless. CarolineWH (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman

I didn't revert an edit, I moved the braces to encompass the entire phrase "book of the same name". But thanks for the warning. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I apologize and have corrected the remark. You did undo the brace change the Peter.thelander had recently made, though, right? Gerardw (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review

I replied if you want to read it. Thanks--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Shorter, yes ...

This is another edit than one you support. That one expands by inserting info from 1984/2003 into the short summary (in the part covering 1977). NOTE: Victim's grand jury testimony shows no consent (saying no/asking to stop), duplication of information from 2003opEd is surely not needed in summary. Nor cite Polanski's 1984 autobiography (again future-leaping perspective) saying "sex" consensual since plead was to "unlawful sexual intercourse" (aka statutory rape). If by force, then charge would be "rape."

I.e., the editor in question is inserting future quotes into 1977 events, and duplicating victim testimony, and inserting admission (to something) amidst 1977 narrative.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your revert to the Polanski article

I see you reverted my edit citing the comment shorter is better see talk, shorter is not better at all, if it is show me the policy or guideline that suggests that, you have removed detail..as for see talk.. what is there to support your revert, there are more people that object to your edit than support it, please explain why you have reverted without any consensus to support your position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not news is no excuse to remove content, it is well cited and totally relevant, why do you think it is important to remove the fact that Polanski is wearing an electronic tag? Why do people not need to read that here? Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

When first arriving at a contentious article

You have just arrived, so I respectfully suggest not leaping to make a contentious edit — assured in your right to edit according to your interpretation of policy. (We have had a lot of that. Hence the ANI.)

Yes, you are ignoring 3 other editors opinions (note link at ANI to this diff, too) to confirm your agreement with an editor under scrutiny at ANI. (See my previous topic to see if you wish to decide re more general support).

Regarding the current edit, the concision may well be warranted, but showing contempt to 3 other editors positions regarding that edit is not the way to join the conversation.

And yes, I suggest you self-revert, for now, until the dust settles at ANI. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Draft

I'll answer your question as posted here [11]. It is a series of claims posted by certain editors against me. While I respect some of these editors, it is a very problematic document filled with a great many assumptions and assertions that have no basis. What also doesn't help is that some of the editors have issues themselves, with the editor who posted that comment having, by his own admission, a known medical condition that apparently affects behaviour. Hence the comment which actually shouldn't be there and is very inappropriate, as the discussion did not involve that person. Unfortunately, he and other editors have also made the mistake of actively soliciting others for opinions which could be construed as a witchhunt. It to me really seems to be to an airing of old grudges, and was already shot down once recently.

I can offer counter-proof of cooperation on many issues, despite opposition from said editors. What really should have happened is a discussion at the Admin board issue by issue, but I am now trying to resolve this myself, starting with the use of a disallowed source at the WikiComics board. Trying to be very reasonable about this and even caution some of these otherwise good chaps about making rash statements (just check out my Edit History).

Hope that helps.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say that it hasn't been an easy thing to put together. :) I've gotten a lot of "There's a lot of bad behavior", "I understand your concerns, but can you point out some examples?", "Here's a few, but they're all over the place!", "Well, do you have a few more?", "I don't feel like looking, but there are lots so go look!" It's a joyless task, but in the end I'm going to do my best to put together a document that is both neutral and reasonable for the community to examine. My own personal feelings on the matter are well-summed up here. Feel free to use anything on the draft page as you see fit; I applaud Asgardian for showing restraint thus far as far as engaging anyone directly on that talk page, as it could turn into a big mess very quickly and become highly unproductive, as opposed to merely mildly unproductive. ;) BOZ (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Deeper than Rap

R u serious. FOr real. U gonna WARN ME. My reverts are justified; the punk who removes sourced material from the article will get reverted. Check his ass out first b4 steppin to me without checkin yourself & your facts. Also, every other punk motherfuka removin sourced material 4 no stated reason is gonna be done tha same to by me. Peace.

Dan56 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:

Sorry, you're right but he insists on manipulating the information, doesn't use the discussion page and insults in the summary of him edition. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to deeper than rap article

Sorry to bother you, but why was my edit reverted again? when I clearly proved two references to back them up? In fact, you reverted my edit in place of dan86's, in which he incorrectly states "The album has sold over 403,000 copies to date". Where is his reference? Whereas mine had "To date, Deeper Than Rap has sold more than 382,000 copies" Which is backed up with sources. Not to mention this same user has been constantly vandalizing other pages as well. Even recently being blocked from one.

I obviously had two sources for my edit. Furthermore, I apologize for the constant edits, but I had no prior clue on how to properly complain to an admin until I finally got in contact with admin Legolas2186 to explain to situation. And three edits wouldn't have been made if I didn't have such a belligerent & persistent user vandalizing the page.

I would really appreciate it if you'd add my information back in, seeing as it's accurate. thanks in advance, and again, my apologizes for the edit war. Thetruth86 (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article. Gerardw (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

My talk

I would like to request that you do not post on my talkpage, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Headings

Hi, see WP:TALK which says "Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property... it is generally acceptable to change section headers when a better header is appropriate. This is under the purview of threads themselves being shared property rather than a single editor's comments."

It is standard and acceptable practice to change non-neutral headings into neutral ones, particularly if they contain false accusations. Because headers define a whole discussion they do not belong to the person who started the thread. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

see WP:TALK To avoid disputes it is best to discuss changes with the editor who started the thread, if possible, Not seeing evidence of that [[12]]. Changing title could further antagonize Djln and it's not clear to me what the benefit of the title change is. Please revert to previous title. Gerardw (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no point in allowing a false accusation stand like that. If Djln disputes my change I will discuss it with him/her. There is also the common practice of removing personal attacks, which an accusation lacking evidence is. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree to disagree and dropping WP:STICK. Gerardw (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Peace. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

wikiquette, diffs

I see what you mean about the diffs. Very important to get these things correct so people know what you're talking about. Here ya go [13] Thanks. Malke2010 12:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Guitaret

Please dont foment the things DiarmuidPigott (talk · contribs) did. Please read his talk. --MisterWiki talk contribs 16:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hi, Gerardw! How are you today? I am doing really well! The reason I am writing is regarding edits like this. I see you are currently involved in a content dispute and have been using Twinkle to revert to a version you are more comfortable with. Please know that Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Reverting specifically prohibits the use of such tools in an edit war. I kindly ask that you refrain from using them during the course of this content dispute. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 18:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wilco Gerardw (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the same :P --MisterWiki talk contribs 18:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)