[1]

Here, reverting sourced information and replacing it with incorrect figures - just check the source.

Plus, insisting that there is something like a "2008 Census" in Brazil, which is false - the source is clear that those are "estimativas", estimates. But Opinoso cannot stand the idea that other people edit "his" articles, so he reverses correct information. This is disruption, and should be accordingly treated. Ninguém (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Will you two give it a rest. Kiss and make up, and lets move on with our lives.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Jojhutton, you are responding to a sequence of four sentences. I'm as little interested in the second two as you are, but the first two merit a more cerebral measure than mere kissing. The matter could be very clearcut. I've invited discussion at Template talk:Largest cities of Brazil and Ninguém has made a decent start at it. You're welcome to observe or join the conversation. -- Hoary (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming that I have only read this discussion. These two have ben going at it for a while. This is not the only discussion on this page. They just keep reporting each other. If it don't stop we must block.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Also here:

[2]

Various grammatical corrections suppressed, because Opinoso cannot allow anyone else to edit "his" articles. Also edit warring to maintain POV ("persecution" instead of "discrimination"), and contending that broken links are valid sources. Ninguém (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém, I think it would be a good idea to talk to Opinoso first about your concerns. You might be able to resolve the issue just from discussion with him. If you have tried discussion for a while and it's not working out, consider reading through WP:Dispute Resolution. All I'm asking of you is to give these things a shot before coming to ANI. Icestorm815 • Talk 08:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that talking to Opinoso is impossible. He either ignores all attempts to address the issues (see, for instance, White Brazilian, protected for more than two weeks so that consensus can be achieved, and systematically ignored by him), or hurls back a series of insults and provocations. But... I will try. Ninguém (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the first matter in an adult, depersonalized fashion at Template talk:Largest cities of Brazil. If you can do that, I might manage to get interested in the second one too. Warning: My reserves of patience are limited. -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making a good start there, by sticking to substantive issues. I encourage Opinoso and other, uninvolved editors to head over to that "template talk" page and there discuss matters of demographics (and not editors), or to observe the discussion there. (Incidentally, I'll soon be going to bed.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a good night. I hope you have noticed that I have also tried to start a discussion in Talk: German Brazilian, on subjects as varied as the concept of "persecution" as opposed to "discrimination", the suitability of using the adjective "guilty" in reference to languages in a formal context, and whether mayors "down" decrees or merely "issue" them. Thank you for taking interest in this. Ninguém (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have been trying to maintain a meaningful discussion with Opinoso. Here's what I get back:

The rules of Wikipedia do not claim informations about small towns are irrelevant. This is your theory, and you should avoid posting them here, because this is not a Forum. If the source claimed the mayor did a municipal decree forbiding the use of German in schools, then the information is relevant and it will keep there. If you find it irrelevant this is not important. Funny that you are always accusing me of Ownership of articles, but it seem you are the one choosing which informations should ot should not stay in the article. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, stop selling the idea that foreigners call us "macaquitos"[4] [5] (little monkeys in Spanish) and that this article introduce them to a "lawless country of savages". What's your point? That Brazil is treated by foreigners as a country of savage monkeys? Stop using the talk pages of articles as Foruns, and stop selling this kind of theory. Opinoso (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Again trying to place himself as "the boss", telling me what to do and what not to do.

He seems to misunderstand a few things:

1. Fact tags. He seems to believe fact tags are a sort of insult, and that placing them in an article is disruptive behaviour.

2. He now seems to think that Wikipedia needs to have a different rule about each irrelevant issue, and that if there isn't a "rule about small towns", then any information about any small town can be included in any article, regardless of its importance.

3. "Not Forum". Evidently Talk Pages are not a forum. But he seems to think that this means that no discussion is allowed in Talk Pages. If we can't discussion whether an information is relevant to an article in its Talk Pages, then where are we going to discuss it? And what are Talk Pages for?

4. Ownership. He seems to confuse arguing about what should and what should not be in an article in its Talk Page with actively disencouraging other editors from participating.

Finally, I understand the second paragraph above as moving the discussion back to the personal ground. Indeed, I take it as a personal attack, and demand he be blocked, as this is a systematic behaviour of him. 201.86.147.35 (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is anyone else tired of seeing these two throwing accusations at one another once or twice a week on here? I'd say that after multiple reports from both sides, blockings, et al, it's pretty bloody obvious they're not going to get along any time soon. Is there grounds for some sort of topic ban that we could enact here to get them away from one anothers' throats? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

155.135.55.229 (talk · contribs) has added promotional material for "DXB/IBM INC., of Califorina" (sic) to at least seven articles. In particular, this IP editor is hitting articles of notable billionaires (Al-Waleed bin Talal, Carlos Slim Helú, and Larry Ellison, associating them with "DXB/IBM" without supporting references. They also hit IBM. Some of the articles hit (notable billionaires) were also involved in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lifnlsdlsdnf episode. These events may or may not be related. IP is located at California State University, Dominguez Hills. --John Nagle (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Electroide has been given several warnings about uploading copyrighted images, but s/he continues to violate the copyright policy. —BMRR (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Mixed bag here. In a review of this user's uploads I speedied File:Julien Arias.jpg as blatant copyvio (uploaded today, clearly marked full copyright at host site) but about 2/3 of this editor's uploads are legitimate nonfree use images. This person has been getting a lot of template warnings without much dialog. Try talking, come back if problems continue. Durova^Charge! 19:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna leave a message. Please wait on any serious action until we get some response. Protonk (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electroide. —BMRR (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 12th, User:Mokeyboy attempted to recruit meat puppets at truthaction.org, a 9/11 conspiracy Web site. In this forum.[3] s/he made the following post. I have it collapsed so it doesn't take up too much space.

In all fairness to Mokeyboy, s/he then discusses the possibility of creating their own 9/11 wiki. Also, I haven't noticed any new editors making any disruptive changes lately so I don't think the attempt was sucessful. Just thought I'd let someone know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – 1 week block Block reversed.

— Rlevse • Talk • 23:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User Ninguém left racist and offensive comments against Brazilians on talk page of article Arthur Friedenreich [4]:

Systematically using the verbiage "afro-brasileiro" instead of negro is POVed: it is the Point of View that Brazilian culture is not essentially different from North-American culture, and that American usage can be employed in explaining it without further clarification and qualification. In this way, Brazil become a mere intellectual suburb of the United States, a country with no cultural autonomy, or - like our "hermanos" would love to point - a pack of macaquitos, always trying (and failing) to copy the intellectual fads in the metropolis.

Macaquitos means "little monkeys" in Spanish. This user was already blocked several times for disruptions, edit-warrings and for using talk pages of articles as Foruns, writing his theories and offensive comments on them. The user is a Portuguese nationalist, since one of his first comments in talk pages was to highlight that his grandparents were of Portuguese origin, and then he started to attack informations about other ethnic groups of Brazil. The user already pretended to be leaving Wikipedia and reverted all his edits [5] [6] [7] and already reported to deslike Wikipedia [8], but he did not leave it. Opinoso (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, you were also blocked more than once for your repeated personal attacks. This is not the discussion.

I don't make offensive comments. All my comments are about issues.

I am not a Portuguese nationalist. I am not even Portuguese, for starters. I have once said that I am of Portuguese and Italian ancestry. How is that "Portuguese Nationalism"?

"Macaquitos" does mean "little monkeys" in Spanish. It is often used by Argentinians to ridicule what they perceive as a Brazilian tendency to copy everything American or European. How is this racist? Ninguém (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that macaquitos is not a complimentary term. By Ninguém's own account it is used to ridicule. And so? He is here using it not to ridicule but instead to describe ridicule. There's nothing in that to complain about. As for the other green links above, I didn't bother to follow any, as they they are adduced in order to back up trivial claims.

The one thing I did look at was the block log. Ninguém has indeed been blocked several times. You, Opinoso, have been blocked a similar number of times, and your block log mentions personal attacks.

Opinoso, lay off. Ninguém, don't fight back. Wikipedia welcomes contributors of all ages, but particularly those who no longer behave like schoolboys. -- Hoary (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Macaquitos" does mean "little monkeys" in Spanish. It is often used by Argentinians to ridicule what they perceive as a Brazilian tendency to copy everything American or European. How is this racist?"

This type of comment does seem racist and offensive to me. Ninguém claimed that Argentine call Brazilians "macaquitos", which does mean "little monkeys" in Spanish. This comment was completly unnecessary and used, of course, as another disruptions of this user in talk pages. It's incredible how somebody can claim I behave like "schoolboy" when I am reporting this type of offensive comments. Argentines do not call Brazilians "little monkeys". And the offense here is not against Brazilians, but against Argentine, which Ninguém claimed they call Brazilians "little monkeys". This is offensive for Argentines. Opinoso (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Brazil become a mere intellectual suburb of the United States, a country with no cultural autonomy, or - like our "hermanos" would love to point - a pack of macaquitos, always trying (and failing) to copy the intellectual fads..." Ninguém himself admits the term macquitos is used to ridicule. His statement also belittles Brazil's culture, saying it has no autonomy, mimics the USA, etc. These comments are racist, offensive, and disruptive. This goes against the 4th of Wiki's Five Pillars. One week block for Ninguém. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Block reverted per discussion on User Talk:Ninguém. Thank you, Rlevse. Ninguém (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Fondesep now on vacation. TNXMan 00:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fondesep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

That user has taken it upon himself to start undoing my recent edits, on random articles, as "vandalism". This is a brand new user today, and he went right after me and me alone, so I take it as stalking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who called me a "redlink" and disparaged my opinion. If you don't like it, start treating all users with respect, even new ones. You treat people poorly. I haven't been reverting all your edits, just the stupider ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fondesep (talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That was after you called me a "vandal" for no valid reason. You're new today, yet you seem to think you know me pretty well already. Have you edited under other ID's before now? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No I have not but it's not hard to find poor edits. This all started with yor incivility by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fondesep (talk • contribs) 00:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you've got issues with edits, take them to the talk pages. Labeling good-faith edits as "vandalism" is inappropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a "redlink" is highly rude and suggestive of a vandalistic user. Keep that in mind next time. Your poor reputation precedes you. Hey though, have a Good One! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fondesep (talk • contribs) 00:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet that was after you called me a vandal, so the rudeness began with you. And if you've never edited before, how do you know anything about my supposed reputation? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear these Fondesep is a sockpuppet of someone else to pop in fresh and do nothing but revert BB's edits with the false edit summary of "rv vandalistic edits". Fondesep's reverts are also removing reliable sources from articles and other appropriate content. Seems like a block is a good start, and maybe a checkuser to see who is behind it since its clear there is previous history here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey no worries. I am willing to end this dispute and let bygones be bygones if baseball bugs simply says he's sorry for calling me names. ANd if he promises to treat all users with respect. I shouldn't have taken the nuclear approach on him. User:Fondesep 00:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a harassment only account, and as such I've blocked him indefinitely. AniMate^draw 00:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was fun. He apparently failed to notice that the first edit he attacked was being discussed in an article to which you were party to the discussion. OOPS! He's obviously a sock, and his style reminds me of a particular user that was blocked four or five months ago, but I'd rather not say here who I think it might be. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see if an Abuse Filter could be constructed that would block various kinds of threats of violence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Certain people in certain districts are required by low to report homicide and suicide suggestions to authorities. I do not know what level we as wiki editors are held to. I would look bad though if someone killed themselves and left a suicide not here that no one acted on.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial proposal. Current consensus on the essay pages seems to say that since TOVs are a form of trolling, any form of policy granting them legitimacy would simply be feeding the trolls. Obviously, no WP policy is going to either force anyone to report anything IRL or discourage them from doing so if they feel compelled. Thus, we end up with the same hysterically predictable outcome for every ANI report: several people shake their fists and say to RBI, several people wring their hands and say they're not sure, drama is had all around, and at least one person inevitably calls the cops, thus making the whole thing moot. Bullzeye ^contribs 03:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I gather that one editor actually did commit suicide in December. Were there any warning signs? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If we are talking about the same person he had not edited the encyclopedia for a few months prior and then edited under a different account. I didn't see any signs. Protonk (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Commiting suicide over Wikipedia. I can't think of a more pathetic reason to die. Get a grip, it's a volunteer encyclopedia; if you're that bloody stupid that you think killing yourself will help it, your family or anyone else, perhaps the world is better off without you. I just pity the poor people that you'll hurt through your selfish ignorance, lack of intelligence and immaturity. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd be a whiz on the Suicide Hotline. Like a Dr. Phil type: "So, you're depressed, eh? How's that workin' for ya?" What we had was a wikipedia contributor who committed suicide. That doesn't mean wikipedia was the cause. For all we know, wikipedia might have been an outlet that kept him going for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I work for a Directory Assistance line, and often have to deal with suicidal people, sometimes daily. Often I will spend quite a while on the phone (though it is not my job) comforting and talking to truly desperate people. Most recently, I sat for a full half hour consoling a victim of the 2009 Victorian bushfires, who was suffering from survivors guilt, depression and just about to have a nervous breakdown. She was considering taking herself and her sleeping children to the car, overdosing on sleeping tablets and letting the exhaust fill the car until they were all dead. She had the pills in front of her as we talked. After half an hour I connected her to a specialised counselling service, and broke down crying myself. I'm sorry if it came across as unfeeling, but I said what I said because; after hearing some of the truly sad and horrible reasons people consider taking their life, Wikipedia seems fairly trivial. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please rethink the tone of that statement. Suppose someone who reads this thread is a family member of that individual. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Referring to a failed proposal is not a good idea. Durova^Charge! 02:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Non-english subpages deleted per user request. –xeno ^talk 08:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I accidentally stumbled across Iho (talk · contribs). According to edit counter s/he made 3850 edits: all of them (except for 18 edits) to his/her userspace. S/he created numerous sub-pages in Italian about religion/paganism. It's not exactly abusive (the content seems encyclopedic), but still not exactly appropriate use of Wikipedia. Any thoughts on this? Renata (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The username Iho was registered on the English Wikipedia on May 30, 2008—just a few hours after it had been registered on the Italian Wikipedia. It was blocked indefinitely from the Italian Wikipedia on October 20, 2008, for abuse of multiple sock puppets. Unfortunately, I can't find any details of the account's activities on the Italian Wikipedia, so it might be worth asking the Italian blocking admin to elucidate.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

When looking at the block notice for user Iho on the Italian Wikipedia I failed to notice that the blocking admin had identified it as a sock puppet of user Nyo, who had been blocked indefinitely on October 14, 2008. User Nyo's mainspace editing activity seems to have been mostly in articles on religion, and especially on neo-paganism. For example, the article Teodismo, which user Iho seems to be currently working on in his English Wikipedia user space, is a version of one on the Italian Wikipedia which was created, and almost entirely written by, user Nyo. User Nyo (talk · contribs) was also active on English Wikipedia until March 2008, when he became inactive. One of his activities on English Wikipedia was writing articles for Italian Wikipedia in his user space, so it would appear that he is now doing the same thing under the username Iho. As far as I can see he isn't doing any harm at the moment, and I have no opinion about whether any administrative action needs to be taken.

Since no-one has previously notified user Iho about this discussion, I have now done so

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm just writing articles for Italian Wikipedia. One day I'll move them there and I'll delete all my English user space pages. I'm not a troll nor a vandal or such things; I was blocked 6 months on Italian Wikipedia because I misused a source... it was a mistake, but I didn't do it deliberately. Then I was blocked indefinitely because I used sockpuppets. All prevoious blocks are due to my aggressiveness in disputes with Catholic users. Jalo knows everything about me and my activity here. I'm a 20yo Odinist, a student of anthropology and an expert in religions. If you think my activity is not appropriate for English Wikipedia I'll move elsewhere. --Iho (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm the admin that blocked him on it.wiki, after community decision. My opinion can be read here. I don't know en.wiki rules. If he's working on articles for your wikipedia than it's ok, I suppose. But if he's working for italian articles you can delete them, cause he's banned from it.wiki, and his contributions are no more accepted there.

The key is what he's using his subpages for. Jalo 00:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: The user with whom he had edit wars was not a perfect user, and so these problems are not fully his fault

A user's status on another wiki shouldn't have a major impact on his status here, except in some especially nefarious cases. Yes, it's an abuse of userspace, but the guy seems bright, and its not exactly evil, just.... the wrong direction a bit. Have someone explain to him politely, point him at WP:USER and see what develops. --M^ask? 01:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

74 subpages, all non-English. It seems that he is perhaps keeping a mirror or forks of (possibly deleted) articles from it.wiki. I agree that we should not sanction based on status on other wikis, but this use of en.wiki resources is inappropriate also. There are any number of private wiki's the user could access if they want to keep a mirror. I'll file an MFD. –xeno ^talk 08:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have transferred all my work to another place. Now you can delete everything. --Iho (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly argue against wholesale immediate deletion of those pages. The user has obviously put an enormous amount of effort into them over the preceding 10 months and their immediate deletion would deprive him of the opportunity to copy them elsewhere. Since they are doing no damage, this seems to me both unnecessary and excessively harsh. The user has indicated that he is prepared to move elsewhere if his activity is deemed inappropriate for English Wikipedia. In my opinion it would be preferable to direct him to tag his subpages for speedy deletion—with {{Template:db-self}}, for instance—after he has copied them elsewhere, and give him a reasonable opportunity to do so. A month would seem to be plenty of time for this. If the user doesn't comply with such a direction within a reasonable allotted time, it would then be entirely justified to list them as miscellany for deletion. Obviously now redundant.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just signaling that I agree with your struck comment that giving the user time to take the content elsewhere was appropriate. –xeno ^talk 09:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Radiojon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It has come to my attention that Radiojon has been engaging in bad, poorly made, and erroneous page moves since June 2005. Since I've never run into this type of problem before, I have no idea how to handle it. I've recently asked him to join me on the talk page of one of the articles he recently moved, but he chose to ignore me, and continued to move the page for the second time while using the edit summary and not the talk page. There are so many diffs for his behavior on this matter, that it would require an hour or two just to collect them, but of course one can quickly see that this problem has been discussed on his talk page (and archives) for years. What is the next step? The user will not engage in discussion on the talk page and continues to move pages without consensus. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• A recent edit/pagemove by this editor would be WWWQ-HD2. This was moved to an incorrect (per MOS) pagename and required move protection because of it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• I notice a few recent ones to hyphenate titles, I don't know if these are correct (but weak-echo looks wrong to me in Bounded weak-echo region), but I notice post move the articles themselves are left to refer to itself in non-hyphenated form and in one I looked at all the source refer to the non-hyphenated version. Maybe not troublesome in the same way as the one listed above, but does seem perhaps he needs to spend a but more thought and effort on moves. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• The two talk page discussions at Talk:WWWQ-HD2, and the move log for WWWQ-HD2 — which contains moves done by Tavix, ChrisB, and R'n'B —, both indicate that this is not the cut-and-dried situation that Neutralhomer paints it to be above. I also see several talk page edits to Talk:WWWQ-HD2 by Radiojon, which are clearly not refusals to engage in discussion. There is plenty of evidence — such as this, this, and this for examples and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#99X (Atlanta) — that Radiojon is engaging in discussion and believes that xe is restoring the status quo ante (i.e. the "R" in WP:BRD) with the radio stations.

  Even the article that Viriditas is talking about was moved by people other than Radiojon. It is now at Montage (filmmaking), for example, because Girolamo Savonarola disagrees with both Radiojon's boldness and Viriditas' reversion. Radiojon could do with using the talk page to make arguments instead of the edit/move summary, especially in light of what happened to this move summary, but this is not a situation of Radiojon-versus-consensus (There is no consensus for where WWWQ-HD2 should be as yet.), or Radiojon-versus-everyone-else (Two people disagreed with montage sequence.), or even Radiojon-not-participating-in-move-and-naming-discussions (third counterexample fourth counterexample fifth counterexample). Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I strongly disagree with your assessment, Uncle G. Girolamo Savonarola and myself do not have any disagreement. Radiojon argued that "montage sequence" refers primarily to "video montage,"[10][11] an argument that does not find any support outside of Radiojon's misunderstanding of the concept of montage and misinterpretation of Wikipedia:Search engine test. Girolamo Savonarola simply moved the page to "Montage (filmmaking)" because it is the correct title after disambiguation (montage is a dab page). I agree with Girolamo Savonarola, and I feel that the new title is more inclusive of the general topic. So, in fact, Girolamo Savonarola and myself are in agreement, as we both disagree with Radiojon's move. (Did you somehow miss Girolamo Savonarola's edit summary?[12]) This is one example of many bad page moves made by Radiojon since 2005 (possibly even as early as 2003) Currently, there are a total of 206 threaded discussions in Radiojon's user talk pages and archives.[13][14][15][16] What percentage of Radiojon's 206 user talk discussions consist of disputed page moves? What percentage of Radiojon's page moves have been reverted? And finally, how many of these disputed and reverted page moves involve a discussion by Radiojon on either the user or article talk page? See below for a growing list of undiscussed page moves. The full list is enormous and would take hours to complete. Uncle G, please try to answer these questions and then revisit your position. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You need to answer the questions. You are the person who has the burden of making a case, here. The first question that you need to answer is: What makes you think that Girolamo Savonarola agreed with you? There is nothing in xyr edit summary that says that xe did, and the fact that you chose the name montage sequence whereas xe chose the different name Montage (filmmaking) is pretty much incontestible evidence that xe did not agree with you. After all, if xe had agreed with you, xe would have used the same title that you did.

      You also need to answer the question of why you think that bold edits made in good faith, whose rationales can be clearly understood even if one does not agree on the particulars of hypenation and the like, that have since been reverted, are harmful and a cause for any more action other than the talk page and naming conventions discussions that Radiojon is already apparently participating in.

      You also need to come up with more concrete evidence and less casting of vague aspersions. You should be telling us what percentage of the talk page threads are about page moves. (Even if it were the whole 206, which it clearly is not, that's still less than one sixth of the number of move log entries that Radiojon has.)

      Here's a basic point: Doing things without discussing them first is in the majority of cases not wrong. Per Wikipedia:Be bold, prior discussion is not a requirement for action. (If it were, Wikipedia would have died long ago.) See also Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus", which applies to some of your page moves.

      Radiojon has done over 1500 page moves. Some have been reverted. If he had proceeded to edit-war over them, that would be one thing. But the evidence of the talk pages, and of the discussions linked-to above, is that xe doesn't edit war as a general rule, and that xe does proceed to talk pages to discuss moves and to discuss naming conventions (even putting forward some general proposals on the subject). Only in a few cases does xe present xyr arguments in summaries rather than on talk pages where they properly belong. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

      • I asked you several questions above, and you ignored them. Instead, you tried to switch the burden of proof from the editor moving an article without discussion, to the editor reverting to the last good version. I can't believe you are serious. Your interpretation of Girolamo Savonarola's page move is completely wrong, and his edit summary showed that my revert was acceptable as we both disagreed with Radiojon.[17] (And I left a message on Radiojon's talk page asking him to come to Talk:Montage sequence.[18][19] He ignored me.) Savonarola's edit summary is clear: it's not exclusive to video - this is general filmmaking theory and technique. Since you missed it the first time around, "montage sequence" is equivalent to "montage (filmmaking)". They are not, the same as video montage, however. Clearly, my revert to the previous version and Savonarola's creation of a new title have the same result: they do not focus only on video, as Radiojon's move intended. Sorry, I thought this was blindingly obvious. Apparently it is not. (If you are going to question it a second time, then you should ask someone to explain it to you.) FYI, any editor reverting a bad page move does not have the burden of proof. If you can't address the evidence, then say so. There are not a "few cases", there are dozens, and more diffs will be provided. You say that of 1500 page moves by Radiojon "some" have been reverted. How many is some? Please quantify. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This list is incomplete

• 11 July 2008 - Highly composite number to Highly-composite number;[20] Reverted by PrimeHunter[21] Comments: Never seen a source with hyphen). Radiojon was contacted on his user page by two users.[22] There was no response.
• 9 August 2008 - Willowgrove, Saskatoon to Willowgrove;[23] Reverted by Drm310[24] Comments: Moved back to former title; remaining consistent with naming conventions established for other Saskatoon neighbourhoods. See Talk:List of neighbourhoods in Saskatoon for further detail Radiojon was contacted on his talk page.[25] There was no response.
• 7 November 2008 - Open content film to Open-content film[26] Reverted by Thumperward[27] Comments: the hyphenated form does not appear to be common, and the term it is derived from is at "open source" with no hyphen
• 8 November 2008 - Open content film to Open-content film[28] Thumperward contacts Radiojon to discuss his second page move after being reverted.[29] There is no response by Radiojon. Thumperward reverts back to the previous version again [30] Comments: no response from the user who moved the page, so moving it back to more common and consistent title
• 24 August 2008 - Historic district (United States) to Historic district;[31] Reverted by Nyttend[32] Comments: ...move was undiscussed and actually reduces the quality of a GA[33]
  • The subsequent edit history, in which Radiojon added the "globalize" template to the article, indicates that this move was part of an unilateral undiscussed initiative by Radiojon to convert this from a US-specific article to a global article. --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Or, alternatively: Radoiojon moved the article back to the title that it originally had when it was first created, removing a disambiguator that wasn't disambiguating anything, and it was blanket reverted along with some article content changes. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Even if that were true, you are actually defending moving an article back to its original title? Are you serious? That's like saying a deep revert of a Good Article (and that's what that was) to the original stub is acceptable. I can't believe you are actually saying this. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• 20 December 2008 - Low pressure area to Low-pressure area;[34] Reverted by Juliancolton[35] Comments: rv undiscussed move
  • Or, alternatively: Radoiojon made a move, and the given reason for reverting it was that it was bold, not that it was actually wrong. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The talk page is used for discussion, not the edit summary. Since he's been here since 2003, you would think he would know that. Apparently, he does not. And given the fact that he has revert warred with professional meteorologists, one has to seriously question his judgment on the matter. His little "hyphen war" is out of control. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• 7 January 2009 - List of National Monuments of the United States to List of national monuments of the United States;[36] Reverted by Doncram.[37] Comments: restore to previous name, National Monuments is a proper noun. previous move was undiscussed.
• 7 January 2009 - Dolby noise reduction system to Dolby noise-reduction system[38]. Move contested by Rivertorch[39]. No response by Radiojon.
• 11 February 2009 - WGNM to WGNM (TV);[40] Reverted by RobDe68[41] Comments: Reverting back to official FCC call sign per naming convention (unnecessary page move)
• 13 February 2009 - Rain and snow mixed to Mixed precipitation;[42] Reverted by Famartin[43]
• 13 February 2009 - WTCI to WTCI (TV);[44] Reverted by RobDe68[45] Comments: Reverting back to official FCC call sign per naming convention (unnecessary page move)
• 19 February 2009 - WUMJ to WUMJ (FM);[46] Reverted by RobDe68[47]. Comments: no reason for move to (FM) suffix, reverting back to official FCC call sign per naming convention Many more radio stations were moved. This is only a sample. RobDe68 contacted Radiojon and asked him to self-revert his moves.[48] No response or action was ever taken by Radiojon.
• 24 February 2009 - Wears Valley, Tennessee to Wears Valley;[49][50][51] Reverted by Orlady[52][53] Comments: Wikipedia naming conventions
  • After the move, Radiojon did make one comment at Talk:Wears Valley, Tennessee#"Tennessee" in article name. Apparently he had decided (without discussion and possibly without reading the article) that because the article topic is treated by the US Census Bureau as a census county division, it is not actually a populated place and should not use the state name in the article title. --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC) PS - I can't find any other responses to the comments posted on his talk page (User talk:Radiojon#Wears Valley, Tennessee). --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• 25 February 2009 - Moved White box testing to White-box testing and Black box testing to Black-box testing. No discussion. Moves have not been reversed, but the hyphens were not added to the text of the articles, only to the titles.
  • Or, alternatively: Radoiojon boldly made moves, and no-one, not even the person holding them up as examples in this list, has reverted them or even contested them on the talk pages. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Worst. Argument. Ever. You're saying that if an article was vandalized a year ago, it's ok to leave the vandalism in because nobody has yet found it? Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• 4 March 2009 - moved Automated airport weather station to Automated weather station;[54][55] Reverted by Famartin[56][57] Does not respond or engage in either the discussion initiated on his user talk page or on the discussion started on the article talk page, however, he continues to move the page.
• 16 April 2009 - Explosively formed penetrator to Explosively-formed penetrator;[58] Reverted by BillFlis. Comments: Adverbs ending in -ly do not require a hyphen
  • Or, alternatively: Radoiojon boldly made a move; someone reverted; and Radiojon has, so far, let the matter drop. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • We don't need an "alternative" interpretation of what happened, because BillFlis contacted Radiojon on his talk page.[59] And Radiojon, never responded. Seeing a pattern yet? Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• 24 April 2009 moved North American call sign to Broadcast call sign to Broadcast callsign;[60][61]; Closeapple disagrees with the move and requests an explanation.[62] Radiojon does not respond on either his talk page, the article talk page, or on the talk page of Closeapple. A second user, 121a0012 also questions the move on Talk:Broadcast_callsign saying that the Article should not have been moved. Consensus on the talk page is to move the article back to its original title. To date, Radiojon has not provided the requested explanation or engaged in any discussion of this move.
  • Or, alternatively: Radoiojon boldly made two moves, with non-blank summaries giving reasons in both cases; and rather than simply reverting them, people are discussing reverting them on the talk page. That Radiojon has chosen not to participate so far beyond the reasons that xe already gave in the summaries is not a problem. Such participation is not mandatory. No edit war has ensued, and discussion is ongoing. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The talk page is for reasons, not edit summaries. Two editors, Closeapple and 121a0012 have both requested discussion and a restoration of the page. Neither has occurred. Seeing a pattern yet? Being "bold" does not give you the right to move pages and then disappear when other editors question your page moves. How many more years does this have to continue? Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note on Wears Valley, naming conventions are not iron-clad and if there is no other notable Wears Valley, it does not have to be at Wears Valley, Tennessee. This was discussed at length and decided last year. See New York City, Boston, Seattle... rootology (C)(T) 16:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wears Valley is not a particularly well-known place. --Orlady (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • But is it the only notable Wears Valley? rootology (C)(T) 17:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Radiojon's move was not motivated by a notion that this is the only "Wears Valley" in the world, but rather by a misconception that it's a landform and not a community (see my note above). Regardless, because there is some ambiguity about its name, the inclusion of "Tennessee" is very helpful. Wears Valley is an unincorporated community with no legal existence, although it had about 6,500 people nine years ago and has grown quite a lot since then. Its name is unofficial, and (before Radiojon moved the page) we had some discussion here about whether its correct name is "Wears Valley," "Wear Valley", "Wear's Valley," or possibly "Wears Cove" or "Wear Cove." To further complicate there's also a Wear Valley in England. In view of the potential for confusion, I've just now created Wear Valley (disambiguation). --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
      • It's irrelevant if it's the only Wears Valley or not. The decision about New York, Boston, Seattle etc. wasn't about them being the only places with those names, it was about them being so prominent that they can be referred to without attached disambiguation. That applies to only a few world-class places, and it's clearly not the case with Wears Valley. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Indeed. The case of Wears Valley is somewhat different. And Radiojon participated in the talk page discussion of the move, here, with an explanation. Xyr own explanation in xyr own words does not quite match the explanation given by Orlady, above. Again, the complaint that Radiojon isn't participating in talk page discussions is undermined by a case where xe clearly is participating in a talk page discussion. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
          • On the contrary, that diff shows him using the discussion page 24 hours after page move warring. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Radiojon's move logs and contributions history suggest that he is a good-faith user who is at least somewhat familiar with WP protocols for moving articles (for example, see his participation in this recent discussion at Requested Moves), but prefers to boldly move pages without prior discussion. While some of the page moves were appropriate, others were definitely not (as indicated by the rapid negative reactions of the other Wikipedians involved with them), and some of his moves have created messes. Additionally, I'm dismayed to see a tendency to change page titles without changing the corresponding article content (for example, in Black-box testing).

Is there any precedent for imposing a ban on making page moves without first posting a move proposal on the article talk page? --Orlady (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why not, instead, make the suggestion to Radiojon that xe keep the article content in line with the title? Have you ever actually made that suggestion directly to xem? Has anyone? It doesn't seem so. If not, why on Earth do you think that the rest of us should be banning Radiojon when you have made no effort to simply converse with xem and to make constructive suggestions as to how xe could tidy up after xyrself in this manner? "Everyone should ban person A from doing what I disagree with!" is not the immediate next step in dispute resolution after "I disagree with this action by person A.". The next step is actually talking to the person that one disagrees with, and explaining what xe could be doing better.

  Radiojon is allowed to be bold, just as you are allowed to revert (although the reasons for several recent reversions, by Viriditas, Juliancolton, and others, seem to be, from their edit summaries, not because the move was intrinsically wrong, but simply because Radiojon boldly took an action to move a page without discussing it beforehand — to which Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus" applies). The next step after boldness and reversion is, of course, discussion. From xyr move log, Radiojon appears to be either doing that or letting the matter drop in all bar a scant few cases where xe is placing arguments in edit summaries rather than on talk pages. Notice that this is the case in only two of the seven examples given above, and in one of those two xe participated in the talk page discussion.

  As I wrote above, when one looks at the actual edits, the situation is not the Radiojon-versus-consensus, or Radiojon-versus-everyone-else, or even Radiojon-not-participating-in-move-and-naming-discussions, situation that it is being painted to be. So Radiojon's ideas of hyphenation and capitalization differ from yours. Go and participate in the naming convention discussion that xe started on the subject, which no-one complaining has seen fit to partipate in yet. So Radiojon's idea of radio station names differs from yours. Go and participate in the naming convention discussion on the subject, that xe is active in and where xe has even put forward lengthy, concrete, and detailed proposals. So Radiojon isn't fixing up article introductions to match their new titles. Go and directly talk to xem about it — you'll probably be the first to actually do so, rather than complaining to third parties. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Huh? It is Radiojon-versus-everyone else, and he has refused to discuss the page moves in most of the incidents listed above, and if he did show up to the talk page, it was 24 hours later, after page move warring. This has not happened once, nor twice, nor three times. It has happened dozens of times, for years. I have provided diffs to only a select few; many more can be shown, and I would be happy to provide them. Exactly how many will it take for you to understand, Uncle G, that Radiojon will not talk about his page moves, especially when asked several times to do so, and yet, he will continue moving the article? The diffs above show efforts made by several different editors to talk to Radiojon about his moves, with no response. What evidence do you require, Uncle G, to change your mind? Would you like 40 diffs instead of 20? How about 50? Are you going to actually sit here and tell me that his move of montage sequence to video montage was reasonable? Or when a professional meteorologist like Famartin reverts Radiojon's erroneous moves, not once but twice, and asks him to stop, and he doesn't, and he refuses to discuss the issue - you're telling me that is a reasonable response? I'm really curious about your ability to see this clearly, Uncle G. Being "bold" is not a valid excuse to move pages, engage in edit warring over those page moves, and then ignore all requests for discussion. Again, how many examples would you like me to provide? Evidently, I need to provide more. I will. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No admin intervention needed, mistaken assumption, wrong venue for contesting AfDs.  Sandstein  06:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Docu (talk · contribs) has recently been closing a number of bilateral relations AfDs as keep. Whilst non admins are entitled to do this under WP:NAC, I believe that Docu is not following due process. Firstly, non admin closures are only for very clear consensuses (or unianimous) of keep which is not the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations, Secondly, I alerted Docu of this yesterday [63], yet Docu continues this today here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta–Slovakia relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Malaysia relations. thirdly, all these cases should have been 'no consensus' and marked as "non admin closure". lastly, docu has been consistently voting for keep in all these bilateral AfDs hence I believe there is some self interest in closing as much AfDs as keep.

I request that Docu no longer be permitted to close AfDs given this behaviour. thanks LibStar (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Docu's actually an admin (and has the attitude of one). No comment on whether the closures are good. --NE2 04:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see Special:UserRights/Docu. The place to contest AfD closure is WP:DRV, not here. I can't imagine how one could possibly have a "self interest" in closing AfDs about bilateral relations; it's not as though any person could conceivably personally benefit from the existence of an article on such topics. You should be much more careful when making allegations on this board, LibStar.  Sandstein  06:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Every user can be pigeonholed and compartmentalized so easily. Hence, there cannot possibly be a neutral admin that can handle this based on this line of thought. MuZemike 08:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In the Terror bombing article by Dapi89.

This user is

• removing citations from the article (Smith and Creek, direct quote provided for Dapi89 already)
• inserting cites from authors to change their meaning to the opposite (Buckley, Hooton)
• changing the meaning of cited references to omit common historical facts that Dapi89 appearantly don't approve (ie. Smith and Creek cite again)
• and in cases replaced them with Dapi89 own POV, without any reference, especially in the last edits.

In addition this user is creating a hysteria [on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terror_bombing article's talk page], and is very aggressive and inpolite (see: "Dubious use of sources", "False accusations" etc.) and which contains repeated personal attacks and unfounded accusations; in each case it was tried to provide Dapi89 direct quotes of the cites; yet even after having been presented with the direct quotes, Dapi89 continue to replace them with your own POV, for which Dapi89 do not present any reference.

Some personal attacks in edit logs:

• [removing falshood's and lies. It has already been established that no deliberate attacks were made on German civilians via cited material. You can't be trusted Kurfurst. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terror_bombing&diff=prev&oldid=289938714]
• [more falsehoods and grossly misleading information corrected - civilian centres were the target during the Blitz. This attempt to re-wrtie history is a disgrace. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terror_bombing&diff=prev&oldid=289939127]

Attention is required; I asked Dapi89 to stop it on the talk page, and warned him, but I doubt it will have effect. It seems to be getting out of hand. Kurfürst (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks to me like an edit war between an editor who thinks the article should say that the Germans deliberately targetted British civilians, but the British were only bombing German military/industrial targets, and one who thinks the opposite is true. I have two observations. Firstly, the problem may be that the title of the article, Terror Bombing, may be problematic with regards to NPOV, and the material might be better merged into the many other bombing / war / blitz - related articles we have. Secondly, both parties would be advised to stop reverting and follow the WP:Dispute resolution guidelines. I'll be warning both. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Terror Bombing was an expression used by Goebbles during the war and by Neo-Nazis today. It is not NPOV--Woogie10w (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

... apart from Goebbels and modern Neo-Nazis, it was also used by Churchill and by literally dozens of modern, respectable historians; its a commonly used expression for this specific kind of military operation, but generally I agree that the article would need to be merged with a number of very similiar or semi-identical wiki articles covering the same subject (see the talk page), and maybe use 'Terror bombing' as a redirect page. Kurfürst (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Any bombing of primarily civilian areas with little or no explicit military value in an attempt to effect the morale of the general populace is, by definition, terror bombing, since the intended effect is to caused terror in the people, who then bring pressure on their government to stop fighting. The Germans, British, Americans and Russians all practiced terror bombing, as the post-war ruins of Warsaw, Berlin, Coventry, Dresden, Hiroshima and many other cities will attest. It's a neutral term, and a term of art. In fact calling it by some white-washed euphemism is propagandistic and inaccurate. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This article must be a prime example of one set up for lots of edit warring! In itself the title is highly subjective; dozens of "modern, respectable historians" may use the term specifically describing aerial bombardment but none of these scources are listed, nor are any used as references in the opening paragraph, which is supposed to define what Terror Bombing means. Nor is the title sufficiently descriptive. Readers would be entitled to assume that terror bombing would more than likely encompasses material about suicide bombs, improvised roadside devices in Iraq or similar topics. Without a proper reference for the definition the definition itself merely becomes a personal POV of the editor who wrote it - it does not matter if Goebbels or Churchill (both of whom, it could be argued, were very selective in how they viewed events anyway) or any other reputable historian used the term - the lack of any references for the definition makes that a moot point.

The use of an opinion peice such as http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1601/16010170.htm (used as footnotes (2) (3) and (4)) should be of concern because it is clear that this article is not written from a neutral POV and is highly emotive in it's use of Harris' supposed quotes; if Harris did indeed say such things there must surely be a more reliable published scource which can be used. There are also scources cited eg; ObdL FüSt Ia Nr. 5375/39 g. Kdos. Chefsache, Entwurf, Weisung Nr. 2 für das X. Fliegerkorps vom 11. November 1939 which may have been published, but are they generally available or have they actually been published in a book? Until such material can be read and verified it is useless to use it as a reference in a wikipedia article. At the very least the entire article needs heavy revision by editors with a neutral POV. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately temper has really gone sky high instead of cooling down in the meantime. Dapi89 ever since the warning keeps vandalizing the talk page and continues making personal attacks. He also methodically removes cited references, see here, here and here. Kurfürst (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns regarding websites, though whether something is written from a NPOV is rather subjective - there are some websites we like, and try to propagate, while others may appear less attractive in their contents. I agree there is a problem with websites when it comes to reliability, but luckily the solution to the problem you raised is rather simple, as the Harris quote appears in a good deal of written, published sources as well, and I added one such to the article.

Regarding your concerns about ObdL FüSt Ia Nr. 5375/39 g. Kdos. Chefsache, Entwurf, Weisung Nr. 2 für das X. Fliegerkorps vom 11. November 1939 and such sources, these are primary reference materials, for which full archival reference was given in the original secondary, published books by their respective authors, that made the cited statements. I recall earlier you stated that there is no problem with material reference that can be ordered from respectable archieves, so I don't see why there would be now, and how the extra reference would of the original orders would hurt; especially as the validity can be checked through the also referenced secondary source, which quotes these in the first place. OTOH, I feel that any such concerns about referenced materials should be discussed on the said article's talk page, instead of here. Kurfürst (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

<Unindent> As an uninvolved editor who is knowledgeable about the subject, I have to say the article is highly problematical, starting with the unsourced and somewhat unconventional definition of “terror bombing” through to the end where it seems the term is being used as synonymous with “aerial bombardment.” I believe that Philip Baird Shearer has made a well-advised recommendation to totally rework the article that should be taken to heart by the other editors.

As for the particular issue of this AN/I, I think that Dapi89 and Kurfürst have gotten too “nose-to-nose” with their mutual accusations of each other’s changes as “vandalism”. It would be best for all concerned if they could both agree to take a deep breath and intentionally disengage, restricting their criticisms to content and avoiding undoing each other’s work without first taking it to the Talk page and seeking neutral resolution by their peers. I recognize all of the registered editors working on the article – including Dapi89 and Kurfürst – as constructive, experienced editors. In this case, while they both know what is expected from them as Wikipedian editors, they’ve made the common mistake of letting themselves get personally caught up in a minor issue. I believe they both know they need to back off and cool down. I don’t see that this is an admin issue, just an incident where a wet trout is appropriate. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As there have been no objections to my suggestion of rewriting the Terror bombing article, I have done so (DIFFS). This means that unless the protagonists shift their edit war to one of the other similar articles, this particular dispute should end as the disputed sections no longer exist. --PBS (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This user has almost stubbed Declan Ganley removed dozens of references and has not consulted anyone. He is a one operson propaganda bot for Libertas. I think an admin might examine as there seems to be multiple violations esp.WP:COI, WP:NPOV

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=QuotationMan

I don't want to get into an edit war reverting without some admin input. Catapla (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the history of the article from immediately before QuotationMan's first edit to his last edit to date. At first glance, it looks like he's removing non-neutral material, possible defamation and irrelevant material about other members of the party that's not about Ganley himself. This is probably one best raised at the BLP Noticeboard. (Note; I've never heard of Declan Ganley, have no interest whatsoever in Irish politics and most definitely have no horse in this race.) –  iridescent  23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked to contribute here, so let's begin. It needs to be pointed out that it's not just Declan Ganley that User:QuotationMan is deleting stuff off, it's Libertas.eu and Libertas Institute as well. Examples are:

• airbrushing of Jens-Peter Bonde from the Libertas party article
• removing info about the funding controversy from the Libertas lobby group article.

The latter contained POV wording and I notified an admin accordingly, but when I reinserted the bit about the controversy (sans the offensive wording), User:QuotationMan removed it at the earliest opportunity, as opposed to rewriting it. I think he may think that WP:BLP applies to the organizations Bonde/Ganley founded, not just Bonde/Ganley.

I need to point out that I have several horses in this race: I am currently advocating that one of User:QuotationMan's articles ("Monopoly of Initiative") be replaced by a redirect at that article's AFD entry, I have written most (God, all?) of the Ganley Libertas articles on the 'pedia, and User:Catalpa has awarded me a barnstar. Sometimes it feels like it's not just horses in the race, but I built the racecourse, cloned the riders, evolved horses from protomammals using selective breeding over millennia, and invented the word "horse". So if you want to disregard my comments, knock yourself out. But it's not just Declan that User:QuotationMan is removing stuff of of, and this isn't just a WP:BLP issue.

In the interests of fairness, I will notify User:QuotationMan of my entry here, so that he may respond should he feel it necessary. I will also ask an admin for overview of my entry here to see if I have maintained the proper balance.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

User:QuotationMan deletion of huge amounts of secondary verifiable info from papers of record is POV pushing but is a also type of information massage and vandalism . I think check user will come up with one an IP from Tuam Co Galway. Anameofmyveryown has done work that is way above the usual standard fro books let alone a free web site and I would trust his/her impartiality here 100%. So much so that I don't interfere with his /her work which is super excellent. What to do? Catapla (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 11:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Can some kind admin check out the backlog at WP:RPP please. There's a range of IPs hammering several (an increasing number) articles with some BS about Macedonia and Greece. Ta muchly. --WebHamster 10:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The usual rangeblocks and abuse filters are now in place instead. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Link please? I'm not seeing anything Macedonia-related on RPP right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the speed with which they are changing ranges yet vandalising the same articles I would politely suggest that the articles be semi-protected temporarily too. --WebHamster 11:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Paris, Berlin, Atlanta, etc. There's probably hundreds of articles which get affected by this, but it's far more effective to use the rangeblocks and AF. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a central core of about 5 or 6 articles (ie the ones you declined) that would probably benefit from a day's worth of semi-protection I'm sure. May be it's just as well I'm not an admin then :) --WebHamster 11:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

An editor asked me on my talk page if the comments at User:Rumbo mumbo are allowed. My first thought was that yes, they are rude and nasty, but allowed. My second thought, though, was that they are rude and nasty to a very specific subset of editors and could be considered a personal attack. I need another opinion. Also, as I need to leave the computer soon, if it is deemed a personal attack, could someone else please follow up on it? Thanks, LadyofShalott 12:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen. LadyofShalott 13:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

After I started this ANI thread about disruptive editing, an uninvolved editor determined that disruption was indeed occurring at Talk:Keratoconus by User:Scubadiver99 and User:Corneadoc through refusal to accept consensus, and continued reposting of the same arguments and rejected sources. As per the established pattern with this conflict, a "new" user has materialized to bolster the debate. Yes, I have re-opened the sockpuppetry case and it is waiting for checkuser results. Older cases are here and here. Short of a block, I'm not sure what will stop this behaviour on the talk page (and edits to the article against consensus even after the last ANI report). Some admin assistance would be much appreciated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

For background information on the current case, see the thread about user:Woogie10w's prejudiced and disruptive behaviour in the collapsible box below. The current events are a follow-up of this case.

Continued disruption at The Holocaust by Woogie10w:

• refusal to leave a disputed paragraph alone during an ongoing RfC on this paragraph eg here,
• refusal to accept the outcome of the RfC,
• continued disruption at talk

Ethnic prejudice of User:Woogie10w and User:Molobo during canvassing:

• Says Woogie10w to Molobo on 10 May: Let's keep an eye on the Holocaust article, that German my try to trivialize Nazi crimes in Poland during WW2. He needs to be stopped when he trys a POV push, I believe you must stand up and fight that bully with reliable sources, later changed to "we must stand up and fight that bully..." [73]
• Says Molobo to Woogie10w on 10 May (after Woogie complained that now German could be publicy spoken in Poland and young Poles "don't remember the war" [74]): I am young and I do react when hearing German language on the streets So not all have forgotten.
• Says Woogie10w to Molobo on 14 May after I deleted what was left of the paragraph according to the RfC's result and Woogie 10w reverted [75]: :I need your help!! Please back me up

Woogie10w needs to be restricted to end to the disruption caused by him, and because of his obvious anti-German prejudice should be restricted from editing articles relating to Germany.

Molobo, as someone who "does react when hearing German language on the streets" (though already on parole from a permaban), should also be restricted from editing articles relating to Germany.

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd is a bully who is attempting to whitewash Nazi crimes in Poland, he will not intimidate me--Woogie10w (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd deleted this information from the Holocaust article that was backed up with three reliable sources--50,000 Polish children were kidnapped by the Nazis , and after undergoing scrutiny to ensure that they were of "Nordic" racial stock, were sent to Germany to be Germanized .^[1][2][3]--Woogie10w (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Note well that the source of the above information is the United States Holocaust Memorial --Woogie10w (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just an additional unfounded personal attack. Neither I nor anyone who supported my rationale in the respective RfC has "whitewashed Nazi crimes". Skäpperöd (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment like "Skäpperöd is a bully who is attempting to whitewash Nazi crimes " is inadmissible per the Arbitration rulings like Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned, if such behavior has prolonged history Arbitration enforcement should be filled per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction. M.K. (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Time out, Skäpperöd has been pushing his own POV without citing a single source, he deleted material that was backed up by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. That is why I say he is engaging in bullying. We do not have to be nice to POV pushers--Woogie10w (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:CIV. M.K. (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I am very sorry, I take that back, SKAPPEROD I APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING YOU A BULLY!! it wont happen again--Woogie10w (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am 59 years old, in 1970 when I visited Poland Germans were not allowed to travel there. Public anger in Poland was so intense that Germans were not safe to walk the streets. That is my mindset, I knew people who survived Auschwitz. What is a NPOV in this case?--Woogie10w (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Oh for crying out loud, MK, Civil does not mean "toss your brains out the window". I have not looked into this and don't know if the term applies in this case or not, but if someone is bullying we have to be able to say so. Its not uncivil. It is descriptive. We must also be able to call vandals "vandals" etc. I agree that civility is important, but not at the cost of never being able to describe undesirable behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So it would be a good idea to read and only then comment. Stating that someone one bulling is one thing asserting that "whitewashing" Nazi crimes quite different:All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. M.K. (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Alarm bells should go off when people delete sourced material that was prepared by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. 50,000 Polish children were kidnapped by the Nazis, this was detailed by a separate trial at Nurnberg. Why delete this one sentence? My opinion is that this is a blatant attempt to whitewash a horrible Nazi crime. What is your opinion? Again I repeat SKAPPEROD I APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING YOU A BULLY!! it wont happen again--Woogie10w (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I dont' need to read to say that when someone is here for Admin assistance, they should be able to say that they think someone is bullying. We can tell them to grow a thicker skin, or whatever, but its not a violation of CIVIL to characterize certain communications patterns as bullying. Whitewashing, ditto. Now, Nazi sympathizer is indeed different, but I didn't say a damn thing about that, now did I? I said stop using "CIVIL" as a defense against accusations of "bullying" or citing at those who voice concerns about bullies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Note well that I have never ever made any negative comments about the German people, only Nazis. For many older persons the two are confounded. Sorry, if there was a misunderstaning, I apologize. BTY my ancestors were Germans, just like Ike, who was horrified when he visited the camps in 1945--Woogie10w (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The same rule you should apply and to the particular individuals and wikipedians, as none of them (as far as I can see) are "whitewashing" any crimes. If you stop suing such rhetoric in the future, that would be beneficial for all involved parties M.K. (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion deleting material backed up by the US Holocaust Museum is whitewashing a Nazi crime.SKAPPEROD has yet to find a reliable source to contradict the USHMM. I don't know what his motive was, I dont care. All I know is that sourced material on Nazi crimes was deleted--Woogie10w (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, presented material of RFC indicates that quite several wikipedians suggested to remove that info as well[76]. So no it is not a "whitewashing". M.K. (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so my friend the RfC is not a vote, the facts backed up by reliable sources should govern the discussion, the Holocaust article needs the attention of experts on Wikipedia. If you include Poles as part of the Holocaust, as some scholars do but not all, then that material from the USHMM should not have been deleted. the RfC is not a vote--Woogie10w (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votesSKAPPEROD I APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING YOU A BULLY!! it won't happen again --Woogie10w (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC is one of the tools of WP:CONSENSUS building.M.K. (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

All well & good I agree, WP:CONSENSUS does not mean that reliable sources are disregarded. The opinions of four or five persons should not decide this issue. The Holocaust article needs the attention of experts on Wikipedia, not the current lineup of editors,the level of knowledge on that talk page is grade school. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what the US Holocaust Memorial Museum has written on the subject [77]An estimated total of 50,000 children were kidnapped in Poland, the majority[ taken from orphanages and foster homes in the annexed lands. Infants born to Polish women deported to Germany as farm and factory laborers were also usually taken from the mothers and subjected to Germanization.

I say don't delete this information --Woogie10w (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please can some admin review the actual diffs presented above and the linked background, and not let this become completely derailed by Woogie10w's posts as was the case with the previous AN/I thread.

• I expanded and tweaked the Holocaust article. I deleted one paragraph I regarded out of scope of the article, making sure the information is being prominently covered in other articles and not "lost". (BRD)
• Woogie restored the paragraph, I reverted explaining my rationale in detail on talk, where another user had already started a thread that my edits improved the article. (BRD)
• Woogie restored again. I discussed, the discussion was getting personal, so I started an RfC. All this time I left the paragraph in question alone, for about two weeks, when the RfC had shown that most editors participating supported my rationale and no additional comments had been made for one week. (BRD)

Please review the evidence above, also from the previous ANI thread, to get a picture what Woogie10w did instead. Noone wants to whitewash Nazi crimes by deleting this information from wikipedia, it was just an information deleted from one article where it - according to the rationales of many users presented in the RfC - does not belong, and it is well covered in other articles. Woogie knows that, it has been pointed out to him numerous times in the linked discussions, which woogie chose to disrupt as shown above. He did not just say "don't delete this information". He said the stuff linked above, and this disruptive and prejudiced behaviour of him and Molobo is what needs to be reviewed here. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Both Skäpperöd and Woogie10w need to cease personal attacks immediately, and assume more good faith towards each other. I see nothing related to Molobo here that is of any concern, on the other hand, flaming and battleground creation by M.K. is a problem. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If you feel I lanced any personal attack, and that I refused to AGF, start a thread about me. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting that persons with knoweledge of history review this dispute and the sources I have provided and arrive at a decision. I have no interest in an edit war or personal arguments. I must assume that Skäpperöd is acting in good faith, all I ask is that he provide sources for his POV. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This experience has made me realize a real scary aspect of Wikipedia, an important article like the Holocaust is watched by so few Wikipedians, a handful persons have been dominate the Holocaust article and disregard reliable sources like the USHMM.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My "POV" in the discussion was merely that this one paragraph was out of the scope of the article, and that the sources provided by Woogie did not support an inclusion - that does not in any way justify calling me someone who tries to "whitewash Nazi crimes", nor that "the Jews and Poles on wikipedia" must "stand up and fight" to "defend Poland" against "that German".

Neither does my editing and discussing justify calling me a "POV pusher". I did not edit war, I did not revert war, I discussed, evaluated the sources and started an RfC. I believe my behaviour followed the BRD cycle most closely.

Neither does anything justify canvassing of users who "do react when hearing German language on the street".

Please can some uninvolved admin review this case, thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My reaction consists of feelings of sadness and grief when encountering language in which orders to destroy my country were made. I think I am allowed to have personal emotions and talk about them in private exchange with another person on Wikipedia. If Skapperod feels offended I apologise

--Molobo (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You associate the German language with Nazi crimes, this is prejudice. Could an univolved admin comment please? Skäpperöd (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd should stick to reliable sources and leave his own POV out of arguments, that is his problem. Rather than waste the the time of administrators with compliaints, he needs to pick up a solid history of the Holocaust and the German occupation of Poland during the war. I am frustrated with Skäpperöd because he pushes his own POV not backed up by reliable sources. Also the reality today is that many Poles and Jews consider the Holocaust when the issue of Germany comes up, they will not forgive Germany and never forget.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You associate modern Germany with Nazi crimes, this is prejudice. You again conclude from my preference for exclusion of one paragraph from the Holocaust article that I lack an understanding of the Holocaust and the WWII Nazi occupation, that's logical fallacy. Could an univolved admin comment please? Skäpperöd (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never associated modern Germany with Nazi crimes, never ever. You excluded that one sentance backed up by the USHMM based on your own POV, without any source. Zap, it was deleted per Skäpperöd, the USHMM is wrong.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way about forty years ago there were thousands of persons living in West Germany, after the war, who were accused of war crimes. The Germans refused to extradite them to Poland for trial. The Poles are bitter about this.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

About 40 years ago (although I am certain that you mean 50) West Germany was being effectively governed by the American, British and French and the "refusal" to send Germans who were assisting those nations in their technological industries to the Soviet bloc (of which Poland was a fairly senior member, perhaps only after East Germany) was made by those countries. If the Poles are not prepared to forget, then they would be advised to note who made the decisions in many of these cases. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am trying my best to remain civil and have a NPOV. Many people can become emotional when the topic of the Holocaust and Nazi crimes in Poland are brought up. I am sorry for any uncivil remarks, that will not happen again. I fight back with reliable sources and a NPOV.

I must bring to your attention the recent edits by Skapperod to the article Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany. He attempted to tag Nazi war crimes documented by well known and respected scholars as communist propaganda. These Nazi crimes are undeniable and cannot be trivialized as communist propaganda.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

For example we would not tag the writings of Herbert Aptheker as being communist propaganda. He was a recognized scholar who was member of the Communist Party.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Nothing immediately actionable. Other venues may be engaged depending on the true nature of the complaint (see Talk:Noah's Ark#RFC re: "mythology" charaterization for the content issue). –xeno ^talk 15:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There is group of editors at Talk:Noah's Ark that I have been attempting to engage in mature discussion. Almost every reply givien to me is laced with thinly veiled attacks. The last one is nothing less than an attempt at a cyber improv satire. I asked for help at WP:EAR with neutrality issues, and this only escalated the dogging. Drew Smith What I've done 08:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I see a bit of noise, but I think thinly veiled attacks is a bit of a stretch. In any case, regarding how you perceive some of the commentary, have you tried resolving your differences personally with each editor? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at it, most of the attacks are in the edit summaries and at EAR. especially the last section of the talkpage of noahs ark.Drew Smith What I've done 09:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs of where you believe these 'attacks' are? I note that you did not answer my question. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about the question. Not personally, no, but I have tried to speak rationally with them as a group at the talk page, and at EAR. The diffs are here both in the edit summary, and in the last few lines of his post. Here the user attacks another editor and creationists in general in the bottom paragraph. Here is the cyber improv satire I mentioned. And here in the edit summaries of Dreamguy at 20:54, May 16, 2009, and at 22:16, May 16, 2009.Drew Smith What I've done 12:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but why did you not attempt to resolve those differences personally with the editors in question? Would you refuse to if I asked you to try now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did attempt it with one editor, User talk:Plumbago, but the rest seemed too heavily based in their beliefs for even an apology to be accepted without a rebuke. No, I wouldn't refuse, but I don't think it would solve anything, and with some it may escalate things.Drew Smith What I've done 13:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought you were here to apologize for your personal attack in claiming the article is controlled by a Cabal of Atheists[78]. My error. Full disclaimer, I am an editor on that article, and Drew has made several strong claims, and I have asked for sources[79][80][81] (as have others) and he has ignored us. He wants the Truth^TM told on that article, and has said so[82]. Not getting the Truth, he has starting complaining of POV, BITE and now attacks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll come back to the other part of your claim later. But first, I will ask you the same questions as I asked him: regarding how you perceive some of the commentary (such as what you thought he would apologize for), have you tried resolving your differences personally with that editor? If yes, could you link it? If not, why not, and, would you refuse to if I asked you to try now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One, I said I suspect that it may be controlled by atheists. I also said I didnt want to create cabals that didn't really exist. This was an attempt to get a neutral perspective on whether my suspicions could possibly be correct. Second, I posted this at EAR:

I ignored it and moved on because you were right, those first few claims where based more on my personal beliefs (BTW, I am an agnostic who rebelled from the church as a young adult.) than on policy. So I switched tactic and addressed the use of terms like myth, minority, and fringe.

Please move on.Drew Smith What I've done 13:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• to Ncmvocalist: I have no "differences" of which I am aware with this editor at all. He has made claims, two of them, without sources. I have asked three times for sources. Next he was making blanket personal attacks on EAR; now he's on ANI. If I am one of those he considers a "self proclaimed atheist" then it is news to me; but this editor is taking his Personal POV and turning it into a classic case of disruption, rules-shopping and fourm shopping. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

How is "This article may be controlled by aetheists"(obvious paraphrasing) a personal, or blanket attack? No, you aren't one of the "self proclaimed atheists". And how am I rules and forum shopping? I was told EAR was the wrong place, so I dropped the NPOV complaint, and took the attack complaint here. How can you accuse me of forum shopping when I was told to go elswhere?Drew Smith What I've done 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Drew, you havent' even supplied one source for your desired edits, which have met not only with my request for sources, but with others' disagreement. Instead of posting a source or two, and discussing with your fellow editors, you have been on two noticeboards now, complaining of NPOV, BITE, and NPA - I may have missed a complaint or two, but that seems to be the basic thrust. No one has attacked you, although your continued arguing while ignoring requests for sources has led to some snippy comments - and trust me, I am aware they are snippy - but you're simply trying to change the focus and venue, trying to gain a point over your "adversaries". I apologize for my phrasing, I am certian that is rather harshly phrased, and not how you're viewing it. But take a step back and examine this - the snippy comments started after at least six or more requests for sources. You are ignoring policy and trying to personlize a content dispute, never a good thing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you read? "I ignored it and moved on because you were right, those first few claims where based more on my personal beliefs than on policy" I apologize if I seem "a bit snippy". And I never said you attacked me. Look at all four links I provided above, and you will see, there really is a credible attack complaint. And as I said before, I WAS TOLD TO TAKE MY CLAIMS TO A DIFFERENT FORUM. Learn to read genius. Again, sorry for being "snippy".Drew Smith What I've done 13:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i did indeed read each link you posted. I see snippy. I do not see personal attacks. And every snippy comment I see is directly attributable to your failure to provide sources, followed by your claims that atheists are controlling the article. You didn't get your way; you moved to other venues and other complaints, but this all cascades from your desired content edits, which received short shrift on the talk page. If you realized I was right, why did you take this to EAR? It makes no sense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding, who told you to take your claims to a different forum, and which claims were they speaking of? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the talk page, there is a user who tells me the NPOV complaint belongs at WP:NPOV/N. Mendaliv has told many users at EAR (I help at EAR as well, so I regularly work with him) to take civility and personal attack comlaints to ANI, or one other forum, the name of which I cannot recall. I see attacks, in the use of the "Ignorant", "someone with extreme bias and ignorance", "fine example of rampant ignorance", " should be reading an encyclopedia instead of trying to edit one. ". These where pulled off of the first link only. There are three more links. How is that not an attack?Drew Smith What I've done 14:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You were right about my lack of sources and personal beliefs. The article was still violating NPOV. Thus I asked for advice at EAR.Drew Smith What I've done 14:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard as this may be to accept, "ignorant" is not a personal attack in and of itself. I am ignorant of many things. I don't edit firearms articles, due to my ignorance there. I do not edit the Dutch Wikipedia, due to my ignorance of the language. If you are ignorant of the academic use of the word myth, it is no insult for others to ask about that or point out your possible ignorance to you. They may have been less gentle and civil than you would have preferred, but it is almost certainly best to AGF and move on. Finally, if you have no sources, and your personal beliefs are interfering with your ability to be NPOV about the article, in what way is the article violating NPOV? The only NPOV complaint you have raised is that very same pair of claims for which you have provided no sources. Perhaps you are left with an impression that well, you cannot prove it, but its not what you believe, so it must be POV? I saw on another page you stated you personaly knew of no Christian who didn't believe as you do - this being one of the items of complaint - yet given that there are 2.1 billion Christians, I submit to you that you know, personally, only a vanishing minority. Even if you knew all 2.1 billion, though, without a source your view would be original research. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<----Ignorant is an attack in the context it was used. This is not the place for NPOV discussions, so I'll make this quick. It violates NPOV with the use of the terms "minority", "fringe", and "myth". Again, This is not the place for NPOV discussions, so please deal with the issue that is being presented here, which you aren't really a part of since you didn't attack me.Drew Smith What I've done 14:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I've seen linked here and elsewhere violates WP:NPA in my opinion (FWIW), but there does seem to be some baiting and overheated language probably mostly born out of frustration. Everybody involved could stand to dial it down a notch. I find the content question an interesting one so I'm going to add the article to my watchlist. — e. ripley\^talk 14:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, just after I hit save I saw this [83]. Highly inappropriate and most certainly a personal attack. — e. ripley\^talk 14:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" This was not expressly linked, but is viewable on at least one of the links. Also, " Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done"Drew Smith What I've done 14:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything immediately actionable here, except perhaps the reporting user's fairly uncivil suggestion to KillerChihuahua that she "learn to read, genius", something I'm sure she's willing to write off as the heat being turned up in the kitchen. ANI isn't the place for this. –xeno ^talk 14:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice the sarcastic use of "snippy" in response to her use of snippy. Not an attack, but a point being made.Drew Smith What I've done 14:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I was told to bring complaints of personal attacks here. If this isn't the right place, where the hell is? I've taken this all over wikipedia, been accused of "forum shopping", and been told "this isn't the place, try here"Drew Smith What I've done 14:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Where were you told that? –xeno ^talk 14:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

At EARDrew Smith What I've done 15:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. –xeno ^talk 15:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)