PLEASE ASSIST US
Sir we seem to be getting a lot of problems in trying to lodge our school data on Wikipedia. - Praht Thai School - We have attempted to follow guidelines and made changes where they have been requested but all to no avail. Our school seems to be ill fated on Wikipedia and we simply cant see why. I have reposted the school and ask that you intervene and assist us to ensure its survival. We have checked it against other schools on the Wikipedia such as Sarasas Ektra School and in fact we have provided a far more neutral data set that it appears they have,,,,yet they seem fine h= on wWikipedia. Please help us. It is clear we need help. Thank youPTSch (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
September 2007
This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:66.35.127.0, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I've already reported the troller to the admins and thought you might be a candidate too 'cause you're feeding him/her so much, but it wouldn't be fair to report you just because someone made you angry w/o warning you —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? I'm just trying to help, and as for not being able to carry out my "threat", of course I can report you to the admins and I thought I was being nice by not doing it immediately! Okay, I'm starting to see 66.35.127.0's point of view... —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs01:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously not a client-side cache issue, but if you click here and you've cleared your browser cache and the template still doesn't look standardised, then I don't know what the issue is. It looks standardised to me; perhaps a screenshot would help. --MZMcBride03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Calton. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the trolling war with me, you and 66.35.27.0. The discussion can be found under the topic User:Calton. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.
Calton, in response to this, I have absolutely no intention of ever defending any of my edits to you. But I'd like to give you some feedback. Your post breaks your own "Rule 9" - you know, the one about hostility being unwelcome. (Unless the rule applies only to others, and not to you. Hmmm. ...) My earlier experience of you was one of hostility writ large; and apparently nothing's changed in the past 18 months or so. When hostility emanates out of a person's every pore, it's a bit rich when they demand that others not act likewise. But then, defensiveness is your thing, apparently - so much so that it's your Wikipedia motto ("It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that"). Negativity begets negativity. Think about it. And maybe have a think about why you're so angry. Have a nice day. Oh, and further communication with me, on any topic whatsoever, will be unwelcome unless it's done in a reasonably courteous manner. Otherwise it will receive short shrift. Bye now. -- JackofOz22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reality check: it's a lousy edit summary if it's not actually informative. And this one, you know, wasn't: it was used to describe blanking what looked like a perfectly valid entry. I've cleaned up thousands of similar edits on the date pages, and 99.9% are crap. If he doesn't want his edits mistaken for crap, he should leave an obviously accurate edit summary instead of forcing people to check their validity. It's called "wasting other editors' time", don't you know.
Oh, and the rule is "Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Given JackofOz's actual track record in my encounters with him, assuming good faith is the last thing that should be done with him. Quite the opposite, really. --Calton | Talk10:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what? What justifies your assumption of bad faith in this case? If Jack has been vandalizing articles with sneaky edit summaries (or engaging in any sort of subtle vandalism) I would like to know. That sort of behaviour – especially from a long-term contributor – would be extremely worrying, and the sort of thing that would tend to require investigation and administrator intervention. If he hasn't, then you owe him an apology. Reverting a long-term editor's contributions on sight and accusing him of vandalism just isn't how things are done around here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
? If Jack has been vandalizing articles with sneaky edit summaries (or engaging in any sort of subtle vandalism) I would like to know.
And if I had actually said any of what you just claimed, I would tell you about it. Since I didn't, that would be rather difficult. Are there any of bits of projection you wish to add to what I actually wrote? Kidnapping the Lindbergh baby, perhaps?
Reverting a long-term editor's contributions on sight and accusing him of vandalism just isn't how things are done around here
Reverting a long-term editor's contributions on sight and accusing him of vandalism just isn't how things are done around here
As for blanking what looked like a perfectly valid entry, on one of a series of pages where 99.9% of similar edits are vandalism, using an edit summary that on the face of it didn't apply in the least, by an editor whose "long-term" contributions, in my experience, include edit-warring -- incorrectly, at that -- over trivialities? Thanks for the advice, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with what actually happened. --Calton | Talk23:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you revert an editor's edit with the edit summary "Undid actual vandalism by JackofOz...", it rather appears that you're accusing him of vandalizing an article. Since JackOfOz used the edit summary "removed vandalism" for his edit, it would appear reasonable – had your edit summary been correct – to conclude that Jack was indeed vandalizing articles with deceptive edit summaries. If it wasn't your intention to suggest that JackOfOz was vandalizing articles under the cover of misleading edit summaries, what exactly did you mean by your edit summary?
The fact that 2007 is a frequent target of vandalism is both absolutely true and entirely irrelevant in this case. The vandalism – "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" – that that article sees is very nearly wholly carried out by anonymous IPs and new, minutes-to-days-old vandalism-only accounts. I imagine I would be hard pressed to find any instances of vandalism to that article by any regular contributor; if such incidents actually occur with any appreciable frequency, I would be interested to know.
That you've had a disagreement with JackOfOz in the past is not a reason to revert his contributions without conducting any research. Leaving aside what you think of Jack, a cursory examination of the article history would have supported his edit. The line that Jack removed from 2007 had been added two edits earlier ([1]) by an anonymous IP whose contributions were conspicuously 'semi-subtle' vandalism. In reverting Jack, you restored a notice giving the nominal date of the 'death' of 1960s singer Mary Hopkin, who is still alive and well. The IP editor had added a date of death to that article, along with such valuable information as "Her favorite words are motherfucker and (fucking) lag" and that her last hit was the 2007 chart-topper I Hate The Angry German Kid.
What it looks like is that you reverted Jack based on your old grudge against him, and in the process restored vandalism to an article and accused a good-faith contributor of being a sneaky vandal. You didn't do any fact-checking on the material that you reverted. After another editor cleaned up your mistake, you left a snarky message on Jack's talk page blaming Jack for your lack of care [2]. You've continued to heap insults and criticism on Jack here. Regardless of what issues you've had with Jack in the past (your run-in was over a year ago, wasn't it?) he's been a courteous and positive contributor for as long as I've dealt with him. You, on the other hand, have always treated our requirement for civility as something that applies to other people. Follow your own ground rules—quit treating Wikipedia like a personal war, don't assume other editors are stupid, and stop treating everyone with whom you disagree (or have ever disagreed) with contempt. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and many others in your recent contributions are completely unacceptable. Wikipedia's no personal attacks, civility, and harassment standards apply to ALL contributors. The deliberate taunting and belittling of others, which you seem to engage in frequently, violates all of these principles. You need to radically adjust your behaviour and learn to interact politely with others here. Any certainty you might have that they are 'trolls', 'spammers', 'liars', 'vandals', or whatever else is irrelevant - you aren't allowed to abuse anyone here, and further actions of this kind will be stopped. --CBD11:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ralph Nader
Hi. In this edit you replaced content that has been labelled as needing verification since February. As you know, everything here needs to be verifiable. In taking it out I was proceeding on the basis that if something cannot be verified in that kind of timescale it has no place here. What do you think? --John02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of trolls and smelly old socks
When a user, on their second edit ever, posts a screed like that on WP:AN/I, with an edit summary "don't censor me", it's 99.999% likely to be a sock puppet of a banned user. He's trolling. I hope this helps. - JehochmanTalk01:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling
This user has been trolling us with the sexual humiliation/terrorism nonsense for days. It isn't acceptable to compare others to rapists, and I will therefore be removing his comment again. Picaroon(t)01:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hold on, that doesn't have anything to do with this. I do happened to have run into this guy before, though. Calton, I've responded on my talk page. Picaroon(t)01:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and a comment request
Hi, thank you for tagging the Wouter Hamel article with {{articleissues}}. It got my attention and I have put some effort into improving the article. I do believe that some of the issues are resolved, but I do not like to remove the note of those issues myself, being the only significant contributor to the article. Therefore I ask you to take a look at the new version, and possibly comment on it. -- Pepve21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Here
I know your lengthy introduction is meant to be funny, but please also remember that not everyone who is forced to visit your talk page is a “criminal”.
I am a (very) new Wikipedia (wannabee) “editor”. I created a new Wikipedia entry for a candidate in the upcoming Ontario elections. I am not here to “spam”, and I do not have a “conflict of interest”. What I am though, is very confused about how one is actually supposed to enter material and who calls the shots here. You are the third official looking editor who has commented on the material I created. The first Wikipedia official (JodyB) deleted my original entry, but after some discussion and advice back and forth decided to re-instate the improved version. Someone else (I forget who) also want(s/ed) to delete this entry and now you.
Here is what I saw before I entered my article (and decided to be bold):
How can I help? Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better.
You can't break Wikipedia. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!
With regard to your comments on User:Just James: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Just JamesT/C23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked from editing due to persistent incivility and taunting of other users. Subsequent to the warning about this above you have continued this activity with comments such as;
These comments are clearly intended to mock and annoy those they are directed to. This deliberately inflammatory behaviour is extremely disruptive and thus not allowed on Wikipedia. Please reconsider your communications and strive to continue your work, which seems otherwise very positive, without belittling your fellow contributors. --CBD12:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the info. I had a discussion with one of the other moderators and have pulled the plans for the time being. We can actually host this material in our own wiki but I wanted to assure people that the resulting efforts would be 'open-source' which is conveniently provided by your reputation and technology.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This is absurd and unwarranted. Did CBDunkerson actually bother to read the exchange -- and note the bad faith of User:RedSpruce or was he simply on a fishing expedition for something to whack me with? Or -- let me guess -- did my comments to him about him being more protective of obvious trolls than of actual contributors lead him to look for any excuse in retaliation? Maybe -- just maybe -- he could have asked for a second opinion or bothered to notify me so I would have an obvious avenue of appeal instead of trying to figure out the proper template? --Calton06:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
It seems clear that you were adequately warned about your incivility, and I see from your prior blocks and discussions and warnings above that this was far from an isolated incident, suggesting this block was indeed warranted. — krimpet⟲09:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Y
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Next time, please use unblock-auto if you are not directly blocked.
"candidate for speedy deletion"? i don't post here for months and suddenly i'm spamming wikipedia left, right, and center? as far as that article i posted goes, i'm pretty sure that if it was removed, if i didn't do it already. since then, i haven't attempted to re-insert the offending article. in fact, i haven't added anything to wikipedia since then. what the hell is going on?
You have smacked four different cleanup tags onto this article. I found this is somewhat overkilling issues which have already been raised on the talk page. Could you go over the article and perhaps supply some comments on the talk page? Some proposals for what can be done to improve the text would be helpful, as I have done some work to improve it, but more is obviously needed. __meco13:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an article that should be on your watch list? I am working on some clean up and ran into the above and Fifty Foot Penguin Theater, both of which appear non notable to me. I could prod them but I suspect that it would not fly. Any thoughts? --Stormbay20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your spiteful edit remark here [3] has been reported. Also, please stay off of my talk page with your wild accusations. I had forgotten you even existed until you posted that hateful remark on my talk page. TruthCrusader20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, TruthCrusader asked me to look into this matter and I'd have to agree — I must advise you to please stay away from personal attacks, as you have already been blocked once for such behavior. Please try to remain civil here on Wikipedia. --krimpet⟲20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that any harrassment – on- or off-wiki – would be something you might want to discuss. I would hope I made obvious that the Will Geer edit war is the least troubling part of the dispute, and I assume it's just the tip of a much larger iceberg. If you could give AN/I something of the nine tenths of the berg that's below the surface, it would be helpful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a totally non-involved party (following this over from CBD's talk, who's the only one I know in this—and who you were bothering for intervention!) observing your language choices in your busybody invective here, an intervention note for more help than CBD can give in limited wiki-time vs workload—and also as one prone to occasionally blast someone that is being obstinate on content—your blasts at TenOfAllTrades on AN/I are hardly something to help your case with any admins going forward.
Like to burn bridges and piss people off that are trying to be helpful, do you? Perhaps you need to work on your own impulse control problems. What a thouroghly revealing demonstration of your own maturity and professional demeanor! That someone is discussing you in the context of an edit war doesn't necessarily lay ANY blame on you, so lighten up and stop being so egocentric. (Do you think, BTW, that CBD would approve, or remain ignorant of your AN/I Blasts? Not too smart that way either.)
If this is how you treat someone THAT IS TRYING TO HELP, I shudder to think of what your friends go through day to day. Couched in such tones and invective, terms like juvenile and so forth merely shine a million candlepower light on your own maturity issues. Good wishes, and good luck, but for Pete's sake, give inoffensive strangers a break and save the emotion for your real antagonists! Putting something like that on a page viewed by all the Admins day-in-day-out can only hurt your case, whatever it's merits, for it doesn't reflect very well on you. // FrankB18:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I like the cartoon!, thanks. But I hardly think "overwrought" applies to the above. "measured", "saddened", "respectful", and "friendly" do. Cheers // FrankB19:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"measured", "saddened", "respectful", and "friendly" do. Then you are sore in need of a good dictionary -- or even a bad dictionary -- since not one of those adjectives applies. --Calton | Talk19:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that dictionary suggestion under advisement, but did it ever occur to you that perhaps your penchant for caustic rejoiners, when someone is self-evidently uncaring, may just be a bit of the problem? Don't know (or "care much") about you or the matter (As an AMA advocate, I've seen far worse), but none-the-less I —and I assure you I know the definition of this— was "Sincere" in trying to help a bit. So take that under advisement... as well as the obvious, "Sometimes it's best to just let things drop." Good luck, still! // FrankB19:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC) (Edit conflicted with below)[reply]
That's why I asked you for information. I'm aware that I'm missing pieces here. I didn't know that he had called you a Nazi and a pedophile; you just jumped straight to the assumption that I'm out to get you. All the data I have to go on is what's on Wikipedia, and even there I don't necessarily know which pages I need to look at to find all the little bread crumbs.
If you want to have my motives and opinions on the table, here they are. I think that you're often rude and abrasive; I think that you tend to inflame disputes rather than resolve them; and I think you'd catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Because you jump to incivility and browbeating rather readily on Wikipedia, it can be difficult to judge at first (or second, or third) glance where fault lies in a dispute that involves you.
However, I also think that you're entirely, utterly, scrupulously honest, and I'd trust you if you actually explained with even the tiniest bit of detail what was going on rather than leaping to attack me. I have on more than one occasion reverted vandalism to your page and blocked trolls that have shown up here. I'm not interested in determining your identity; I probably already know it anyway from material that I've had deleted or oversighted, and I have the utmost respect for the privacy of Wikipedia editors—you included. I'm not interested in harrassing you or in aiding and abetting trolls of any stripe. On the other hand, I don't like to see persistent incivility and attacks from any editor – established or anonymous – given a free pass. If that means that I raise questions about your conduct, I'm not going to apologize for it. Edit warring and namecalling aren't going to resolve an issue with harrassment from a problem editor. The matter needed admin intervention, so I posted what I knew about it on AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude I wasnt Advertising
I tried to like put a youtube vid on there it didnt work so i just quit i didnt take it off! GEEZE. Nothing better to do then to delete people's userpages —Preceding unsigned comment added by UWLpro (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clue 3: That is no bona fide user, but a cynical spammer, wasting the time of editors like me who edit pages disrupted by that spammer's sole activity: a commercial activity.
Clue 4: If it were a genuine user, the page could be re-blanked by that genuine user.
Clue 5: If there were never occasions when editing another's userpage was appropriate, the system would not allow us to do so.
Clue 6: Patronising and sarcasm do not win friends.
Messages for editors go on their Talk page, period/full stop, otherwise they don't see it since the "New messages" banner doesn't light up.
Yes. I put a message there also. But why the "period/full stop"? My duplicating the message on the userpage itself did nothing to cancel the lighting up of that message you speak of.
And if you had already placed a message on their talk page, then there's no point putting one on the User page, is there?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. My considered judgement was that in this case there was a point. Apparently not in your view, but then... how is your judgement relevant, in the present case?
Clue 3: That is no bona fide user, but a cynical spammer, wasting the time of editors like me who edit pages disrupted by that spammer's sole activity: a commercial activity.
So? Whether someone is a "bona fide user", a cynical spammer, a happy dancer, or sad Rockies fan makes absolutely no difference as to where messages for them go, since the "New messages" banner doesn't light up if you don't place messages for editors go on their Talk page.
I disagree. Editors have the capacity edit in userpages; sometimes, in extreme cases, a worthwhile end may be served by doing just that. I judged this to be such a case. Who knows? Perhaps my doing so encouraged others to root out the spamming by this user (user in the worst sense!).
Clue 4: If it were a genuine user, the page could be re-blanked by that genuine user.
Whether someone is a "genuine user", a cynical spammer, a happy dancer, or a sad Rockies fan makes absolutely no difference about blanking or not blanking the page, especially since whoever it is (be they "genuine user", cynical spammer, happy dancer, or sad Rockies fan) isn't even going to know about, since (once again) messages for editors go on their Talk page, period/full stop, otherwise they don't see it since the "New messages" banner doesn't light up.
It makes no difference? Again I disagree with your absolutist, exceptionless deliverances. Again, I have explained above.
Clue 5: If there were never occasions when editing another's userpage was appropriate, the system would not allow us to do so.
And if my grandma had wheels she'd be a pair of rollerskates. What Clue 5 has to do with messages for editors going on their Talk page (otherwise they don't see it since the "New messages" banner doesn't light up) is fairly mysterious. There is SOME connection, right?
The opening gesture here is superficially effective, but only at the crassest rhetorical level. Since probably no one is focusing on this except you and me, that is a waste of time. I can see through it. The analogy to grandmas, wheels and rollerskates is inept. If you want to waste even more time attempting to persuade me otherwise, go ahead. The connection you ask for is this: You say messages should go on users' talkpages. I agree, and I agree with the reason you give. But nothing you say so far convinces me that messages should not also go elsewhere, where an editor judges that the general good is served by putting it elsewhere as well. That the system enables our editing userpages also is evidence that in some cases this may be useful. For what other purpose might the system enable our doing that?
Clue 6: Patronising and sarcasm do not win friends.
What makes you think that's my goal?
Nothing. This was a way of saying that patronising and sarcasm are not in accord with the civility that we expect at Wikipedia, between editors who are working in good faith to maintain its standards. I had thought that would be obvious.
Clue 7: I don't want to be your friend anyway.
Which explains why you think that being patronizing and sarcastic is a-okay for you. Got it. The old, "Do as I say, not as I do" gambit.
Being patronising and sarcastic is sometimes useful, in response to such behaviour in others. Not always. In the present case, I thought it very likely that you could take it with equanimity, and that it would do no harm. What was your excuse?
But in the end, we have simply foxed with each other, and we are unlikely to persuade each other of anything of value. This is not a waste of time, or in any way damaging, if we both enjoy it. Did you enjoy it? I did! But I've had enough now. Have you? I suggest we stop, and get back to our own beds.
Let me say again that I don't put you anywhere on the same level, or the same category, as that user. The point is that the reason things like WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals exist is because speaking to a user like that in a tone they probably deserve generally causes them to escalate their behavior. I'm sure you already know this. I'm sure you also know the number of blocks you have received and the number of disagreements you've been in on the talk pages. Let's take a random remark from your history like this "12:55, September 14, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:66.35.127.0 (What part of "enough of your trolling" was unclear, Troll Boy?)". Do you think that person is going to say "okay, he's got me, I give in" or do you think he's going to change his I.P. any do something else to get back at you? The point of civility is not for the person in the wrong, but for the person in the right. If you continue reprimand trolls the way you have been doing, I wouldn't be shocked if you end being the one quitting Wikipedia eventually. CitiCat ♫15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, thank you for pointing out what I kinda figured when I began the process of editing (I am noob at this). I am writing to you to find out how I can reinstate my page. The reason for my absence and subsequent dereliction of my page(s) was because the use of my satellite connection would not allow me to go past the present page after signing in, (screwy proxies). I had other means by which I could have pursued it, but had too many other responsibilities to make it worth pursuing. I had all intentions of trying to make the article for USASA (United States of America Snowboard Association). I would appreciate any guidance/further discussion regarding editing if you have the time. I now have a DSL connection so have the ability to edit in my spare time.
Hi there - just a quick note to say that I've removed a couple of your flags for speedy deletion. On User:Celebrusia, I don't think it's fair to say the article is spam, as it's not advertising the book in question - it looks more like a sandbox-type article prior to its being migrated over to the mainspace. There's certainly no indication of any WP:COI, so I'm assuming good faith.
On User:OfficeDesigns I've reverted your edit - the user in question had blanked the page themself, thus removing the spam, and it was your reversal of that (when posting your tag) that reinserted the spam back onto the userpage.
I disagree - the name (without the userpage) doesn't automatically constitute a breach of username policy (it could, for example, be someone who has a keen interest (albeit a strange one) in office design). I would have presumed, given that you feel so strongly about it, that you would have added it at WP:UAA along with Jones Agency, LLC? Giles Bennett(Talk, Contribs)13:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly appreciate the sarcasm, nor do I think my comments amount to "gotcha! argumentation". It's pretty clear that we'll have to agree to differ on this one.
I disagree that I was arguing either for its own sake or for some foolish wedge (whatever that is?). I was questioning your actions because (a) I disagreed with them, and (b) they appeared to display inconsistency. I was questioning why that was.
On User:Celebrusia, I don't disagree that promoting an unpublished book can constitute spam (although it's probably more likely to fail to satisfy WP:NB - as this article isn't in the mainspace, however, that's less of a consideration. What I disagree with (and the reason I removed the tag) is your assertion that the page in question is promoting the book in question.
Which particular part of the page do you assert is "promoting" the book in question? Which words or phrases are of an advertising or spam nature? As I read it, the page has a two line summary of the book, a plot synopsis, and a short biography of the author. If that constitutes spam then you may as well slap the db-spam tag on 90% of the articles on this site about books, as that's pretty much all they constist of. Giles Bennett(Talk, Contribs)14:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To adopt your style of response :
1) "Creating attention or notability for something which currently has none" has its own remedy - MfD on the grounds of WP:NN. db-spam is not the appropriate remedy for this instance, in which you're taking an exceedingly wide view of some parts of G-11 (hinging your entire argument on an exceedingly wide definition of the word "promote") whilst ignoring the remainder of it (including the straightforward "simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion").
2) Actually, WP:Othercrapexists only if you think that this article constitutes spam. If you think (as I do) that it's merely non-notable, then the other 90% doesn't constitute "other crap", as they satisfy the notability criteria for books.
3) Again - "creating notability for something which currently has none". As with 1) above, that only constitutes spam in your self-supporting definition of the word "promote". It does, however, constitute non-notability as per Wikipedia:Notability_(books).
What am I arguing in favour of? As I said in my original post - I think you were wrong in flagging it for speedy on the grounds of spam, and as I said in my second post relating to this page, I think it's more likely to fail WP:NN. That you take such umbrage at my doing so is unfortunate, as is the fact that you take such a wide view of what constitutes WP:Spam at the same time as taking such a narrow view of WP:Civil.
I don't think that this discussion has anywhere further to go - if you remain so convinced that User:Celebrusia is spam then doubtless you'll be flagging it again in due course. If you do, I'm happy to leave the flag in place (but I will add a hangon tag, and put my justifications and link to our respective talk pages on the user talk page concerned) to see what the outcome is. Giles Bennett(Talk, Contribs)09:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As we appear to be working in different time zones, I've taken the liberty of re-posting your db-spam tag, the hangon tag and my views against the speedy on the user's talk page - this avoids any confusion if you were to re-post the tag during UK night-hours. Giles Bennett(Talk, Contribs)14:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not remember which one, but you did comment on a persons user page. You have to use the talk section ya know. And no further comment on your other question. Feel free to contest this "warning" but it will do you no good. But just in case I made a mistake, I will withdraw the warning. Cheers, Gunnerdevil404:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got plenty of evidence starting where you attacked me on my talk page!! I don't give a freak!! And for your info, I know how to warn people starting from vandalising to not assuming good faith!!Gunnerdevil405:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration
You should be happy now, youve pissed me off so much im gonna bring this up to the Arbitration Commitee. Unless you object of course, because Im not inserting it until 10:00 PST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnerdevil4 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you wanna "talk this over", I see no point in me reading the top. This is not about content in an article. So why don't you save yourself embaressment and read it over yourself.Gunnerdevil405:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to put this through your thick head!!I read the top part of the page, and it says to use Arbitration as a last resort, hence my offer to '"talk this over"'. It also says Arbitration doesn't give a friggin damn if we want to report content on a page!Gunnerdevil405:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider ending your debate with user Gunnerdevil4. As I said to him, it would be best to prevent this from going any further. I would be a good idea to consider giving an apology to this user. It would help to ease the tension between both of you, and it's a great start for progress towards settling any problems. Just remember to be civil, so no name calling, rude or snide comments, etc. Treat those as you would like to be treated. Hostility only brews more hostility. I really hope that you two will be able to make amends. Happy editing! Icestorm81506:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i hope I'm doing this correctly...
I'm just here to get something clarified, I'm actually not pissed off or anything like that, I'm just curious what "unsourced promotion of vanity-press book" means? If I came across vain in my article, I am incredibly sorry and had no intention of doing so, but any sort of pointers to fix/avoid this in the future please do tell. I'm pretty good at taking suggestions, as long as they're reasonable and I'm able to reasonably carry them out!
Im sorry bout that, but is there any way I can get the stuff that was on that page back?
Misnamed user boxes
Guy, the naming format you're using for your userboxes is all wrong. The correct naming format for personal userboxes is to make them subpages of your userspace, is of the form:
"User:RobHoitt/ScoutKnot HonorPalms"
NOT
"User:ScoutKnot HonorPalms"
The latter creates a user page for an entirely fictitious user called "ScoutKnot HonorPalms" -- and user pages for non-existent users are speedily deleted (using the {{db-nouser}} tag).
You're going to have to move all the incorrectly named tags to their proper titles (using the "move" tab at the top of the page) and tag the resulting redirects for deletion (using the {{db-nouser}} tag). I've done several already, but the rest you'll have to do. For the ones I've done, see here. Thanks for your attention in this matter. --Calton | Talk12:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me rewrite this page to better standards.
In terms of notability, ptk is listed by the Independent Games Developers Association 2006 casual whitepaper (http://www.igda.org/casual/IGDA_CasualGames_Whitepaper_2006.pdf), page 92 under point 13, as well as Apple (http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2005/08/gamebuildingtools/) as a major game building tool. You may contact casual game development experts such as James C. Smith (author of Big Kahuna Reef, Wik and the fable of souls, Richochet, etc.) on the Reflexive forum at http://www.reflexive.com/forums/ for confirmation of ptk's status as one of the most used casual game engines together with the Popcap Framework and Playfirst's playground.
I have no financial interest in ptk. I do have great interest in casual games (as well as politics, computer systems architecture and other topics). Developers who use an existing engine have had much more success than ones trying to build an engine and a game, I just want to document their existence and their role in the casual games ecosystem. Casual gaming is becoming a mainstream phenomenon and a very interesting one at that. Imagine that the movie industry only had made horror movies for 15 year olds so far, and just discovered that they could make romance and politically charged movies as well. I plan to create articles about the popcap framework, playground, and less known engines such as Unity as well.
I would appreciate your help in rewriting the parts you think use 'peacock terms' to be more factual. I tried to do that the first time around but I guess I didn't do a very good job.
Just so you know, Kalb never said that, someone else did - some reporter from another newspaper, not a Harvard professor on journalism - and that's one of the reasons I reverted it twice. The article is currently incorrectly attributing a quote to Kalb that he never made. ATren (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you correct it? I've made three edits to that article in the past 12 hours, so I'm not going to revert you because of 3rr, but it is currently improperly attributed. ATren (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, follow the Time link. Kalb didn't say that. You are attributing a quote to Kalb that he didn't make. Is that what you intended? ATren (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's take a step back please.
What I am asking you to do is correct the attribution of the quote, which is incorrect. From the cited source (emphasis mine):
"Margolick defended his action by saying the Enquirer has had an accurate record on the O.J. case and that he left it to his readers to assess the veracity of the Enquirer's anonymous sources. But other journalists were outraged, though many newspapers and broadcasters repeated the disputed remark in the process of reporting the flap. "I can tell you I am far more offended by the New York Times' reliance on Enquirer reporting than I am by the Enquirer," says Jim Newton, who is covering the O.J. trial for the Los Angeles Times. Marvin Kalb, director of the Shorenstein Center on Press and Politics at Harvard University, sees the brouhaha as a sign that "the tide is running in the direction of lowest-common-denominator journalism, and that is very sad."
Do you see the problem? Kalb said the latter, but Jim Newton said the former. That's all I'm saying here. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to tell you that the quote is misattributed to Kalb when it's actually from Newton. I'd make the change myself, but I don't want to give the impression of 3RR.
Calton, reread the above: I was not badgering. I was just trying to point out the error, and you misunderstood me. Can we move on now? :-) ATren (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, I assumed you understood: "The article is currently incorrectly attributing a quote to Kalb that he never made", and I assumed your reply "Dot's nice" was your acknowledgement of it. Then I assumed you understood "Calton, follow the Time link. Kalb didn't say that. You are attributing a quote to Kalb that he didn't make." I repeatedly tried to clarify, but you thought I was being argumentative when I was not. It was a pure misunderstanding, you misread my intentions. I was not trying to badger you, I was just asking you to correct the misattribution. Please AGF, OK? :-) ATren (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is unsurprising. This should be, as well:
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
You claim, "ATren's "rhetorical questions" that you're complaining about appear to have been attempts at resolving a revert war civilly" - That "appearance" would be, you know, wrong, as the slightest glance at ATren's long and contentious history would tell you -- or don't you bother with reading WP:AN/I? In any case, this is a ludicrously petty and overlong block, not warranted by circumstance or actions, but by personal spite. --Calton
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Deletion of profile
My profile has been deleted because you or someone else consider it a personal webpage. The purpose of the page was to introduce myself to the readers of Wikipedia who want to know a little about me. It was not at all a way to post my webpage which, by the way, already exists of the Internet at the address www.ice77.net. I do not agree with the deletion. Lots of people present themselves in a similar manner using lists of spoken languages or hobbies.
You and Neutralhomer have both been on Wikipedia for a substantial length of time and for thousands of edits. You both ought to know by now that your conduct isn't in any way helpful; you also ought to know that you don't have to go bare-knuckles mano a mano to resolve disputes. There are mechanisms in place to seek outside assistance.
Guy, spam criteria apply to ALL pages, regardless of the prefix stuck in front: that's why the criteria is listed under General criteria, not Article. Not to mention
(examples removed)
If you want, I can easily come up with several hundred more examples that I've tagged over the last year or so alone. --Calton | Talk05:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, no, I do not need you to provide me with examples. I am an advanced user and can find my own examples, thanks. But you see, in userspace pages, there is sometimes a different approach that is required. Please read WP:userpage. Since this user has contributed to wikipedia in a beneficial way, to delete his autobiographical userpage under speedy deletion criteria would be unfriendly. Some professionals participate on wikipedia and provide a beneficial service to the community by serving as a subject matter expert in thier field. This is a good thing. Since the user is in good standing, we should follow the procedure in WP:USERPAGE, and kindly ask him/her to tone down the advertishness of their userpage a bit. They would probably comply if we ask nicely. If they don't, and the page is so overtly spam, then we could use the WP:MFD process. CSD would be okay if this was a single-purpose account, or if their only contribution was a fly-by creation of a userpage. So to reiterate, please do not re-tag pages when somebody other than the creator has removed the tag, EVEN IF they are wrong. Thanks. JERRYtalkcontribs06:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My advice would be to exhale. The immediate heat death of the universe is not imminent. An MFD has been started, so this process will be the way forward. You and I do not need to be in conflict over this, and I do not need to respond to the rest of your comment above. JERRYtalkcontribs06:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Primetime account
I just tagged and blocked Gnfgb2 (talk·contribs) as a sock of Primetime. Reviewing his contribution list it was so obvious that I'm surprised nobody noticed before. Any tendency towards mercy and forgiveness on my part was tempered by the copyright violation notices on his talk page. I expect he'll create one or more new accounts to fill the gap. ·:· Will Beback·:·19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
