| Revision as of 05:23, 28 February 2006 editBoothy443 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users30,616 edits →27 February 2006← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:37, 29 November 2020 edit undoJPxG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators119,109 edits diff links more clear | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{short description|Historical document}} | |||
| {{shortcut|WP:WQA}} | |||
| {{historical}} | |||
| ] | |||
| Wikiquette alerts are an option for a quick, streamlined way to get an outside view. | |||
| '''Wikiquette assistance''' was an informal process, ], available to editors who felt that they were being treated uncivilly. There was about its effectiveness, and a consensus was formed to eliminate the Wikiquette assistance process. This page was formally ]. | |||
| ==Procedure== | |||
| At the bottom of the list, just post: | |||
| *A '''single''' link to the problem or issue as you see it (for example, a single posting or section of a talk page). | |||
| *Label the comment '''neutrally''' but do not sign and '''do not use names''' (type <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>, which gives only a timestamp). | |||
| *Please avoid embarking on a discussion of the points raised on this page. Carry on discussing it wherever you originally were — editors responding to posts here will come to ''you''! | |||
| If you require assistance with resolving a content issue, please see ]. | |||
| If you would like to get an outside view on your own behaviour, please post it here too. | |||
| For a similar noticeboard which was also discontinued and marked historical, see ]. | |||
| Outsiders who visit the link are encouraged to make a constructive comment about any Wikiquette breaches they see. Postings should be removed after seven days. | |||
| {| class="wikitable" style="float:left;vertical-align:top;" | |||
| ==Archived alerts== | |||
| | width="300" style="text-align:center;"| '''Search the ]''' | |||
| *]: June 2005 - September 2005 | |||
| |- | |||
| *]: October 2005 - December 2005 | |||
| |<inputbox> | |||
| *]: January 2006 - (in progress) | |||
| type=fulltext | |||
| prefix=Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance | |||
| ==Active alerts== | |||
| break=no | |||
| width=40 | |||
| ===18 February 2006=== | |||
| searchbuttonlabel=Search | |||
| </inputbox> | |||
| *Anonymous users et al. at ] and ] use these pages as a soap box for beliefs (propaganda?) from the religion called ]. The statements are incorrect and it is often hard even to figure out what is being said. All views divergent from the Jehovah's Witness religion and its headquarters (the ]) are removed. The views are easily identified not only because they are poorly written, spelled, and formatted, but also for the major factual errors. The bulk of the talk pages are spent unsuccessfully addressing this. <font color="green">-</font> <i><b>] ]</b></i> ] 17:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ===19 February 2006=== | |||
| *User ] () continues to add unsigned, inappropriate comments to Misplaced Pages talk pages. If you look at his contributions, he never signs his posts. A lot of them are either bold-faced or capitalized, without much relevance to the discussions at hand (it looks like he copy-pastes a lot of them). He frequently engages in personal attacks, samples of which can be found ], , and ]. He has also vandalized my talk page without much reason. He has been blocked from editing articles 3 times, and I myself have personally asked him to sign his posts at least 3 times. I've tried to reason with him, but he just copy-pastes his opinions without much regard for what others think. Are there any mechanisms in place to stop this user from vandalizing pages and attacking others? Could his unsigned comments be removed? Could he be blocked from editing certain articles and talk pages (the ] article in particular)? Please help! Thank you, ]<sup>]</sup> 08:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Repeated deletion of referenced material on ] by ]. He deleted referenced material on Indian civilians that lost their lives due to terrorists, on the terrorist camps in Kashmir and Pakistan, on terrorist groups and on Hindus and Sikhs displaced from Kashmir due to terrorists. The question is not who is right or wrong in the Kashmir conflict, but that referenced material should not be deleted without giving valid reasons on the talk page. One of the best[REDACTED] editors the Misplaced Pages project as a consequence. --] 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This user is a sockpuppet of the editor that claims he "left wikipedia". I have answered his concerns on the talk page and the problem is not references, it's NPOV and fairness in admitting that both sides have responsibility in the conflict and that other Kashmiris (ie the Muslim majority and the Buddhists) have suffered just as much. Another editor has taken interest in the page and hopefully we can solve the problem without having this sockpuppet issue. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well done. Distracting from the issue by accusing and insulting another editor. If you're saying it is pov, you have to list factual and actionable reasons. You're right that Buddhists have also suffered from the terrorists: . The text deleted can be seen and on the ]. --] 11:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::And of course the Muslims who make up the majority of Kashmiris were left unharmed by the conflict? --] <sup>]</sup> 20:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===20 February 2006=== | |||
| * ] () (who is the same as ] and others) has repeatedly branded the other editors of the ] article as liars. He also repeatedly reverts to a version of the article that has been rejected by a consensus every single other active editor of the article besides him. When he does so he'll leave an edit summary that says something like, "We don't dignify four individuals who agree to the same lie with the term 'consensus'." 23:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===21 February 2006=== | |||
| Admin ] requested protection on a page to preserve his cuts - he did this after I offered to address his sourcing concerns on the Talk page and asked for guidance. I feel his actions were emotionally driven in that ] was using language like "fuck" and "stupid" in the comments. While he called on another admin to place the Protected template, I feel he had the advantage of a "connection" in this process, and the Third Party admin ignored the pleas of other users to take the inclusive approach to developing the article when he placed the protected tag after FYCTravis's cuts. I've left messages with all parties involved requesting Unprotection (pointing to the discussion on the Talk page), but no one seems to be responding. --] 08:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have placed this issue everywhere I can find, and it's not being addressed. ], the admin who protected the page, ignored my request on his Talk page while answering others. This seems to be a case of one admin helping another to cheat the 3R rule by protecting their changes. Where is the effective place to get this addressed? --] 07:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===22 February 2006=== | |||
| There is a minor edit war going on in the ] article. An anonymous user (who claims to be the actual Earl of Stirling) keeps adding unverified information to the article (and deleting wiki links in the process). Discussion of this started on the anonymous user's talk page. Now, an identical edit was made to the page by a logged in user (who appears to have nothing to do with the conflict) with a false edit summary claiming the revision was meant to "wikify a bit..." I'm at a loss on where to go forward with this. --17:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The edits are continuing; there is some discussion on the talk page, but the 3 revert rule will be in effect pretty soon today. 01:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===23 February 2006=== | |||
| ] is making false accusations that another person is my sock puppet. I have no sock puppets on Misplaced Pages. Is there anything I can do about this? Accusation occurs near the bottom of this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kaiser_Permanente | |||
| --] 19:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Was I wrong to make in the original AfD vote for ]? As mentioned , I used to be a contributor to the site before I was asked to leave (mainly for being excessively annoying). When I made the original AfD vote, I thought I was being objective in calling the original article "not encyclopedic", but now that I've been accused of not being objective, I'd like to get an outside opinion on whether I should have voted at all. It's not like my vote would make a difference in the current AfD, since I abstained, but I wanted to make a check within the existing Misplaced Pages process guidelines. --] 23:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, do you feel you voted with your own personal interest in mind, as the comment suggests? | |||
| If not, I don't think there's anything wrong about voting either way. | |||
| For the record I'd like to say I haven't been here long, so it might just be that I'm inexperienced | |||
| in the way things usually go around this place, however, that also presents me with the opportunity | |||
| to look at this particular vote without prejudice, because I wasn't around to be annoyed by you either. | |||
| Personally I think anyone who would take the time to ask this, in the manner that you do, can't be all that bad - | |||
| and perhaps the one who made the comment could be mistaken allthogheter. --] 00:44, 24 February 2006 (CET) | |||
| ===27 February 2006=== | |||
| *] (] • ]) a member of ], an association of Wikipedians dedicated to strengthening Misplaced Pages's sense of community (this is not an endorcment of this community, members, or their belifs by my self), with self explanatory comment directed at me, which i find is no less then a violation of ], ], ], as well as ]. Now not that i expect anything to happen to this usere, and more then likely i'll be the one thats repremended, but if their is going to be a ] raised about my attitude and actions and so on and so forth here, the least i can expect is that usere at least treat me with the same respect that they do not think i am giving to them. --] | ] 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::For what it's worth Boothy, I think you're right. --] 13:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wow, thats a first for anyone. --] | ] 05:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===28 February 2006=== | |||
| *{{user|South Philly}}, the abusive sidekick of {{user|Evrik}}, disregarding discussion and consensus by redirecting ] , while a merger, which is invalad in the first place, is disputed, and the user has no consensus for a change/redirect/deletion/deprcheation. Discussion can be found ] and ], as well as a statement by the user in which it basicaly states that it plans to disregard the discussion. --] | ] 05:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:37, 29 November 2020
Historical document | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Wikiquette assistance was an informal process, set up in March 2005, available to editors who felt that they were being treated uncivilly. There was discussion among the community about its effectiveness, and a consensus was formed to eliminate the Wikiquette assistance process. This page was formally marked inactive in September 2012.
If you require assistance with resolving a content issue, please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.
For a similar noticeboard which was also discontinued and marked historical, see WP:PAIN.
| Search the Wikiquette archives |