Revision as of 09:39, 23 May 2010

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

Consensus, Cooperation & Civility with response from user in question

This was archived before it could be commented on by all involved & Minphie had their edit deleted because they pulled it out of the archives instead of starting a new process. So I've done it this way to give them a say. --Figs Might Ply

I've been editing a number of pages relating to drug policy recently, and have noticed a lot of conflict between a few of editors and, Minphie. Minphie and I have opposing views on how governments should respond to drug use, which is fine, however Minphie has been not been assuming good faith, not been civil and sometimes making edits that I believe are not in keeping with various[REDACTED] policy guidelines. I would like to request that someone reiterate to Minphie that consensus, cooperating and civility are important here on wikipedia. It's fine that we disagree on content, but we need to be in agreement about how to resolve this dispute as effective editors.

Examples of Minphie not adhering to wikiquette

• Threatening to "take it further"

On the Harm reduction talk page, Minphie has multiple times told other editors (Figs Might Ply, Steinberger, Rakkar) that they will be reported for vandalism or inappropriate editing. We have demonstrated multiple times with reference to WP:NOTVAND that our edits are fair. Minphie does not accept this and keeps telling us he is keeping a log of our "infringements" that he will use to report us. User:Rakkar was reported to administrator JohnCD in early april, and received thefollowing response: I have advised Minphie that this is a content dispute, not vandalism, and that if you and s/he cannot reach a WP:Consensus by discussion on talk pages you should follow the process described at WP:Dispute resolution. JohnCD

• Undue weight

Without reigniting the arguments here, I would like to contend that Minphie is trying to unbalance a number of drug policy related articles by adding large amounts of criticism. As per Misplaced Pages:WEIGHT#Undue_weight, Minphie's versions of the articles listed at the end of this report often contain more criticism than content. I agree that drug policies are a contentious issue, and different people in the community oppose various methods. So it's good and fine for the article to contain information on this, but not so much that most of the article is about this opposition. If I could give the following example, Minphie added so much criticism that the article was about 70% criticism. Steinberger has trimmed it down, and regardless of the exact content, I believe that the article looks a lot easier to read now.

• Unwillingness to compromise

Minphie believes that they have unquestionable truth on a number of points, and is unwilling to engage in debate about these issues. on the Talk:Harm reduction page, they have made the following comments:

• Here is the reason I won't tolerate any further deletions on the Sweden issue. - Goes on to claim to have unquestionable information
• I won't tolerate this clear obstructionism in the future - claiming that because[REDACTED] policies around WP:Weasel have not been applied to every example of weasel words, his use of weasel words should be exempt.

Articles where disputes take place

• Talk:Harm reduction
• Harm reduction
• Needle-exchange_programme
• Safe_injection_site

I have tagged Minphie's talk page as requested. I hope we can reach an understanding between all editors. --Figs Might Ply (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Minphie’s reply

Minphie wanted to have their say on the matter after it was archived so I've dug it out of the archive and reposted it. --Figs Might Ply

I am re-posting the charges of Figs Might Ply on Wikiquette Alerts dated 09/05/2010 before replying below - Minphie

I seek to redress this issue in line with WP:Civility.B626mrk (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I believe that any objective adjudicator of this issue would want to know the following before providing assistance:

Consensus/Compromise?

I’ll first address this singular charge of unwillingness to compromise. I believe this charge arises out of an entirely fallacious and mistaken notion of consensus which, quite realistically, would not be given life within any academic forum. User:Gerardw expresses this false notion well on User talk:Minphie section – “taking it further’ where he urged:

"Strange as it might seem being correct is not the criteria for content on Misplaced Pages. Rather verifiable, balanced presentation as determined by consensus determines Misplaced Pages content. If you have one position and two or three editors have the other, than you are in the wrong to keep adding/reverting content. You can utilize article WP:RFC (or WP:THIRD if it's just two of you) to get more eyes on the issue."

This erroneous notion of consensus dictates that if I assert that 2+2=4 on Misplaced Pages, but a number of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Drug Policy members rather assert that 2+2=3, that consensus must be found by no longer seeking to be correct as User:Gerardw asserts, but by seeking compromise (perhaps 2+2 will equal 3.5 now on Misplaced Pages) or if by weight of numbers 2+2 will now equal 3 because they had the majority in the discussion. Of course, if the claim is made that Misplaced Pages cannot record anything without some level of agreement by those in the discussion, then 2+2 won’t ever be asserted on Misplaced Pages, no matter its importance to the world at large, while the stonewalling of the 2+2=3 cabal continues. The kind of irrational consensus promoted by user Gerardw would be given no credence whatsoever in any academic or cooperative forum, and Misplaced Pages would lose its credibility if it was. True rational consensus is about agreeing on what, amongst the correct information available, is relevant to the topic at hand. Thus being correct is still absolutely critical to Misplaced Pages’s credibility.

The ‘contentious’ issue that has brought this complaint from User:Figs Might Ply is whether: 1. Sweden has attained the lowest illicit drug use in the OECD (see Revision History of Harm Reduction from 29 April to present) 2. whether this is due to its restrictive drug policy introduced in 1982. (see Revision History of Harm Reduction for May 4,5)

Evidencing issue 1 is my citation from the United Nations Office of Drug Control (UNODC) World Report 2000 showing that Sweden had the lowest cumulative drug use in the developed world, which is easily calculated from the percentages on the tables in the pages I cited. These figures cannot be disputed with any rational weight of argument, butUser:Steinberger has repeatedly used arguments that don’t even address the issue of achieving lowest use to remove my text from the Harm Reduction page. I have put it back because it is 1. correct 2. relevant to the argument 3. brief and 4. Steinberger is a proponent of heroin trials, not a critic, and should not decide how critics put there argument if it is relevant, brief and correct.

Evidencing issue 2 is an entire UNODC document on Sweden’s drug policy of 100 pages which shows correlations between the introduction of their restrictive drug policy and steep drops in drug use. Seeing as User:Steinberger has frequently contributed to a subsection on Drug policy of the Netherlands section - 'Results of the drug policy' which assumes a causal relationship between their drug policy and their drug use statistics, it is disingenuous of User:Steinberger to question the very highly probable causation of evidenced drug policy in Sweden. Steinberger and Figs Might Ply can be observed on the Discussion page taking their objections to these to issues to absurd lengths, simply, it would seem, so they claim that there is no consensus and keep factual and correct text off the page. I will now progress this dispute by taking this issue of erroneous consensus definitions and tactical stonewalling and obfuscation to the appropriate forums in Misplaced Pages such that the guidelines are strengthened such that this does not continue to happen on Misplaced Pages. Its continuation will only harm Misplaced Pages’s credibility as a reliable information source. Also the use of block deletions to remove huge slabs of factual and carefully cited text for one small issue under discussion in the midst of the slab of text also needs to be questioned guideline-wise. Etiquette would demand that the rest of the factual and cited text remain while one sentence among the many is discussed. This was an issue with User:Rakkar, another member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Drug Policy.

Incivility?

The current issue had its origins in a first deletion of a factual and meticulously cited paragraph on criticisms of injecting rooms on the Harm Reduction page dated 29 April 2010. The deletion was by user: Figs Might Ply, who notably is the one lodging the various grievances on this page. user:Figs Might Ply entered no discussion on the Talk page, but deleted highly relevant text for the following subjective reason as entered into the Edit Summary (→Safe injection sites: Deleted a bit. This paragraph seemed to have a pretty warped version of the truth. Can we replace it with something better?) I dispassionately wrote user:Figs Might Ply via their user page that there would need to be good and discussed reason for deleting my contribution. I will leave it with observers/adjudicators of this issue to determine the civility or good faith of this opening move by user:Figs Might Ply.

I believe that what any objective adjudicator must determine, then, is whether this complaint by user:Figs Might Ply, also on behalf of user:Steinberger, is a case of the aggressor crying foul when someone stands up to their inappropriate behaviours. Again the history of these behaviours can be tracked through the Talk:Harm reduction and Revision history of Harm reduction section 22.

Undue Weight

I am happy to support the criticism of undue weight, and have adjusted the Safe Injection Site accordingly.

Minphie

FMP Resurrects Matter

Minphie, I really do want to try and sort this out properly, and I hope you will appreciate that I have gone to the effort of resubmitting this matter as it had been archived and your response was subsequently not seen.

I seek to redress this issue in line with WP:Civility.B626mrk (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Could you explain what this line meant? I'm most confused as B626mrk has never been involved in editing drug related articles to my knowledge. I'll invite Steinberger to come and talk this over too.--Figs Might Ply (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Minphie, read and understand WP:OR. Not only the factual statistics in an argumentation should be verified, the whole argument should also be verified. You just can't take a figure from a source, such as you for example done from kingheathpartners.org

I'd also like to refer Minphie to our verifiability policy. The piece above about whether 2+2=4 makes it seem that Minphie has missed the point entirely. Misplaced Pages should say 2+2=4, not because a minority of editors know they are right and hold out fanatically against all opposition, but because the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If problems persist, the next steps in dispute resolution would be user conduct RfC as it will focus on discussing conduct issues of this sort. But it might be easier to clarify how his conduct is affecting content by first using article RfC, formal mediation or informal mediation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Silesian metropolitan region and personal attacks in polish language

I proposed removing Silesian metropolitan region because of WP:SOURCES, WP:REDFLAG and original research. User:LUCPOL not only removed prod template from aritcle without giving proper argumentation on talkpage but also started to write aggresively in polish as described here. I'm looking for help and/or advice over what can be done in this situation.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I removal aggresive part of my post and apologized (before he announced here ). When it comes to template {delete}, this IP incorrect use of the template - first template, then the discussion with other users. Should be: first discussion with other users then template (if there was consensus). PS. This IP harassing me for a long time - therefore, I be angry, I'm only human. LUCPOL (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not harrassing you, it's your imagination. I only put objections to unreliable content, original research and your own opinions which you just happen to include in articles quite often and it looks like you get easily annoyed if someone shows it to you. Please don't try to act like you didn't do that.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing against the showing of irregularities, but you remove what you like (in particular the text, which you would prefer to hide), no waiting for the reviews of other users. You are not alone on Misplaced Pages. You behaving in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Trolling. LUCPOL (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Trolling, you say? Where?--83.242.88.168 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your whole behavior: conversation mode, erased data, insertion templates (in particular to the text, which you would prefer to hide), writing nonsense in the discussions, governance to Misplaced Pages as king, do not listen to the opinions of others users, no waiting for the reviews of other users ...and harassment. LUCPOL (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Writing like this you're only working for a ban. Please, show me where I treated you like that. I don't understand what you mean writing things like these above. It's only bad for you accusing me of things I haven't done. By now the only nonsense I can see is what you've just written.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Quotation: "It's only bad for you accusing me of things I haven't done" - enough to trace your contribution and the relationship between us. You do not see what you are doing wrong. Bad. LUCPOL (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, nice chat, but seriously, what exactly you think I've done wrong to you? Cause this overall accusation works well only for your eventual ban. There's no "relationship between us", you're dreaming XD--83.242.88.168 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What is clear is that you are both edit-warring where blocking both of you would be appropriate. To resolve your content dispute(s), instead of edit-warring, please use dispute resolution - namely, article RfC, or request formal mediation or informal mediation. To LUCPOL, it is clear you need to discuss your reverts on the talk page if you wish to avoid revert restrictions. And to the IP, it is clear that you keep editing articles that LUCPOL is editing so you are probably correct in suggesting a ban is imminent - though not necessarily for LUCPOL. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Vranak - views on consensus and personal attacks

Vranak (talk · contribs) removed article tags at Everquest, some I support, 1 oppose, but with a series of less-than-ideal edit summaries. One, here, has more than a whiff of wp:NPA-break. Editor strongly opposes use of article tags, and this post, to me, goes past "That was rude, and not ideal." and into "Stop the personal attacks. Now."

Since we don't agree about the wp:article tags, and the importance of wp:consensus, I think any further comment from me will only be inflammatory. The editor clearly understands wp:NPA and wp:consensus... but perhaps a few words from uninvolved editors might help the editor understand the WP community dependence on both. - Sinneed 16:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Meltdown

Melting.

editor redacted most of that.- Sinneed 20:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Me: "I see your vision for Misplaced Pages, but it conflicts with the vision outlined in wp:five pillars.- Sinneed 4:38 pm, Today (UTC−5)"

Reply: "Alright. I have no interest in these Five Pillars. I have an interest in Misplaced Pages being as good as possible. Where there is conflict, the Five Pillars must accede. Vranak (talk) 4:49 pm, Today (UTC−5)"

I don't think this is going to work out well for V.- Sinneed 21:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

See also this discussion on the Reference Desk talk page that cites a number of rude comments by Vranak against the general public, including the implication that cancer is linked to moral defects. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:LAz17

Sorry, but I have to complain about this user. It all begin on my talk page, where he directed towards me with this profanities:

• (he said to me in Serbian "Idi jedi govna", meaning "Go eat sh*t"), or here ("Jebo lud zbunjenog" means something like "F*ck the crazy the one with doubts" ).
• It continued on the Talk:Red Star Belgrade page, where in the discussion, we have answers to me of the kind WTF , then he disrupted the Talk:Real Madrid C.F. page by requesting a page move just to make a point on a completely different article, see here .
• Then we go to here where he "sends me to my totally irrelevant stuff, and tells me to go sleep"
• Then here , after I asked him to stop being rude, he said that he´ll continue being rude to "pests" like me, and called me "dummy".
• We have the "bullsh*t" word on this comment to me today, .
• And after I asked him (again) for him to change his attitude, I got the answer: "Fu*k off"... Here: .
• You can see all this in the Red Star talk page, but I noteced that pretty much most of his discussions, with most of users, go this way. You can also see, on the RS talk page, him calling other users stupid, hypocrit...

I was assuming good faith, but this is just not a way to discuss. Can sameone please intervene and make him stop saying all this profanities and make him start respecting other wikipedians. Thank you. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User FKP is a dirty liar. He often speaks in serbian, to get me to speak back in it. Naturally some of these accusations like go eat shit are completely false. That was explained here,

The whole reality here is that this user is angry at me. He wanted me to help in the Draza Mihajlovic problem that is undergoing some review. I however did not share his opinions and thus he got pissed off at me. Since then he has had a vendeta against me. He has gone about needlessly provoking me.

What is going on in the Crvena Zvezda article is that this user is desparately trying to think up excuses for why this page should not be moved. He has even gone as far as to say that people can not pronounce Zvezda... what kind of dummies does he take english speakers to be?

He did not ask me to stop being rude. He simply continued to provocate me. Naturally I would tell him fuck off. What else can I do when all else has failed and he continues to needlessly harass me?

FKP views that "I put a knife in his back" regarding the Draza Mihajlovic issue. He wrote so on my talk page on may 13th saying "Ti mene em nisi pomogao, em si meni zabio noz u ledja". He further follows up by attacking me based on my views with "Ja sam mislio da se slazes oko toga, a ti ne, ti si odabrao da se pajtas sa drustvom sto zeli da nazifikuje coveka koji se borio kako je znao i mogao. " - he is condmening that I do not support Draza Mihajlovic, a known criminal who buthered thousands of innocent civilians based on ethnic/religious identification alone. He has taunted me on my page. He says "Mnogo komplikujes, nista nisi shvatio," - I am complicating things too much, I did not understand anything". Who did not understand anything? He is the one that did not understand that he is defending a Nazi collaborator. Regarding this same issue about Draza, he tells me "Zaboravi, sve je tamo pod kontrolom, a tebi da ne pada na pamet da kad ti se negde suprostavim" - Forget it, everything is under control, and don't you dare think about getting involved". He further has a perverted view about[REDACTED] - "Narocito kad diskutujes sa nekim, moras da mu pogledas stranu, da znas sto vise o njemu." - when you speak to someone on wiki youhave to look at their page to know more about them - tell FKP that one does not need to look at any page.

FKP will continue doing what he is doing- sticking a thorn or two into me whenever he gets the chance. He needs to be restrained. (LAz17 (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)).

Please use google translate and see by yourselfs. Also, just to make some issues clear: it was me that insisted in using English. I never wanted, neither ever, ever, want his help. I even said to him that we should avoid eachother. Please, I don´t want to have nothing to do with people that behaves this way. FkpCascais (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the citations in Serbian he made, well, I think you´ll need to know that I advised him to look at the user pages of people he disagrees with (as in Red Star Belgrade talk page) before he starts being disrespectfull to them, regarding Mihailovic, there is a mediation going on on this, and the reality is just that he wants to participate in a mediation that he doesn´t even know what is about. Neverless, I was really being very reasonable with him, he even asked me to help him on Kneževo article, and I did, and now he is angry with me because I don´t support him on some moves he wants to made on Red Star Belgrade and FK Partizan articles, and he has been extremely unpolite and agressive towards anybody (the majority) that is disagreing with him, as you can see in the bottom sections of the Talk:Red Star Belgrade. FkpCascais (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I had to weigh in on the subject.

LAz17 has been told to watch his language since the "gooks" incident and this comment "User FKP is a dirty liar." shouldn't be tolerated; however his point that these are phrases used in "Serbian" is valid.

Fkp you deliberately targeted LAz17, simply because he's a Serb, for the Mihailovic discussion and when he refused you made it appear that he betrayed another Serb for not helping. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is pointless for me to talk to him or about him. I'll leave it at this - his facts are wrong... like for example, Knezevo was something that he notified me about, and I never asked him about any help. He asked me, he came to me. Regardless, it should not matter who came to whom - what we see is a user who is trying to divert attention from one thing, to only increase the scope of this thing here. I see no constructive purpose of this. It's an endless circle that he wants to keep me in. Why mention knezevo, when it is totally unrelated to anything here - and worse, why show things in wrong light about it? (LAz17 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)).

@PRODUCER:In Serbian, as in every other language, this expressions are NOT tolerated, where did you get this kind of racist touth? Regarding Mihailovic, you can clearly see that the problem is not Mihailovic, but Red Star article. It looks more like you´re intervening here to attack me, because we had some disputes in the past.

@LAz17:You never asked help for Knezevo? Really? And what is this: , who´s asking me to change the name of the article I had never edited before? FkpCascais (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And the talk about the "knofe in his back" has to do with LAZ acusation towards me that he made on DIREKTORS talk page (here: ) when he acknolledged that I didn´t agree with the changesd that he wants to do in the football articles. He is the one that trolles about it in DIREKTORS talk page (he did it again here where he askes DIREKTOR, "How can you tolerate some catlle on the wiki" just after a discussion with me, or here where he ironically askes him if he has a cure for bites from wiki-animals... I even tryied to explain him in his talk page that there is no "brotherhood", as HE imagined, and that each one should edit having oin mind his own touths. So, very much the oposite. FkpCascais (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fkp, if you do not seem to understand Serbocroatian well, then do not use it. Swear words are very common in the language. Jebiga means fuck him, but is used all the time for saying "oh well".

I won't even bother replying to your lies... as it would only result in you furthering pointless discussion. If the administration wants translations, I would do it, but otherwise it is completely pointless to further the discussion with you. (LAz17 (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)).

You said profanities in English (I didn´t), you said profanities in Serbian, or Serbo-Croatian, too (I didn´t), in Serbian language, this expressions are commun only for some tipes of people (as in any other language). FkpCascais (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the content, and not on the contributor. I am really not interested in PRODUCER's propaganda for his mediation POV, it is sure that here should be absolutely no swearing of any type. If i was provoked, then i will kill someone, so it is ok for me to do that. O, c'mon! It is not important who did what before, this is clear violation of[REDACTED] guideline. No insults, Do not misrepresent other people, and also, Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages Lets call it under real name. --Tadija 21:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also gotten into plenty of disagreements with Laz but he is right on the phrases. As for my "mediation POV", everyone has a point of view for FFS, it is not "propaganda" simply because it does not coincide with yours. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone agreeing that "Fuck off" or the other similar ones are a "right phrase" must be very well educated (irony). Because of this, you should be included in the report, as well. FkpCascais (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You (producer) are defending personal attacks and the use of profanities. You are being extremely disruptive too. FkpCascais (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you actually insulting me in an alert against insults with "Someone agreeing that must be very well educated (irony)"? I was clearly against such language to begin with ("this comment "User FKP is a dirty liar." shouldn't be tolerated") and pointed out an earlier incident in Laz's history. Ignore it if you want but as Laz pointed out they are idioms. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

All the expressions I´m complaining are insultive in any language, but I don´t even understand why are we discussing this, since most were in English! FkpCascais (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the translated conversation of what I said to him on his talk page (), so you can all see. LAz is for some strange reson (irony), removing the translated part. FkpCascais (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not trust your translations. I gave a few selected translations on here, and said that if people want more I'll give more. (LAz17 (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)).

I asked you if you have any complains about the translation. You are the one cutting sentencies to fit your counter-acusation: exemple from your edit up here: you said I wrote, "Zaboravi, sve je tamo pod kontrolom, a tebi da ne pada na pamet da kad ti se negde suprostavim" here you intentionally cut the sentence so it looks like something that it isn´t. The entire sentence is: " Zaboravi, sve je tamo pod kontrolom, a tebi da ne pada na pamet da kad ti se negde suprostavim, lupetas stvari kao sto si na Red Star strani, kako ti se ja svetim, ili da ja nemam pojma." meaning: Just forget it, everything there is under control, and you don´t even dare, when I don´t agree with you on something, to say wrong things as you did in Red Star page, that I´m revengfull on you, or that I have no clue." . I think everybody can see that you cut the sentence in the "when" part, where I was going to explain a part that obviously is not fancy to you, because I´m remindind you of your extremely rude comment that you directed (once more) to me on Red Star talk page: here . You were saying in that comment that my vote there has to do with you (???) and that I didn´t had anythoing to do with that article, about a Serbian football club! That is why I also told you to look at wikipedians pages before you mengage in discussions, because you could have obviously seen that I am a footy editor, so by only this exemple, I demonstrate how you manipulated 2 or 3 citations in this ridicoulos counter attack of yours. You are the one that considered that I have to agree with you on everything, and you´re just continuously revengfull against people that disagrees with you. I may have been arogant with you on some ocasions, but I never attacked you, much less used profanities, I was rather cool with you, and fogived you several times, also warned you, so it would be really wise if you stoped your manipulation and lies, and apologised to me. FkpCascais (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• P.S.:If this wasn´t been me, you would have been probably heavily baned, as from Serbian wiki, where you are banned for the same reason, saying profanities (producer, go tell your theory about profanities in Serbian to them!). It´s just that for some strange reason, it looks that[REDACTED] gave green light to people freely insult me with worste possible insults, and escape with impunity! Everyone can try, and I can loose all time in world complaining, nothing happends. Shame! FkpCascais (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even bother to read most of what you said here. I saw it as "bla bla bla". I caught one thing - about the serbian wiki - for your information, the people there are baboons. Not all, but some. I edited a page, I helped improve it. The baboon undid my edit without any reason - I helped make the page better and the baboon made it worse. On the talk page the baboon did not even want to discuss it. They discriminate. They even labeled my improvements as "vandalism". If you bothered to look into the stuff you could see that Tadija intervened - then the baboobs saw "uh oh, established user, we must cooperate now" - so there you have it, my edits were brought back - the ones that the baboon was undoing. Baboon user got screwed. Not bad, eh? Yeah, I am aware that I am insulting the guy there, calling him a baboon - but I really don't care, because that guys behavior is like that of an uncivilized baboon.

The other question here is Why are you following me?! You are a STALKER. Kindly, FUCK OFF PLEASE, for it is banned to stalk people.(LAz17 (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)).

Also, what I said to that baboon were real profanities, unlike here. I admit to that. And I am proud of them. No shame at all. If anyone should be punished for that, it is the baboon that disturbed the peace there. Heck, the baboon even admitted that he was insulted because my edits made the page more like the english version. What kind of stupid excuse is that, for being against the improvement of a page?! (LAz17 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)).

How about saying, where exactly do I "stack you"? FkpCascais (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:LAz17 for a week for harrassment and personal attacks, the length of time taking into account the repeated use of attacks on this page and numerous prior blocks. Fences&Windows 22:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Alleged ongoing harassment by User:Nishidani

User:Nishidani, who has been reported here several times over the last few years,], ], ], is falling back on old habits. He and I have had an ongoing content dispute since February of this year, and as a result, I have been under near constant attack.

To document that this has been a long-standing and ongoing problem, please see:

• ] – “vulgar”
• ] – “you lie”

• ] – “unlike some others, I don't suffer from ADS"
• ] “I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”

• ] – “sheer momentum of the obtuse"

• ] - accused of “faking” evidence

• – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."

• ] Defends his behavior with "Consistent factitious editing raises hackles, that is all. "

• ] "Don't be so faux clunk-headed."

• ] "Oxfordian harping all about repetition.” “is what happens when textual evidence is decanted through incompetent interpreters"

This behaviour has continued despite repeated requests to stop the personal attacks and focus on editing. Earlier this week, I sought advice on a policy question ] concerning a different editor, after which Nishidani appeared and left this ], which he then amended with this over-the-top insult:

• ] "There's edit-warring and edit-whoring, and you practice both."

This has been going on, non-stop, for almost 5 months now. Can someone intervene?Smatprt (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope someone attentively reads those diffs, perhaps someone familiar with the huge amount of work Smatprt's highly erratic edits create for editors trying to rein in the proliferation of poor paraphrases and outright mistakes that characterize his 'work' here. It's taken me two hours today to correct the total mess made, including sheer fabrication, of several paraphrases of the work of Diana Price, and I can't even post it on the page he works, but in the other version sensible editors are trying to construct, where it is all provisory. As Tom Reedy said, people shouldn't be constrained to work like this, cleaning the Augean stables of an ideologically-motivated fringe theory pusher, who is now forum-shopping (see WP:Edit warring, yesterday ). Yes It's frustrating, particularly since the few diffs I checked don't even have anything to do with him (the one he calls 'vulgar' is a joke, not referring to him, but made for the eyes of a fellow editor who seems to have, unlike Smatprt, a sense of humour, something needed to cope with this war of attrition on behalf of the earl of Oxford aka Shakespeare by another name. Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Nishidani is correct - some of the attacks above were indeed directed at other editors, as well (combined with continued ad hominem attacks). Not sure why that would be an excuse, as it merely shows his contempt for any editor that disagrees with him. Also not sure what he means by Forum shopping, as the edit-warring policy question I raised was not even concerning him. Smatprt (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for illustrating what I have repeated over the last few months. You continually misconstrue what I and others say, and books state. I made neither an 'attack' nor a a 'vulgar crack' at Tom Reedy. I made a joke that I hoped would tickle his humour, playing on the ambiguity of his edit. That is not, as you repeat here once more, an 'attack' on an editor. To the contrary, it was an attempt to inject a little light humour into things.

As to ad hominem attacks. I take it as an attack on my time and intelligence that it took me several days to get through to you that you did not understand the difference between 'myth' and 'legend', that you engaged in WP:OR violations in trying to twist words to make out that in antiquity what in modern times (after 1785) is called a 'mute swan' was responsible for the 'myth' you concocted out of Ovid. All the bored have to do is to keep clicking back on that diff. You refused to understand plain English, and caused me, in deference to WP:AGF to try to explain the concept of myth, the use of swan imagery in antiquity, the distinction between a whooper swan and a mute swan, the difference between Pliny, Aelian and Aristotle, the fact that the text you cite mistranslates the Latin olim. You kept succinctly rephrasing your edit, without altering its substance, in the face of my piling on of evidence you were, on several points, incorrect. I think, in the end, you just elided the whole grabbag of nonsense. But is is not a severe abuse of wiki etiquette, to keep up an edit in the face of grinding proofs you got it all wrong? It is, in my book, because you persist in the face of proof, do nothing to improve your understanding of the subject you raise, and you do this all over articles on Shakespeare, citing poor scholarship, which you frequently misunderstand, to push an ideological absurdity no one in the serious world of Elizabethan studies takes seriously. If, after dozens of edits to nudge you to try and understand what your interlocutor, and the broad world of scholarship, is saying fails, you think I am in breach of a rule of etiquette, well, perhaps, but only under extreme provocation. I am not used to obtusity, presume you are not dumb, and yet you persist in not understanding simple issues. Hence I wondered if your first language was English, after months of engaging with you. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides being incorrect on numerous counts (and off topic), are you saying that this excuses your constant attacks, insults, and vulgarity?Smatprt (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

ps.In your history of my appearance here, you appear not to be familiar with the history on[REDACTED] of the two people who, very briefly, complained here about me, to no effect. Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, if you are trying to imply that you have no history of attacks and incivility, then please refer to these comments and decisions at ArbCom: ] Smatprt (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And your vulgarity is well known, as well: See edit summaries here] and here ].Smatprt (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt is probably the most exasperating editor at Misplaced Pages, as almost everyone who has ever tried to work with him can testify, but oddly enough no one has complained of his etiquette because most adult editors know that it's a waste of time and a distraction. He's addicted to complaining about his editors, their edits, and how everybody's picking on him. It's one way he wastes everybody's time in order to divert their attention away from his ongoing campaign to insert his pet POV into as many articles as possible before someone spots and reverts them. Complaining about impolite behaviour is probably one of the most-used weapons in the anti-Stratfordian arsenal; I don't know any of them who have not used it at one time or another, and in fact for them it rises to the level of genuine scholarly discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps no one has complained due to the fact that I don't engage in personal attacks and the kind of mudslinging that you and Nishidani are known for. We have content disputes. Big deal. There are lots of them here (and plenty that pale in comparison to ours). It's still no excuse for you] and Nishidani's behaviour. Smatprt (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your idea of "personal attacks" and "mudslinging" is anything you deem to be such. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Smatprt, please MYOB - what Nishidani says to Tom Reedy is not your concern. If Tom Reedy has a concern, he can raise it himself. Although some of the commentary is concerning, you appear to be exaggerating in calling it harassment.

• Nishidani and Tom Reedy, I appreciate that you might be dealing with a form of editing that frustrates the best of editors, but you need to stop drawing this sort of attention to yourselves. If an editor is repeatedly trying to push POV, edit tendentiously, etc., it is under one condition that you may try to deal with this by yourselves: that your conduct stays well above par. For most editors, this is close to impossible, and that is why Wikipedians are expected to utilize dispute resolution in order to deal with the problem. Most people either don't quite understand how it works or just don't have the patience because it "doesn't rise to the level of genuine scholarly discussion", but that excuse does not help your cause, even if this does one day end up in front of an ArbCom. If an editor is trying to push POV, open an article RfC - let others see why or how another editor's proposal/editing is problematic. If they can see what you see, and the editing is continuing, then open a user conduct RfC citing the most pertinent examples of the editing. Others will comment on the conduct to the point that the editor hopefully addresses his/her approach. If he/she doesn't, then you bring the matter to ANI where we can remove that editing from that part of the project, or if all else fails, there is the nuclear option of ArbCom. To cut the long story short, if you aren't ready to keep your conduct well above par and you aren't ready to utilize dispute resolution, you will soon find that this project might not be the place for you. You need to make a choice about how others will receive your contributions - this includes in the level of professionalism that others can see in your commentary and edit-summaries. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm just an editor, and scrupulous, and lack the patience of Job. I stick to the charge, that his editing is frequently 'fraudulent' (se below for this morning's example), and tests the patience of anyone who troubles to check it, as, once more, occurred today. Sure I deserve a rap over the knuckles for failing the sainthood test. Still, while on the intercom to Arbcom about that nuke strike my way, I hope you do glance at this. It may distract you just enough to make you stuff up on the coordinates, and hit Frisco instead! No hardf feelings, whatever the outcome. Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are well-taken, and you have my word I will do my best to comply with your suggestions, although I try to avoid arbitration myself as a waste of time that could be better spent editing. One foreseeable problem that concerns me is that he has opened so many complaints connected to this topic that hardly any editors will venture their opinions anymore, which decreases the likelihood of response when some real issues need arbitration, such as when our separate SAQ articles are juried, but I suppose we'll cross that bridge when the time comes. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope you won't be the only user who tries their best to do so...uninvolved users can only do so much. In any case, mrking it as resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack or Conflict of Interest

Hi, I am disturbed by what I consider a personal attack in this edit. I've sought a retraction but the editor insists it is a conflict of interest on my part. Can a third party please look at this and also cast their eye over NPOV issues in the article Rumble strip? Alex Sims (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In my view, Albertoarmstrong has not made a personal attack on Alex Sims. However, when Albertoarmstrong saw what he believed to be errors in content and method on Rumble strip he made the serious mistake of focusing on the person rather than the principle. As Alex Sims’s diff shows, on 11 May 2010 Albertoarmstrong made the following comments at Talk:Rumble strip:

3 months after Alex Sims' NPOV complaint he hasn't contributed to this article despite the wealth of information available on the internet. Prior to the start of my involvement on February 5, 2020, this article was grossly underdeveloped. It appears that Alex doesn't have personal interest in the subject as it isn't even listed on User: Alex Sims' page. Also, it appears from this page he has a background in Electronic Engineering and a MBA, so no technical background applicable to this subject. It also appears that he operates an IT company called Softgrow in Australia. For some reason he appears fixated on the New Zealand study …

Then, there are the frivolous basis for the the NPOV (as discussed above) which leads to the concern that Alex has very no understanding of this subject. After he realized his mistake of his "addition of controveries by a single editor" claim against me he then backtracks and then hides behind the "world view" spin.

Comments of a personal nature like this are Ad hominem and are not welcome at Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to edit Misplaced Pages. An edit must be judged solely on the technical merit of the edit. An edit must never be judged on the qualifications or perceived motives of the editor. Dolphin (t) 23:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dolphin's assessment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

The above-statements are not completely clear to me as it is stated: "In my view, Albertoarmstrong has NOT made a personal attack on Alex Sims." but it is "ad hominem". Based on these, I just removed the ad hominem reference from the talk page.

I'm not completely familar with Wiki policy, so can a Wiki editor advise me what is the procedure to: 1) remove the NPOV banner from the Rumble Strip article; and 2) how do I contest what appears to be promotional material and exaggerated claims (i.e. New Zealand refenence) in the article? Thank you. Albertoarmstrong (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Alberto. Thank you for responding here.

A personal attack on another User is a serious misdemeanour on Misplaced Pages. See WP:NPA. Personal attacks often result in the offender being blocked for a period of time. Alex Sims has raised a complaint that you made one or more personal attacks on him. My assessment of the facts presented by Alex is that you are not guilty of a personal attack on Alex or anyone else, and therefore you can be confident no disciplinary action will be contemplated as a result of Alex’s complaint.

You are new to Misplaced Pages and you made a mistake that many of us make early in our editing careers – you reacted to some of Alex’s edits by making comments on a Talk page about Alex himself, his knowledge of the subject, his prior involvement (or lack) with the article; even his educational qualifications and field of employment. These things are irrelevant to Alex’s edits and should not have been used in a way that is adverse to Alex. When you see one or more edits that you believe don’t add to the quality of an article the best thing to do is to be bold and delete those edits; and then go to the editor’s Talk page and explain why you deleted them.

When an NPOV banner, or some other similar banner, is placed on an article, and you believe the banner is inappropriate, I recommend you start a new thread on the article’s Talk page giving your view on the banner and inviting other interested Users to contribute their views. (I acknowledge you have made many good edits at Talk:Rumble strip#NPOV Feb 2010.) It will soon be clear whether the matter attracts little or no attention, or starts a long discussion among multiple Users. If there is no discussion, or there is some consensus about the inappropriateness of the banner, then you would be at liberty to delete it. If there is substantial opposition to deleting the banner, or any similar dispute regarding article content, it would be appropriate to request input from independent Users by raising the matter at WP:RFC. Also, see WP:Resolving NPOV disputes.

Misplaced Pages is supported by article Talk pages, User talk pages and a whole category of dispute resolution mechanisms to assist Users to participate without getting too frustrated by the actions of others.

Please don’t hesitate to comment further here on what I have written, or to make further enquiries about how to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. The Wikiquette alerts community is happy to provide advice and guidance to help keep Misplaced Pages running as smoothly as possible. Dolphin (t) 00:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dolphin, Based on your clarification, I have "toned-down" my comments on the Rumble Strip Talk Page. Thanks Albertoarmstrong (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Lar and inappropriate edit summaries

The edit summary at appears to call me a "flapper." I don't feel that being called names in unretractable edit summaries and would appreciate a user who is uninvolved requesting that Lar refrain from personal attacks in edit summaries. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying I was referring to you? Or that the term "flapper" is an insult? It was quite an honorable role in Laputia. I assure you it was meant as a compliment to those stalwart souls who stand ready to spring to WMC's aid, he being a terrifically important and busy fellow who doesn't always have time to mount a multiprong defense (or even answer simple yes/no questions). ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is an example of a consistent behavior problem: Lar often complains about "snarkiness" and sarcasm by others, but feels at liberty to engage in similar behavior himself (e.g., "you lack introspective ability", characterizing good-faith edits as "smokescreens" and veiled accusations of meatpuppetry, etc). Then when called on it, he complains that it's someone else's fault. Saying "and I mean that in the nicest possible way" or the equivalent doesn't excuse the behavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right, but he's by no means unique in that. I don't see any particular reason to single out Lar. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar is the only person who has called me a name today that I'm aware of. It would be helpful if someone who isn't involved in the underlying dispute could take a look-see.Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

At the very worst, he called you a "flapper". So what's the big deal? If that's the worst you get called today you'll have done well. Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Malleus is of course correct; the behavior is by no means unique. The relevance here is that Lar is basing his evaluations as an admin on a behavioral standard from which he exempts himself. If Lar were willing to model the behavior he expects from others there would be no complaint. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Lar is basing his evaluations as an admin on a behavioral standard from which he exempts himself". Just to be clear, that's what I was referring to as not being unique. Many other administrators do exactly the same thing. Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• The use of snarkiness in the heat of the moment, whilst not the most helpful approach that could be adopted, is of itself not actionable. AGK 17:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • ... except of course when it's done by a non-administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Um, no. I didn't say that, I didn't mean that, and I don't believe that. AGK 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Lar, the diffs cited in this thread are unimpressive. Whilst, as above, I don't see anything that is immediately actionable, many of your comments fall short of the standard we expect of our contributors—and especially of our administrators. If CC enforcement is getting the better of you, please take a break; in the long run that would be better for everybody. AGK 17:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)It does seem that Lar has ongoing civility issues that he should address, lest sanctions be taken. Verbal chat

• Bzzzt. I saw some other reference to Swift a while ago. This is all rather silly. There are flappers in Castle in the Sky, too, which is derivative. I don't think this has anything to do with flappers and don't see how that would be an insult anyway. Jack Merridew 18:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• As a totally uninvolved editor here let me simply point out the following:

1. Being referred to as a "flapper" is not incivil. For example, compare that reference to the use of "bollocks" and "shite" described above in the section on Jack Merridew. Both of these terms are arguably vulgarities and yet they have been judged as not being incivil, hence the use of "flapper" should not be considered worse.
2. Hipocrite's description is misleading in that he uses "flapper" in the singular whereas the edit summary in question uses "flappers" in the plural. I don't know if that misrepresentation was intentional, or not. What is clear is that Lar was referring to a group and not Hipocrite specifically. Whether he considers Hipocrite a member of that group is, strictly speaking, unclear from the text of the edit summary and WP:AGF would demand that we give Lar the benefit of the doubt.

--FormerIPOnlyEditor (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User:G8crash3r and personal attacks

Can a third party please remind User:G8crash3r that personal attacks such as calling fellow ediotrs "racist" (because my clean up efforts have only been on Philipine articles) and "unintelligent " are completely unacceptable and need to stop. Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Penbat

I could really use some advice on how to proceed in resolving this situation. Several days ago I reverted edits made by Penbat. Said editor edited Mobbing to include links to numerous films, and then added same as a "See Also" link on multiple film articles in a very short period of time. Concerned that this might be vandalism as there were no edit summaries and the changes were being made extremely quickly, I reverted the edits and gave Penbat a Level 2 Vandalism warning, as Penbat isn't a new editor and past editors have raised concerns on Penbat's Talk page.

Penbat's initial reaction to my changes was to ask for adminhelp and open an item at WP:AN (a situation which was archived without resolution, btw) without notifying me of either action. Rather, they left a heated message on my Talk page which indicated they -might- take action (but didn't reflect the actions they actually took).

Since then Penbat has characterized my edits as Vandalism, reverted my reversion of their edits despite discussion on the Mobbing Talk Page which hadn't reached consensus but certainly didn't seem to support Penbat's initial changes, and has left edit summaries and notes on other users' Talk pages which border on personal attacks, if they don't in fact go well past the border.

I don't feel Penbat's reactions to my reversion of their edits are in any way warranted, and given their behavior since then I don't feel I can have a constructive dialog with them.

Please advise as to how I can best resolve this issue. It is very frustrating to see my good faith actions consistently criticized by a user who in turn shows no willingness to concede any responsibility of their own or a willingness to discuss the matter. Doniago (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP user

An anonymous user (68.49.150.115, active since 26 April 2010) has been making repeated personal attacks against multiple editors, including myself:

• first example
• second example *

The user has also blatantly accused other editors of harbouring motives and/or bias:

• first example

Both myself and User:Tomeasy have asked said user to conform to proper conduct:

• first attempt
• second attempt
• third attempt

The second diff listed (marked *) is also a fair example of harrassment, with the IP commenting on an old (resolved) mediation case with which I was involved (simultaneously managing to attack both myself and the mediator). The user had earlier been warned against edit-warring by an administrator, and was evidently upset after I had requested page protection (albeit regarding a different dispute with which I was uninvolved). I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could intervene. Night w (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Doniago

I am having problems with user User:Doniago who has IMO behaved in a bizarre and audacious manner and i recommend that he is suspended. He has now compounded the issue by wasting even more valuable time of consicencious editors. He should have just behaved civilly by starting a discussion on Talk:Mobbing from the start instead of throwing bizarre accusations of vandalism around and making wholesale deletions to constructive text.

Tim Pierce examined my edits and no evidence of "vandalism" on my part, see User_talk:Penbat.

1. my edits on Mobbing are entirely constructive - I have added material and not deleted any material
2. the edits are supported by an authoritative cited source.
3. my cited source is the world's leading authority on mobbing Kenneth Westhues and it took him years to develop his list of films that feature mobbing.
4. while i deleted no text, User:Doniago edits made wholesale destructive deletions. He deleted each of the individual "see also" entries i made in the individual film articles as well as text in mobbing. If there was any vandalism involved, it was entirely by User:Doniago not me.
5. User:Doniago admitted that he knew absolutely nothing about the subject of mobbing while I am a relative expert
6. when user User:Doniago undid my edits he amazingly actually rolled back well before I started the contentious text and I have had to spend time clearing up the mess as another editor worked on mobbing in the meantime
7. Tim Pierce has already explained on Talk:Mobbing that the idea of using Category:Films involving mobbing is a non-starter and I totally agree with him for the reasons given.
8. the edits I did created an excellent synergy with an authoritative example list of films in Mobbing (with "See also" links back to mobbing from the individual film articles) where the concept of mobbing is discussed in detail and the link by Kenneth Westhues explains precisely why each film listed is an example of mobbing. From the point of view of the mobbing article, the film list provides useful illustrations of mobbing to the lay reader as the mobbing article otherwise mainly consists of quite dry academic material.--Penbat (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution