Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:07, 26 February 2016

Welcome!

Hello, Travelmite, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Mission

There are a lot of updates needed on cities and towns in wikitravel.org . Some pages have not been updated there in years. Travelmite (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• No more of that, please. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your posting at COIN and other stuff

Hi Travelmite. I saw your posting at COIN and thought that some discussion here on the side might be useful. I have worked on COI issues for a long time in WP, as well as some controversial stuff (mostly science-based, not political, which is a whole different ball of wax). Would you be open to talking a bit about your posting at COIN, and the bigger picture here in Misplaced Pages? Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

How do we get around the "outing" issue? I think it's a fair policy. Travelmite (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I am glad that you respect the OUTING policy. Thats good. Discussion on Misplaced Pages about someone's real world identity, must be based on what that person does and what they write, here in Misplaced Pages. So.... do you have any diffs of the editor disclosing a relationship with the Canadian Monarchist League here in Misplaced Pages? That is a yes/no question, and this will be most efficient if you just answer yes or no.... (the conversation will continue, I just need to know that first) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No. As far as I've checked, it's not in Misplaced Pages (unless the fear of being outed is counted) Travelmite (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Fear of being outed doesn't count for anything, except to show that someone is being harassed. OK, in a situation where the editor has not self-disclosed, what you can do is go to their talk page (not any article talk page) and ask them - politely, simply, and directly - if they have some connection in the real world to topics they edit. If they say "no", the COI investigation ends. In this case the editor has already denied any connection to the organization on Misplaced Pages, and so going to their talk page and asking them again would be a bad thing to do - it would be harassment. With no diffs and an already-stated denial of a connection, you cannot -- cannot - continue making claims of COI. Doing so is personal attack and harassment and will lead to you being blocked and rightly so. So you need to stop doing that. There is more I can tell you about else you can do, but I want to be sure we are on the same page on this COI angle. Are we? Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I cannot make sense of your investigatory procedure. My answer was qualified to say "as far as I've checked". Now, I have checked further, and there is are old discussions on Misplaced Pages, where the user is answering to their first name. This is the same name as I understand this person to be. If the matter is only about collecting information within Misplaced Pages, then my answer is incomplete. It seems that I'm not the first person to notice this issue. Again, the issue is whether I can link this today, when the OUT rule is in place. Travelmite (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If you do not actually possess diffs, you cannot say there is a COI. The only thing you can use to actually declare that a person is editing articles where they have a COI in Misplaced Pages, is something the person actually wrote in Misplaced Pages. OUTING is an iron wall. The person either discloses a connection on-Wiki, or they don't. It is black and white. Do you understand these facts now? We can talk more about why Misplaced Pages is this way (and you don't seem to understand why, and so we probably should discuss it), but first I want you to understand the facts of dealing with COI in Misplaced Pages. Do you? Again, I am talking right now only about COI as we deal with it in Misplaced Pages -- as I said above, there are other angles you can pursue to deal with your concerns, but I am not going to talk about them until we are done talking about COI per se. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we should end this discussion. It does not feel right. You're asking me to post information and not post it at the same time. It seems inconsistent with the policies I have read. Travelmite (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not. I am saying that you either have diffs where the editor self-discloses, or you do not. If you do not, you need to drop the claims. If you continue, you are going to end up blocked or site banned. There was actually an arbcom case where a very, very well-respected editor went after an editor that he knew (and he actually knew) had a real life relationship with a topic - but there was nothing on-wiki. He was banned. It was terrible. Like I said there is a lot that you don't understand and I very much would like to teach you. And as I have said, you have other options. You do. This matters to me, because I care very much about managing COI matters in WP but people who mishandle it badly and loudly, like you are doing, harm the overall effort. Please keep talking to me. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for long enough now. Unless somebody has a very weird first name, that is no evidence of anything at all. I just see that you "unclosed" the COIN discussion. I VERY STRONGLY SUGGEST that you revert that edit. I equally strongly suggest that you stop badgering. Accusing an editor of a COI, just because you disagree with their edits, is disruptive. The issues, policies, and guidelines have been explained to you ad nauseam. If you continue to be deaf, I will block you from editing. --Randykitty (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to answer you at the COI noticeboard (as discussion was closed), so I'll answer here. I was trying to point out to you, that if you did not come up with concrete evidence? then you shouldn't be posting there & any other areas, as though you already presented such evidence. Otherwise you would end up getting blocked - which is what happened. Furthermore, if you did present such concrete evidence? it would've fallen under WP:ADVOCATE and WP:NPOV, not WP:COI. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Travelmite (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There are several reasons unblock:

• I am at work trying to do my real job so I need sufficient time to all the policies needed to proceed fairly.
• I have put a complaint together, including the users full name within wikipedia, but the blocking administrator thinks I only have the first name.
• I am not able to get advice about how to present the case fairly
• The blocking does not seem consistent with the blocking policy - there are no disruptive edits. The effect this block is to stop making the complaint, even as I collect information.
• It's not allowable to hinder someone from presenting their case.

Decline reason:

You don't seem to be listening or understanding (I'm not sure which). If you have on-wiki evidence of self-disclosure of a COI, then you assemble it all and you *do not* continue making COI accusations until after you have done that - and be aware that the evidence must be unequivocal, and must not consist of you joining up separate pieces of evidence to form your own conclusions of someone else's identity. Misplaced Pages's outing policy is an important cornerstone here, and violations of it frequently lead to indefinite blocks and bans. If you have actual on-wiki proof, base your case on that, otherwise shut up. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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.

• I closed the COIN case because it was a circus. Travelmite, if and only if you have evidence as described by Boing! said Zebedee above, you can go present that at the ANI thread, which is now where this is being discussed. (we talk about things in one place only). Please read the entire WP:HARASSMENT policy again before preceding. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Warning

You have posted quite an accusation at the Village Pump Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 124#Conflict of Interest. As soon as your current block is expired, please provide evidence immediately or strike the accusation. Failure to do so as soon as you resume editing will result in another block. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The comment is deleted. It was not intended to be an accusation, but a theoretical possibility. In the comments and explanations thereafter, there is also no intention to accuse. Travelmite (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite, I fixed what you did and replied at Village Pump. When Randykitty asked you to strike what you wrote, she meant like this. Please read WP:REDACT which is part of the talk page guidelines - it is not OK to edit your comment after others have responded to it -- you have to redact it. And by the way, your claim here and there, that "It was not intended to be an accusation" is hollow. There is no way your original statement is anything other than accusation of actual corruption. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree that it could be honestly taken as a accusation. I intended the word "may" to indicate something possible. I say this only to explain and not to say it was correct. We are not disagreeing. Please be assured, that I do understand that writing "may" was vastly insufficient and your reply above is entirely justified. Without any qualification, I apologise. Travelmite (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

From my perspective, Travelmite your bailing on the discussion above, and then writing this at COIN and then especially this at COIN, followed by your initial post at the Village Pump, is a very clear violation of AGF and a very clear set of accusations against me. Your claim that you were not making an accusation is empty.

The reason that WP:AGF is not just policy, but a pillar of WP, is that with this place allowing editors to be anonymous (indeed, as has been told to you several times, privacy is a core value of WP), is that editors like you who run around full of suspicion about other editors - who focus on contributors and not content in an irresponsible way - are very disruptive. This place would be impossible if everyone acted like you. That is why all the people who have interacted with you have told you that your behavior is out of line. Your approach to Misplaced Pages is wrong. If you cannot handle that - - if you need to work in an environment where people disclose their identities, and identities are verified, this is not the place for you. If you are going to stay - if you want to play this "game" - you have to play within this game's world and rules. Or else you are going to end up disrupting things so much that you will end up getting indefinitely blocked, which will suck up yet more of the community's time -- time that could be spent building content. So please get grounded on how Misplaced Pages works. As I wrote above, I remain willing to teach you but you have to be willing to learn. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Part of what you say is right, in that I became very suspicious at a point, as I directly explained. It seemed to me you were directing me away from COI as fast as you could do it. But my suspicion did not evolve in the linear fashion you describe above, but which you are entirely justified in thinking that it did. I started looking at the COI talk page, but I saw "the system" and a new perspective began to appear. It is certainly appropriate that I apologise to you, irrespective of anything else. You were never a candidate for corruption, I should not have left any impression that you were. Travelmite (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing that. As I said, if you want to resume the discussion we started at any point, let me know. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If you do clash over an article with a certain editor? Try to get a consensus for any changes you want, on that article's talkpage. Worry less about the editor & more about the content. Above all, stay calm & carry on. PS - I understand your frustration with the 'certain' editor. Just follow my lead & be cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Jtydog needs to look at the history going back over 10 years on this. Goodday you would have experienced that history firsthand. Why not somehow privately explain to Jtydog why someone may be ... maybe the right word is "alarmed" Travelmite (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have wiki-email. Besides, I don't like behind-the-scene discussions. Reckon I'm just too honest an editor :) GoodDay (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That's understandable. Travelmite (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Advice?

Above I made more than one reference to the fact that there are other ways for you to proceed other than the COI route, and you never took me up on that. I don't understand why not. I remain willing to tell you how you can effectively work to change the article but I am not going to unless you want to learn. So let me know. Jytdog (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I will give you several reasons. (1) I have a right to defend myself from the allegation that I harassed someone. (2) I think COI is important, because it's the only way to stop organisations having vast power here. (4) Your advice maybe is conditional on ignoring the COI aspect (I hope you will kindly forgive me if I've got the wrong impression). (3) Three editors have already backed my change (), so I think I'm okay with that side of it. (4) Entering a perpetual battle over nothing is something I and few people will accept. (5) The big picture! Travelmite (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to continue discussion on this topic Travelmite (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

1) You did harass someone and you were blocked for it. 2) I think COI is important too which is why I tried to teach you how badly you were screwing up. (i'll skip 3 too) 4) Yes I wanted you to be clear on COI and how it works before I introduced the boatload of new stuff about what you actually can do. It is hard to communicate information to people and things need to go step by step, one thing at a time. What i needed to hear was that you understood what, in WP, is a valid basis for an actual definite claims of COI claim in WP. The rest is too confused for me to understand. I am not going to ask again if you want to learn how you can effectively change the article without bringing up the COI stuff. You can ask me if you ever want me to teach you. If you are still unclear about anything about COI in WP (and you apparently are) feel free to ask me. Jytdog (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll give you a few scenarios, and let's just confirm that I understand you correctly. A COI claim would be valid in these rather extraordinary circumstances where:

(a) The editor says on a talk page, that they are indeed working for another organisation

(b) The editor writes their name and position on an article page, and declares themselves elsewhere in[REDACTED] that they are this person.

(c) An editor is acting suspiciously like they were working for an organisation, and after being asked on a talk page, they admit it

(d) As with c but they repeatedly refuse to answer (and I'm not sure about it.

Actually, this is the limit of circumstances that I can think of where a COI case could be raised. In other words, just tell a little lie and you'll be untouchable. A small team in a PR firm can achieve any result. But I also point out it's not consistent with the news reports where Misplaced Pages has caught PR firms. Travelmite (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to put you under too much pressure, so I'll repost this questions elsewhere Travelmite (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear - a "COI claim" is saying "X has a COI with regard to Y". A sentence in the indicative mood. With scenarios a - c yes you can make the claim, with the caveat that the scenario in (b) is a bit garbled but the key part of that is "the editor....declares themselves elsewhere in[REDACTED] that they are this person." which I am assuming is not ambiguous. In scenario (d) you cannot make that claim that "X has a COI with regard to Y". Scenario (d) as you present it is already a bad situation as the person has already been asked repeatedly - this is approaching harassment and the "askers" are becoming blockable for it. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

about this - WP:COI is not a policy, it is a guideline. See WP:PAG for the distinction. And as I wrote to you there already, you barely understand what the situation is with addressing COI in Misplaced Pages, and trying to create drama about it at the Village Pump hurts the effort to manage it because you are writing things that make no sense. You really have no idea what the context is here. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you cannot guarantee that people reading the procedures are all at the same intellectual level. If my decades of international experience make me unfit to understand the context, how would you handle a teenager with a C- test store? Some of my recommendations there are about that very issue! Travelmite (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no idea if you are 10 years old or 60 years old, if you are a Supreme Court Judge or a burned out hippy living in a shotgun shack. I have no idea and I don't care because it doesn't matter. What is clear from what you are writing and doing, is that you don't understand much about Misplaced Pages at all, which is a weird place, unlike pretty much any other knowledge-producing organization. Nor do you understand how we think about COI in Misplaced Pages - in the midst of the bigger context of this place. You don't understand what we do to address COI today, nor understand the history of efforts to manage or eliminate COI in Misplaced Pages, nor the various very strong points of view in the community about COI. You are clearly emotional about it. But that is not helpful to anybody, including you. Why are you not stopping and trying to learn? Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping to get your opinion about something. Do you need a rest? Travelmite (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

ask away. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think part of the communication issue is the precise definition of words like COI, declarations, claims, violations and so on. When you use COI, you seem to be only talking about declared COI. When I think about COI, I think about COI bias, the power of organisations to get their way by misrepresentation or being bullies. My question relates to this idea of politely asking if a person has conflict of interest. Let's assume they said "I am not conflicted" - indicating only the present tense, but the edits of concern occurred in the past. Is it harassment to ask a clarifying question about whether they had a COI when editing in the past? The second part, would be that if they were asked in the past, but the answer was vague or ignored, is it harassment to politely ask them to express a clear and/or full answer? Travelmite (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I stopped reading this when I read:

" When I think about COI, I think about COI bias, the power of organisations to get their way by misrepresentation or being bullies."

It is great that you have become aware that you were using your own definitions for technical terms in WP, but you have not yet seen that doing that is not helpful to you or anybody else.

Many times when writing to you, I said we are talking about what happens in Misplaced Pages. This is important for you to keep in mind. The term "conflict of interest" has a specific meaning here in WP. Likewise, "original research", "neutral point of view", "reliable souce", etc. You can keep using terms like these with your own private meaning (or even what you think their common meaning is) but then you have to know that people will be hearing something different than what you are trying to say, and they will react to what they hear, not to whatever it was you were trying to say. Above I wrote that if you want to play this game, you have to play by its rules. That includes understanding what these technical terms mean here, in this context.

Please hear this - being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that over the years, the community itself has developed lots of policies and guidelines (PAG) to help provide a "body of law" as it were, that form a foundation for rational discussion and consistent decision making. Without that foundation, this place would be both a garbage dump of random content and a wild west - a truly ugly place. But with the foundation, there is guidance for generating excellent content and there are ways to rationally work things out - if, and only if, all the parties involved accept that foundation and work within it. One of the hardest things for new people, is to understand not only that this foundation exists, but what its letter and spirit is. (I emphasize the spirit, because too often people start to think about PAG like it is "law" and fall prey to what we call "wikilawyering" - I hope you can avoid that ugly fate) But the more I have learned about how things are set up here - not just the letter of PAG and the various drama boards and administrative tools, but their spirit - the more impressed I have become at how, well ... beautiful this place is. It takes time to learn both the spirit and the letter of PAG, and to really get aligned with Misplaced Pages's mission to crowdsource a reliable, NPOV source of information for the public (as "reliable" and "NPOV" are defined in PAG!). I do hope you slow down and learn. To do that, you need to check your head, and stop trying to Do Big Things for a while, because you don't know what you are doing. There are lots of people here who are happy to teach, if you ask authentic questions, not rhetorical ones, and listen and ask yet more questions if you still don't understand. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

And let me add - from everything I have seen you write and do so far, the biggest mental error you are consistently making, is that you have almost exclusively focused on contributors, not content (that is a technical term here, but it means what you think it means) since you got here. You read an article you found off-kilter, and have just been focused on how it got that way, and especially on whodunit. This is a profoundly un-Wikipedian way to proceed, on many levels. And more importantly, the various dispute resolution tools that exist have no way to handle what you have to say - instead you end up in trouble, and you end up looking bad.

A parable. A guy runs up to a policeman, and grabs his arm, and points with great agitation at another guy who is walking down the street, doing nothing unusual, and yells at the cop: "STOP HIM. He is a barkstaff! Arrest him!" The cop steps back and looks at him with some alarm and concern, and says, "What? What is wrong?" The guy becomes even more agitated and says "HE IS A BARKSTAFF!". The cop steps back further. The first guy throws up his hands, turns, and runs and tries to tackle the 2nd guy. The first guy ends up in jail that night. In court the next day, the guy insists, "The other guy was a barkstaff. I can't believe you are not taking action against him, this is a terrible miscarriage of justice." You can see how the story ends. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The parable is great. That's the best thing I've read for a long time. And the analysis is correct. How did this happen and why is this not working, and so various questions like that, are my usual starting points. I appreciate your patience. I hope more explanation like that appears on the guideline page. I guess everything is a work in progress. I would like to make one recommendation, in that when you first wrote on my talk page, it was very difficult to verify your role. It seemed like you were more likely a client of the COI process than the admin-level person I expected to be in charge. Probably just a note at the top of your talk page would have sufficed. Hopefully, I've not frustrated you too much. 18:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I am glad it spoke to you. Yes everything is a work in progress and you have a lot to learn about Misplaced Pages, however accomplished you may be in the real world. I have invested a bunch of time in you because you seem pretty OK but your first steps have been disastrous, and they have been disastrous because they have been based on wrong - terribly wrong - assumptions about how this place works; this is transparent to people like me who have been around a while (that is what the parable was meant to do -- help you see yourself as I and others are seeing you) I hope you can do a re-set. Like I have been saying I would be happy to help you get correctly oriented but you have to be willing. Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

John Aimers and COI: Statement of intent

I am looking at the article of John Aimers, who was in legal difficulties in 2006 related to sexual abuse. To quote the policy: "Conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships." According to the Talk Page, "a number of editors have gone over the article, including several who are supporters and friends of Aimers and the version you see is the outcome." There should be no COI connection between John Aimers' role as a teacher in Canada and this article: Australian head of state dispute. The user concerned does not appear on the list of editors to this page, and says he is not connected to the organisation John Aimers founded. Travelmite (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am looking at this because you posted on my talk page. I have no clue what you are trying to say here, nor how this is on any way related to any other discussions that we have had. Are you claiming that there has been COI editing at the Aimers article? What does the Aimer article have to do with the Australian head of state article? Far as I can see, there is no overlap in contributors. And concerning your contributions to the talk page of the latter article, you have been advised before to comment on issues, not editors. There are edits there that apparently you don't agree with. Fine. Then present reliable sources that show this, but do not start accusing other people of not being NPOV or, worse, having a COI without a shred of any evidence. Continuing like you currently are doing is going to lead, sooner probably than later, to an indefinite block. --Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Whew! In fact, such claims were made by other people several years ago. My point of writing to you is to draw a line between two separate issues, based on the articles. It seemed like a necessary step to actively demonstrate good faith. As a relatively inexperienced user, I intend to proceed with extreme caution, prepare thoroughly and follow all the rules to the letter. Travelmite (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

At less than 200 edits and your demonstrated failure to understand how things are being done here, I gingerly suggest that you're not a "relatively experienced" editor yet. And your comment on Talk:Australian head of state dispute starts with "I have checked the history of this article, and it is written by two monarchists". As far as I can see, that's just your interpretation and there is no shred of evidence. Worse, as has been explained to you over and over again, being a monarchist does not prohibit someone from editing articles about monarchy, just as being American does not constitute a COI for somebody editing an article on the US. And why you are mentioning the Aimers article in the same breath as the Australian article remains a mystery to me. --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the text to "inexperienced", and put a line though the passage you quoted. Thanks for the advice. Travelmite (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If I may Randykitty, I do know what Travelmite's trying to say. Therefore, I believe I'll step back away from this, as it appears to be drifting towards questionable areas. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What questionable areas? If necessary: I have email enabled. --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have email. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Australian head of state

Howdy. I don't know how things are gonna end up at the 2 Rfcs. But, it's comforting to know that after all these years, my concerns weren't so nutty afterall. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Be careful with your accusations

I have just noticed that you were blocked a few weeks ago for your accusations directed against other editors, and I had, of course, noticed your repeated accusations of plagiarism on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics (and now Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard), directed at Pete. This is a serious accusation, and doesn't seem to be based on much evidence. (For example, although Smith cites the Directory as evidence, one can quote the directory without reference to Smith.) I suggest you withdraw it, apologise, and refrain from further attacks. StAnselm (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)