Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive692

New user Palliomine has wreaked havoc on palestine categories. I have a very slow connection at present and cannot revert his changes. (It relates to Palestinian rabbis in various ategories) Chesdovi (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like they're tagging empty categories for deletion. Is this incorrect? The categories do appear to be empty. TNXMan 20:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect User:Debresser is behind this. He has depopulated nearly 100 pages in various Palestine categories without responding to my reply on my talk page. Action needs to be taken. Chesdovi (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I only depopulated what you recently created and started to actively populate without any prior discussion and in disregard of immediate protests on your talkpage. You can't

push your ideas through against the will of the community. Debresser (talk

) 22:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi has recently created a whole group of "Palestinian" categories. He continues to create more of them and to populate them, despite the fact that 1. This term is controversial 2. He is replacing another term with his new term, and splitting up existing categories. 3. All of this without seeking prior consensus, and 4. in disregard of the protests of two editors on his talkpage, each of these editors with several arguments

I also agree that action has to be taken. And that action is that Chesdovi should be admonished to desist from creating and populating these categories he created until he can show consensus, rather than protests. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Debresser has acted wrongly in this case. If he felt certain categories were controversial, he should have raised it at category disscusion page, or the like. Without coming to an amicable solution, he proceeds to depopulate tens of pages, the vast majority which had been under that category for a number of weeks. He has not responded to clear proof that this term does exist in acdemic circles. His claim that the term Palestine did not exist in the 13th century is nonsensical. I have not "replaced another term. Most acuartely, i have sorted rabbis who lived in ottoman and british palestine in centuries to be onisten with all other such cats. He has want also to delted Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine. Wholly unacceptable. Chesdovi (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

since this disscussion has started, Debresseer contines to enforce his edits. [1]. Chesdovi (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So do you..., so let's not go there. The difference is, you are the one trying to change things and introduce new terms. So you should show consensus. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The first protests on you page are a week old. Why do you continue making controversial edits? All these categories are your idea, replacing the term Land of Israel and splitting up Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine. You're just pushing through your ideas, and can not accept the fact that the community sees them as problematic, and thinks you should refrain from doing so unless and until you can show consensus. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

First thing first: How do you justify depopulating over 50 pages without seeking the communities consensus if this is so controversial. I spent a long time creating and populating many pages and you come along and revert all my work without a conclusion to the matter. That in itself deserves investigation. Chesdovi (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I told Chesdovi one week ago that unless he could find sources supporting that all those individuals were Palestinians, then I was gonna restore the original category, one week has passed, and he has still not added any sources, so the removal of the categorys is appropriate. But he provided one source at his talkpage for one guy, so at that article the Palestinian cat could be added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that even there the best thing is to use the naming system that was in use till Chesdovi made his whole new category system. To avoid misunderstandings and controversies. After all, we have no obligation to use the specific wording of each and every of our sources. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I do not obey you sd. Its your opinion against mine. You have no right to wilfully decat over 50 cats based on some irrational demand of yours. We don't need to cite each and every word. If a person has lived a significant portion of his life in a palce, he automaticaaly can be categorised as beloning to that place. Palestinian means "of Palestine". Not member fatah or Hamas. And it applies to all those people I added. I am backed up by a plethora of academic works. Chesdovi (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This is getting old. If no sources calls those specific people "Palestinian", then you cant ad the cats.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"misunderstandings and controversies. "? Pls elaborate Debresser. Chesdovi (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We have Land of Israel. We have explanatory combinations like "Ottoman and British Palestine" (which could be split, of course into Ottoman and British, or even per century categories). Even if during some time the land was called "Palestine", we should disambiguate that. But in this case you are simply wrong. Because usually somebody born in Germany is also an ethnic German. But in this case none of these rabbis and other Jews was an ethnic Palestinian. Somewhat like Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews. So here we should be more careful with how to name our categories. All this is obvious and has been explained to you for a whole week on your talkpage. And you refuse to recognize that your edits are controversial, and that is what WP:ANI needs to explain to you. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

DBRSR; Acc. to ur reasoning, we should have no German rabbis as thery are not "ethnicly" German. They are ethnicly Jews! Your reasoning if flawed. You yourself have revealled that you are confused. You agree when it comes to Israeli Arabs and Jews that they are both Israeli. So why can't you agree to have Palestinian Jews and Palestinain Arabs? AFAIMC my edits are not controverail. Why should they be? You have never expalned that have you? Have you? NO! Chesdovi (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confused here, since you are repeating my arguments now. Anyway, the problem here is not so much the content discussion. That has been going on on your talkpage, and today a little on mine. The problem is that you continue to create and populate controversial categroies, while two editors have expressed arguments for their objections against your innovations and changes. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you just admitted to being a sock of Palliomine? Stop wasting my time and trying to wriigle out of the subject at hand. It ALL about the content. The content you want censored. expalin why we cant use the word Palestine to describe people who lived there in the medieval era. Chesdovi (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it is about content, then you have quite a few arguments against it in this section already. But let's take an example, to amke the point. I was almost shocked when I saw Nachmanides being called a "Palestinian rabbi". Of his 76 years long life he lived only 3 years in the Land of Israel!! Not to mention that the Land of Israel was then under Egyptian Mamluk rule, so he actually should be called an Egyptian rabbi! Chesdovi, calling Nachmanides "Palestinian" is absurd! Sorry, but it really is! Debresser (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And again, this point has been made by Supreme Deliciousness on Chesdovi's talkpage. The real problem here is Chesdovi's unwillingness to see reason, or to at least accept that his innovations are controversial and contested. He should refrain from them unless and until he will get consensus for them. But he won't, obviously, so he decided to push them... Debresser (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why these edits ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) should not be seen as a violation of

Well done. Now we are getting somewhere. Having now made you see sense with regrd to the fallacy of this cat indicated "ethnicity", you are beginning to come round that a person living in a region attains that regions label. If the Egyptains ruled Palestine at the time would not make a difference, since the region was known as Palestine notwithstanding. So you agree that living in a place bestows upon you the designation of that place? Many sephardi Jews in aragon were not ethnic aragonesse, but they are called aragonses Rabbis. The fatc that you had an issue with Ramban could have been solved instead of going on your palestineophobe crusade. Chesdovi (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted you because of

Wikipedia:REICHSTAG, and that is why I recommend you be blocked for 24 hours. You have proven the issue is first and foremost behavioral for you. Debresser (talk

) 00:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain to me why MM Schnersohn can be called an American Rabbi, But Issac Luria can not be called Palestinian? You should have been bloked long ago. Chesdovi (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have explained that earlier in this section. You seem not to have understood it, as I mentioned above as well. Your

Wikipedia:REICHSTAG behavior was a mistake. I'll see you tomorrow (or after 24 hours). Debresser (talk

) 00:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

well you better had think how to explain yourself much better, b/c s far as i'm concerned you have wasted hours of my time without giving acceptable rationale why you 1) saw fit to depopulted over 50 pages beofre the discussion had come to and end 2) cretaed a new account to deleted the empty cats. 3) cayy on revrting afte you had strted a discussing th matter here 4) explained why Mediveal Jews in Palestine is not a worthy category. 5) hy there cannot be be something calle da Palesting Jew.. etc. Chesdovi (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This edit, in which you call the greatest Jewish kabbalist who ever lived a Palestinian, and use the edit summary "Yup, he's also Palestinian. Debresser, You daven using nusach Palestine! Have I sent a shudder down your spine? "Palestine". Oi vey!" makes me doubt your capability to edit Wikipedia objectively. That was a sick edit, which no doubt would offend many, and rightfully so. Debresser (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Break

These are all אֶפְרָתָה (talk · contribs). The following are  Confirmed matches:

• Palliomine (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ram it home (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bigpudd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bustermccrabble (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Pheochromocytoma (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bigg gee ben (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anglesey in North Jerusalem (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dodomain (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Palaeoperenethis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tomtwiles (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Shoukii (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Da da manny 2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Safe for the surfaces (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 01:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Both primary disputants topic banned for 72 hrs

Barnstarbob (talk · contribs) is being very difficult at Chevrolet Vega. He was brought to this page a couple of weeks ago, but his behaviour has not improved and he continues with tendentious editing and presumed ownership of the article. If anything it has got worse. I have tried to improve the article, but many of my changes have been reverted. Today 842U (talk · contribs) made a series of edits which started to address the bias and reduce the trivia that was present in the article. Now Barnstarbob has reverted those edits (multiple times) and refuses to engage, as I have asked him to do, on the article's talk page to explain why he thinks 842U's edits are wrong. Instead he states all the current content was approved by other people implying that we have no right to make any changes. I'm not going to revert him again because I may have already tripped 3RR, for which I apologise, but I would ask that someone take a look at his actions and consider what can be done to help. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Update - he has once again reverted - making it four straight reverts in a row, and once again has refused to take the discussion to the article's talk page. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hard telling who's "right", content-wise, but Bob has reported you and another user at the edit-warring page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There have been two discussions of which Biker Biker and 842U have not participated in. One two years ago, AND one started by 842U in a Project discussion recently, but he DID NOT participate. Any of the suggestions, deletions and changes made by any User were NOT reverted by me during that discussion. Biker Biker however has made several deletions and changes (only recently) of which I have not reverted as well. However three sections, the Lead, Problems, and Reception were totally changed by 842U after they were approved and judged neutral two years ago and in the recent projects discussion. These three section edits were reverted by me to the former. My work and research used in the three sections was deleted in these three sections AFTER the discussions they did not participate in and were judged neutral and complete. I have followed ALL suggestions in those discussions before making any major changes to the article and have not reverted any of those Users changes during those discussions. 842U is making major changes to the article after the fact. I reverted those major changes and Biker Biker reverted back to 842As changes. Again, The two Users did not participate in ANY of the discussions regarding the article's content, size, or neutrality. 842A is exhibiting Ownership as he deletes complete sections and ignores the discussion suggestions and outcomes, with Biker Biker recently reverting back 842Us major changes as well. More than two Users have concluded the lead, Problems, and Reception are proper and neutral and do not require complete changes or deltion of the material. (Barnstarbob (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

Baseball Bugs - thanks for pointing out the edit-warring entry. I have added my side of the story there including the four reverts done by Barnstarbob - thus tripping 3RR. --Biker Biker (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You may want to retract that "thank you". It's hard to tell from the reverts just what's going on, as a lot of it seems to be reshuffling of the same info. But I detect that the OP here is trying to promote a more negative view of the Vega (which was pretty much of a "throwaway car", as I recall) while Bob wants to present it in a more positive light. In short, it's a content dispute, and the main players here are all guilty of edit-warring, when they ought to instead take it to some sort of dispute resolution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some sort of dispute resolution is in order. It wouldn't hurt for Barnstarbob to have a look at WP:Consensus#Consensus can change, though, especially if he's citing discussion that took place two years ago as support for "his version" of the article. It may be time for another discussion on the content to see where consensus is now. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion started by 842U was recent and he did not participate, and did not like the outcome and proceeded tp make major changes after it was discussed and determined no further prunning was needed. But he just does what he wants.(Barnstarbob (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

The current opinion is the article is neutral and there are no ownership issues then or now on my part. There have been two Users that have accused me in two years, including you, of which it was determined these were false.842A', You are the one who thinks he OWNS it. You start a discussion in Project Automobiles, then you don't participate, then you proceed to go against everything that was discussed. I'm following that discussion and the suggestions of the Users from it and the discussion from two years ago as well. Stop accusing me of ownership and conflict of interest. I have all the referenced text, Do you think I would if I didn't like the subject? It has helped the article, not hurt it. I've worked on it as a group effort from the beginning with other Users, most offering suggestions. I do not delete contributions. You're only kidding yourself if you think I hurt the article. The Problems section has been in the article for two years. The facts pertaining to all aspects of the car, good and bad should be more important for an encyclopedia article than reviews, as reviews are a combination of fact and opinion which can be biased depending on its source; nonetheless the reviews here are unmatched anywhere in one article. Your sole contributions to the article - non-automotive sourced criticism, was not deleted, nor were any other contributions from any User. I've added much automotive press sourced criticism past and present from 1970-2010, and reverted the deleted praise to keep the article neutral. If anyone is looking to render the article non-neutral or one sided its 842U.

A sampling below from the WikiProject Chevrolet Vega Discussion 842A initiated to accuse me of ownership, but did not participate in, concludes there is no ownership or conflict of interest issues on my part. In this sample it is clear by my working with other Users and the User comments below, the original accusations by 842U are false, and currently Biker Biker's discussion here is nothing more than frustration of his inability to OWN the article making major changes without discussion or approval by anyone first.

• Agreed, this is not the stubborn Vegavairbob I wrestled with, & I'm glad of it. I like this one much better. :D (I'm no angel, either, so... ;p) And moving the Wankel content to its own page IMO solves that one. I asked Bob this, & let me ask here, since there's still a problem: is there a page where the "aluminum block" section of Vega could be moved to? IMO, it's too OT to stay in, but too worthwhile to just junk. TREKphiler 07:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved large Aluminum block section to GM 2300 engine. A paragraph of the section retained (same size as reduced Wankel section) for Chevrolet Vega and Chevrolet Cosworth Vega pages as per discussion. Click links to view section versions on the three pages. Also I moved large Wankel section to a new page (with additions) General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine by the recommendation of TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura who made a new smaller edit for the Chevrolet Vega page. I made a few edits as well to the smaller version. Again click on these two links to view the new GM-Wankel page and the smaller Vega page Wankel section. Vegavairbob (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• As for Bob's adding his own pix, I don't see the beef. I added mine to custom car because there weren't any. If there are better ones (not just different ones...), replace them. TREKphiler 08:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see this article as having any issues really worth mentioning any longer. That one user makes most of the edits to an article is in itself not an issue, and I feel that accusations of ownership have lost their foundation. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC) (Barnstarbob (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

And current discussion on Vega page -

• I do feel that Barnstarbob has managed to lose most or all of the ownership issues that were previously problematic. He is still a bit hotheaded at times (as correctly stated in the previous section), and I would suggest endeavouring to remedy this. Nonetheless, I think that these problems are best dealt with on Barnstarbob's own userpage and not here on the Chevy Vega page. I would like to separate any possible issues with Chevrolet Vega from the problems of User:Barnstarbob entirely, which for me does not currently require any major pruning to Chevrolet Vega. Welcoming further remarks, I am yours:  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)(Barnstarbob (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

I agree with the admins who have pointed out that this is indeed a content disput. The way to achieve consensus about content is by discussion, which Barnstarbob is steadfastly refusing to do, instead he states again and again that the page was "approved two years ago" and thus doesn't need chaning. As stated here consensus can change and that needs discussion not reversion. My beef is not about the article, but about Barnstarbob's behaviour in this content dispute and his refusal to play fair - which is why I have brought him to ANI. I welcome discussion, have invited him to discuss, but he won't. --Biker Biker (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was discussed in a lengthy discussion in Project Automobile RECENTLY of which you and 842U did not participate in. Had you participated you would know it has been determined the article no longer needs MAJOR pruning, or constant lengthening of the lead, or deletion or major changes in the sections, of which you have tried and failed to do on your own against the discussion outcome. I've tried to explain, but all did was start this accusation discussion, probably out of your own frustration of not getting your (own) way... Your editing including the External Link deletions and other changes were not reverted (excluding your deletion of the five gallery images) AS no MAJOR changes or deletions of the sections are needed or necessary according to the opinions expressed in the recent projects discussion and the recent article talk page. (i.e. "which for me does not currently require any major pruning to Chevrolet Vega. Welcoming further remarks, I am yours": User:Mr.choppers) My conclusion for what its worth is 842U doesn't care about those discussions based on his persistence of constantly making MAJOR changes to the article, and Biker Biker hasn't read the discussions at all. Stop deleting the discussion approved, careful, neutral work made by other Users either from their suggestions or actual contributions.

another discussion example...Ok ObtuseAngle, paragraphes removed. It has been returned to a shortened version of the lead used in the last article discussion. (Now it looks like other Wikipedia article's lead paragraphs). If you think anything else is not needed in the lead, please advise. (Barnstarbob (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Looks good. I wouldn't change a thing. The shortened intro makes the article stronger. ObtuseAngle (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

But 842 has continued to completely change and lengthen the lead paragraph every few days, still ignoring other Users in previous or current discussions. 842 has been warned to stop framing criticism with HIS opinions. (reserved for reputable sources in Criticism) and now Biker Biker... the Problems section, as added by User suggestion to remove a neutrality flag, lists facts of the cars issues or problems in a separate section. It also is not reserved for 842Us or any Wikipedia User's opinions. This is not a web blog. The car's problems are presented with facts from referenced reliable sources. The fixes over the car's seven year production run are noted there as well as part of the article's factual and neutral tone. The Reception section lists all verifiable Praise and Criticism, both automotive and non-automotive sourced, past and present. As per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia Users are not to express their opinions of the subject of the article, rendering it biased or non-neutral. (Barnstarbob (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

For the last month or so, using the discussion page to cite the plethora of sources that encapsulate the Vega's legacy as a promising but seriously flawed product, I've tried to introduce information to the body of the article and to the lead. These edits have been continuously reverted by Barstarbob, previously Vegavairbob, despite all efforts to discuss the lack of balance in the article, as well as the article's reliance on promotional material from the manufacturer, his own photographs as well as photographs, photos of his own cars as well as bloated fancruft (a whole section on the article on fake wood siding application, but where is the ongoing damage the Vega continues to affect on General Motors reputation with small cars?). Most recently, the discussion page reflects Barstarbob's contention that books written by historians as well as Time, Newsweek and Popular Mechanics are somehow not worthy of being introduced into the article. Barstarbob has spent the last weeks discouraging edits, has attacked me personally, and has used a machine-gun approach to editing the article -- basically to protect his singular viewpoint. He insists on burying any information of substance about the car's broad legacy. Taken individually, these problems (i.e., the photos of his own cars) aren't egregious. But taken together, Barnstarbob is owning the article, trying to shut out any other points of view besides his own. He is essentially using the article to grandstand for the Vega – in an especially narrow, minutely-focused manner.842U (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am trying everything to get Barnstarbob to engage in a discussion on the article's talk page but he continues with his endless cycle of reverting other people's work. He has gone 3RR yet again today on some changes that I made and despite me starting a thread on the talk page he just ignored it and reverted my change. Please help. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He has also just gone 3RR on the lead section despite my appealing on his talk page as well as the article's talk page for him to engage in discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This post on his talk page, not on the article's talk page demonstrates his

WP:OWN approach, refusing to engage in discussion on the article's talk page saying it is pointless. --Biker Biker (talk

) 11:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is, unfortunately, a longstanding problem for Bob. I came across it a good six months ago, & AFAIK, nothing has changed. The apologist tone he's adopted (& insisted on) for the page is beyond POV. His unwillingness to accept even quite small changes to even page appearance (never mind content) without conflict is extreme.

I also find it odd he's changed usernames three times now. (Suspicious minds might think he's trying to hide something.)

I should also note I have a strong preference for early & long blocks for all forms of bad behavior, so judge my attitude accordingly. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The White Latin American article contains the following statement in the lede:

"Composing about 36% of the population as of 2010, White Latin Americans constitute the largest ethnic group in the region.[24][25]"

As I have pointed out in an edit summary [11], neither source cited refers to 'white Latin Americans' as a unified ethnic group. Lizcano [12] refers to 'Latin or Iberian' ethnicity in the English-language abstract, and from what I can tell via Google translate, makes no claim that there are unified ethnic groups crossing national boundaries - the article is however in Spanish, and I'd appreciate if someone familiar with the language will check this. The CIA Factbook [13] likewise makes no claim that 'white Latin Americans' is an ethnic group - though I very much doubt that the Factbook could be considered

I consider SamEV's actions to be in breach of the expected standards from editors, and given his refusal to answer my objections to the above sentence from the article lede, ask that appropriate action be taken against him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the above to remove the <ref></ref> tags. They don't work well on noticeboards like this, especially if multiple sections use them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

About Lizcano's paper I give you an analysis of the paper done in:[15]

Lizcano text is very generally used to support assertions that are central. The source is poorly used, poorly referenced, it does not indicate the precise spot where Lizcano says this or that. Moreover, Lizcano is talking about people "ethnic" (culture), and he often say "independently of skin color" when referring to any of the ethnic groups ('white or not). Speaks about "white" only when referring to statistics of population, but before anything else speaks of "criollo" in the sense of European (culture) transplanted in Latin America. Lizcano, never made ​​explicit what is the method by which concluded that the minority criolla population is the largest component of Latin America.

As the paper is in Spanish, it's easier to believe it says something that does not actually say. Be manipulated very easily. I apologize for my English. Best --Jcestepario (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. As I suspected, it seems that Lizcano is being misrepresented. As it turns out, other contributors have reworded the lede to the extent that the edits made by SamEV are moot, and given his lack of response, I can only assume he is either unconcerned about the article, or has accepted that my objections to the original text are valid. On that basis, unless he attempts to revert to the earlier POV-pushing version of the article, I'm prepared to consider the issue closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In this article[16] Lizcano gives a very long theoretical definition of what he means by "etnia" and "grupos etnicos" - he explicitly states that "Whites", "Mestizos", "indians" are not Ethnic groups in the normal use of the term, they do not have a common identity and they do not interact. He basically states that he uses etnia as a shorthand for "Ethnic Category" using "category "in the sense of Giddens' "social category" as a label applied externally to groups who do not selfidentify as members of such a group. He then goes on to use Barth's concept of ethnicity in a novel way as he says that the groups can be seen as being ethnic groups in the sense of sharing particular cultural traits as the ethnic categories share important aspects of their history (in this case mostly the geographic ancestry of their cultures apparently). The most important part is that he makes it very clear that he does not consider "White people" or "Mestizos" to be ethnic groups in the usual meaning of the word which implies common identity. To the question of whether these groups could have common identity he says emphatically no.(p. 13). He is also clearly aware that most scholars would consider it is highly problematic to talk about "whites", "mestizos" and "Indians" as "etnias" - since he goes to a great lengths to explain and justify his use of that terminology. He talks about "la misma distincion entre etnia y grupo etnico defendida en este articulo" - clearly implying that the distinction requires to be defended (i.e. it is not generally accepted). ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok guys, it's very unlikely any admin action is needed here. Perhaps you should find a suitable WikiProject to continue this conversation. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed Osama bin Laden from semi-protect to full protect. I have had comments on my talk page for and against that action. Feel free to revert this action but I couldn't revert vandalism of the semi-protected page faster than the edit conflicts were happening. Rmhermen (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You did the right thing. I had made the suggestion on its talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's too late to protect him. He gawn, bye-bye. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Admins needed at

Osama Bin Laden

(Non-administrator comment) As of 8:10pm (PDT) the "official" announcement from the White House hasn't been made. CNN and Fox are quoting "unnamed sources", and have engaged in speculation before that turned out to be inaccurate. Suggest leaving the article at Full protection for at least 3 hours until something a bit more definitive comes out. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Prodego unprotected it but has taken no action to remove the false information from the article. After ten consecutive edit conflicts trying to remove the "fact" that Obama had a press conference and announced this already (which has not occurred yet but is still in the article), I wash my hands of the matter. At least someone managed to get the I love Chooee. removed. Rmhermen (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama is expected to address the nation at 03:30 UTC (about 5 minutes from now). –MuZemike 03:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Admins aren't super editors - there is no reason to restrict that page to editing only by admins at this time. Prodego ^talk 03:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Some eyes also needed on

FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives has also been semi-protected for a bit. –MuZemike 03:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

President Obama is on TV now confirming it - however, obvious care should be taken with the article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe also semi-protect "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead" in case of an attempt to redirect it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BEANS much? Strange Passerby (talk • cont

) 03:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Too late Really shouldnt give people ideas Bugs The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

...and nothing of value was lost. God, I've always wanted to say that... HalfShadow 05:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Nothing of value was lost." I wouldn't say that. Osama will make good fertilizer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We may also want to protect "

WP:BEANS be damned). –MuZemike

06:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to repost it below - I'll comment here. I do think protection will be needed there for a while, there will be a lot of people trying to edit and it's no easier getting edit conflicts through on an active article than an active talk page. On the talk page, we can at least edit in a section and not affect the editing for other users elsewhere, so that seems the best bet right now. CycloneGU (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Per the precedent of
  Death of Osama bin Laden. I gave some further explanation on the nominator's talk page. Fences&Windows
  03:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I say keep all'em articles protected until we see a Long Form Death Certificate, that doesn't have no fuzzy print on it. Let the "deather" movement begin!.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long while: Count me in! :-) Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

US Navy Seals semiprotected for 1 hr after ongoing foo... Georgewilliamherbert (talk

) 04:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Too late, the term "deathers" is taken. [17] Ironically they are likely to be the same people as the "birthers"--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group semiprotected for 3 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk

) 05:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC

Hah! Wikipedia is protecting the Navy Seals! Take that Marines. Googlemeister (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In other Wikipedia-related business, we should go back to full-protection, as Spork4beans (talk · contribs) intentionally busted autoconfirmed to vandalize the article. –MuZemike 07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Death date

Since it appears that Osama died on April 29th in the morning when the operation was undertaken, it would be helpful if some people could keep an eye on

Uh, but the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, in a statement dated May 2, that "Osama Bin Ladin was killed in the surroundings of Abbotabad in the early hours of this morning". So, it appears bin Laden did die on May 2 (where did April 29 come from?). They're not vandals. -- tariqabjotu 08:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect people are getting their time zone conversions wrong. From what I've heard, it sounds like it took place around 12:30am or 1:00am on May 2nd (very early morning). ← George ^talk 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see my confusion. The article says that Obama decided to make the raid on April 29th, but it apparently wasn't actually done until May 1st, which the article doesn't say, but the sources do. Now, the question is, are we going by May 1st here or May 2nd there? This needs to be decided, because his death is being added to both days. Since Obama gave the announcement on May 1st here at 11:30 PM that Osama was dead, are we going by that? The Death article itself flip-flops on dates. Silverseren^C 08:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a discussion for ANI. But if it's clear it was 2nd May at the place he died then that's what we go by for the date of death (if it's felt that's needed for the article). The date at the US when he died is irrelevant for his date of death even if it was their forces that killed him although there's nothing wrong with also putting the time and date of the annoucement by Obama of his death (but the date/time of the annoucement shouldn't be confused with when he died). Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I made this section is because his death is being listed on both the

May 2nd article and it should obviously be on only one. If we're all agreed on which one it should be, then we need to take it off of the other one and make sure it stays off. Silverseren^C

10:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see any reason to have this discussion here particularly since it may take a few days to resolve yet that doesn't mean there will be many comments (meaning we will have to keep this open) and it will likely be missed by many who can contribute (not thinking they have to check out the ANI for what is a local issue that doesn't require administrative attention) and in the future anyone who wants to see how the decision was reached isn't going to find it in the archives because the discussion was at WP:ANI. Instead this discussion should either be at the ObL article (where there are already multiple discussions) or start a discussion at

May 1st (or May 2nd). Note that asking people to keep an eye on the articles here doesn't mean the discussion or where to list the death has to be held here. Nil Einne (talk

) 12:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure in which place it should be had though. I feel like if it is done on the Death page, it's just going to be drowned in all the other discussion sections that are being made there. Silverseren^C 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Now his death is listed on both pages. This is not optimal. :/ Just one of them needs to be chosen. Silverseren^C 09:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue seems to have been resolved once the sources got their facts straight. It was announced in the evening of May 1 in the US, but it had happened in the early morning hours of May 2 in Pakistan. So the answer is, "May 2, local time". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep, but we still need to keep an eye on May 1, since IPs keep trying to add it in. And i've submitted a request for protection of May 2, mainly because a bunch of IPs keep trying to add in Voldemort's death, but also because people keep trying to remove Osama from it. Silverseren^C 18:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Unless the movie came out early, I thought Voldemort's death was scheduled for July 1. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • According to the Harry Potter Wiki, he did die on 2 May; it's been quite a while since the last time I reread the series, so I didn't remember by myself. What do you mean? Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
          • OK, you're talking about the books, I suppose. The final movie is coming out July 1. I'm assuming the bad guy gets killed off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Ah, I didn't realise that. Order of the Phoenix was so far from the book that I became disgusted and haven't seen any of them since. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of your might already remember

I think that he really DID show a LOT that he doesn't want to be civil with Hungarian editors (especially myself) and that he doesn't regard them high either (evidenced by his edit logs: [18], [19] and [20]). He also seems to be a master of the Good hand, bad hand sockpuppetry. -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

193.87.75.82 has been blocked 60 hours for that above remark. Bizovne has been blocked 1 month for harassment and socking. –MuZemike 21:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that there was already a

WP:AE request open about him, where yet stronger measures have been contemplated. Comments welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼

21:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have hatted the discussion on the username as it appears to be a case of misunderstanding. The discussion over the behavior problems alleged before we went on the little side trip can continue below. --Jayron32 00:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Crosstemplejay has been marking almost all his/her edits as minor, when, after checking, many are clearly not minor or even close to being minor. The user was warned by another editor but has persisted. This behavior raises red flags as to "why". The only reason I can see is to hide the content of his edits from other user's watchlists. Safiel (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I accept the mistake, overtime, I had not realized it. My intention has never been to hide my work from others as you can see from my usertalk, I regularly seek help from more experienced editors. I will not repeat this mistake anymore. Thanks for the corrrection Safiel.--→CrossTemple Jay← ^{talk to me} 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ok. I suggest you peruse this policy,
  Wikipedia:Minor edits It provides the guidelines as to when you can and cannot use the minor edits check box. Safiel (talk
  ) 22:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Once again, thanks Safiel.→CrossTemple Jay← ^{talk to me} 23:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

NexCarnifex (talk · contribs) came onto IRC and asked for help dealing with another user, the aforementioned Another n00b (talk · contribs), after he "spammed" Nex's userpage. After a quick look, the edits in question - [22] and [23] - are less spam and more outright vandalism. According to Nex, the vandalism was provoked when Nex added an image to an article ([24]), which he objected to because the image was "obscure creepypasta". From the looks of it there's not been a whole lot of discussion between the two, but it still doesn't justify the vandalism to Nex's userpage. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User has been notified, but on his talk page he admits that he did it "for the lulz", so my warning bells are already starting to move. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This was intended to be humourous, as he persists in uploading this shock image, even though it is not appropriate or notable enough for wikipedia. - Another n00b (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Homorous or not, it's still vandalism. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so adding to a user's userpage is worse than uploading un-useful, junk onto commons?? I object. - Another n00b (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Both appear to be edit-warring on List of Internet phenomena -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not even the "original" image so it has no legitimate use. Tagged for deletion as an unused non-free copyrighted file. Fences&Windows 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rescuing from archive as the original reason I brought this up to AN/I (Another n00b vandalizing another user's page) was not dealt with and there appears to be evidence n00b is refusing to disengage. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 23:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I originally reported it in

User notified. GiantSnowman 02:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and just a quick note about the article involved in this case, and it's complete and utter lack of reliable sources - dare I BEBOLD and remove all unreferenced information? Methinks I'll wait until this other issue is resolved first... GiantSnowman 02:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Beepoppab indefinitely for the attacks and legal threat. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The primary offender is now blocked, although there's still a backlog if anyone's interested. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We've got IPs running rampant for about a half-hour now. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had to remove many paragraphs of text, from 2009, that User:Hookey-rox has copy and pasted from another website, both in articles he has created and edited[32][33][34][35]. He created another article last year (Acton Football Club) which was deleted for being a copyvio and he was informed on this on his talk page. From that point on, at the very least, he knew not to copy text from other website yet, despite continuing to edit, he was happy for all his previous undetected copyvio to remain in his articles. So, do I give this clown another warning or can someone here just get rid of him? Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps invoke

NaSpVe :|

10:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

He's been apprised of this thread, at least.

NaSpVe :|

10:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• 125.162.150.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

An IP address is accusing me of "bad faith"[36] and "harassment" [37]. The IP address has now received 4 warnings [38]. Since the IP appears to be attacking me, I would like another admin to intervene and block if the IP doesn't stop. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what those warnings for edit warring is for. You seem to be doing the same thing? Nymf _hideliho! 11:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the same old story. Jack makes a table sortable on year, which most folks consider an improvement. Gimme removes endashes from date ranges because

MOS:ENDASH on the grounds that hardly anybody uses Safari 4 anymore - it's now on Safari 5, a free update. Gimme then perversely decides that "since the changes that allow sortability to work are repeatedly removed, consensus appears to be that sortability is not desired"[39] and removes the sorting functionality. Jack puts the sorting back, and the cycle begins again. Gimme knows how to make the table sortable for Safari 4 (because I showed him how), but would rather escalate a situation to an edit war than do the fix or update an outdated browser. This combative behaviour really needs to stop: it's perfectly possible to have tables with sorting functionality on date ranges that also comply with MOS. --RexxS (talk

) 11:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's often not as simple as just a "free update" to Safari - for example, Safari 5 for Mac requires OSX 10.5.8 or later, so people who have not bought 10.5 cannot use it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

They can use Safari 4.1. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that - but the suggestion above is that Safari 5 is needed, and I'm pointing out that that is not always an option. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

either undermines the idea the " to " is warranted. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• That IP address is apparently
  Article Rescue Squadron page, where he was making unhelpful comments like this, this, and this. For the most part, the rest of us just ignored him and went on with the discussion. However, when this happened, I filled out an SPI report, found here. I didn't know the situation with Jack or whatever is going on with Arbcom and just thought he was a blocked user evading his block. Apparently, it's more complicated than that. As you can see from the report discussion, Jack was extremely rude and uncivil toward myself and Doc9871. There have also been multiple other incidences that i've noticed of recent hostility and incivity toward others recently. The history of his talk page could show some of that too, since he routinely blanks any warnings or notifications put on the page. Silverseren^C
  11:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack should use his account per his sanctions that are still in place. His many accounts are blocked so shouldn't he have to go to arbcom and figure out how to edit again since he last retired/quit? Some of us can tell it's Jack editing with this IP but there are editors who do not know who this is plus with Jack being rude to some it just complicates things even further. If Jack wants to continue to edit than he needs to get an account unblocked or some other acceptable thing done. Right now it looks like he is socking around a block. Sorry Jack but that's what it looks like. Please go back to the arbitrators and get this sorted out, please. Just my opinion of the situation but this is only going to get worse before it gets better if he continues to use this IP and behave like has been shown. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees all WMF projects including Wikipedia, has declared open editing to be a founding principle. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Irrespective of this issue, that founing principle does not prevent Wikimedia communities from sanctioning, and stopping from editing, users who are disruptive. This does not mean that you, Jack, are so disruptive, just that the "anyone can edit" mantra is not a defense against accusations of shenanigans, which Crohnie appears to be implying. --Jayron32 12:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

But "they" don't stop most disruptive users; they're everywhere, making this project suck, driving away those who actually have a clue. The mob hates that.

@Crohnie; why the fuck should I allow myself to be tied to the Jack account with shite like this out there. The Jack account has been impersonated out there many times. What do you and the WHL coterie do when you spot me? Tie me back to that shite. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that's toxic in the extreme. As Fetch said, the problem with wikipedia is the *participants*. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack I have never been disrepectful to you like you are being right now. The reason is because the arbitrators, as far as I'm aware, haven't released you from using one account, the Jack Merridew account. Remember you withdrew your request to have those sanctions removed? This is the last I remember about this and though there is discussion about allowing you to have socks to play with, the discussion doesn't seem finished or accepted. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you in this thread? (it's a rhetorical question). Because I proved your friend WHL wrong across the board on a lot of issues; it's what's up Doc9871's ass, too, as he said on user talk:diannaa, and which she lit into him for. Look harder, the diff you're needing was already offered to you on Doc's talk. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing you've proven, at least to me is that you can behave poorly to other editors and do as you want and no one cares so neither do I. Yea Jack, you're right and all the rest of us idiots should go away and let you do what you want, so have a good time, I'm out of here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack isn't sanctioned. My understanding is that his main account is blocked because, apparently, it was hacked. He is not personally under sanctions, and is free to edit under a new account or IP address, and may regain his account if he can prove to stewards who he is. However, this edit warring behavior is itself troubling, and should be addressed. --Jayron32 12:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I

scuttled the accounts; they're blocked because I posted the password; sul:locked, too. The password was scrambled again after that. 125.162.150.88 (talk

) 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate comments both from Jack Merridew on the overall situation and from Gimmetoo on RexxS's description above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Gimme's been dogging my edits for a year, surreptitiously reverting at first, but always finding something to take exception to. It's harassment. He creates a hostile editing environment, as do far too many here. He went way over the line trying to ban me from cites last year, and has generally been a prat in all manner of discussions (with RexxS and Rossrs, too). He's unfit to be an editor much less an admin. RexxS is right, as far as he goes. Brad, you and others need to fix the toxic environment; many have left, leaving the field to idiots. Jack 12:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm cross-posting (a redacted version of) Rexx's summary of the technical issue to WP:WPT. Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
No I'm not since Rexx's post make it clear there is a technical fix here. Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Rex's fix is this, which snots-up the wiki-text for a tiny number of users (ma'af).

Some statistics are available here. Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Safari 4.0 usage is well below 1%. Anyway, the Gimme-shite issue is across the board; he's targeted most areas that I've tried to work improving structure. He's not the only one nipping at my heels; doc9871, I/Okip grawp ... the wiki-mob never forgets anything and is always vicious.

Brad, perhaps you could read through Talk:Yvonne Strahovski#Sortable table which is one of the issues Jack is referring to, with RexxS and me. Gimmetoo saw a problem in the sorting in the filmography table at Yvonne Strahovski, but failed to define the problem despite being asked several times, over the course of 2 days. See how long the discussion is. Gimmetoo should have said "The dash causes a sorting problem for editors using Safari 4". Eleven words. Easy to understand. We could then have fast-forwarded through to a solution. Any editor, let alone an admin, should be acting in good enough faith to provide an eleven word sentence to answer a question, instead of creating an atmosphere where other editors had to guess what he was on about, and then be ridiculed for failing to guess. From Gimmetoo's talk page, his question Has it occurred to you yet that "that particular incompatibility" may be something other than what you think it is? (Answer: No) Obviously RexxS had no idea what he meant, and I certainly didn't. And on and on it went with Gimmetoo refusing to give a straight answer. To RexxS's credit, when he finally realized what "the problem" was, he came up with a "fix". Satisfactory, rather than ideal. If Jacks's frustrated and fed up, I don't blame him, and going back to RexxS's comment above, I think RexxS sums it up well. Rossrs (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See [40] RexxS was condescending and insulting, and stated without reserve that everything I had said was "patently untrue". Do you and RexxS admit you were wrong in any way? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that you link to another long chunk of dialogue that you could have nipped in the bud by actually saying what the problem was. Other editors made similar comments there. Both RexxS and I failed to read your mind, but you escalated it and kept it going. I don't know how RexxS would answer your question, but no, I did nothing wrong. I didn't understand what your problem was because you failed to spell it out, but that's your failing, not mine. Rossrs (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)