Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles
Earl Doherty
User Salsa Shark, Jtdir and some others in cahoots with them keep reverting to a totally false depiction of the work of Earl Doherty that they authored no matter how many times others attempt to reedit it to make it correct. Why isn't something done about this user abusing rv privileges? The Wikipedia is spreading deliberate lies about Earl Doherty as long as the reign of Salsa Shark and Jtdir continues. Nothing can be done by outsiders. Their privileges need taking away so others can edit-in the truth.
- For the record, Karen Johnson, Tim Starling, Jaknouse, Salsa Shark, Tannin and I all agreed that this article was seriously POV to the point of ludicrousness. A number of reverts took place, with notes being attached urging the original contributor to try to be NPOV in rewriting the article. All we got was personal abuse (see the relevant talk page for details) and blanket reversions. Ed Poor has frozen the article in the NPOV stub form we created (and kept having to return to) to stop the endless reversions to the ludicrously OTT propaganda piece the original author kept trying to install. (It is noteworthy that he has not bothered even to sign his personalised rants on either the talk page or here.) STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:00 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)
- Though he is using an IP number, the name dimadick showed up at one stage so I guess that is who the rude propagandist is.
- Perhaps not; a voice of reason from 212.* just signed themselves "dimadick". -- Salsa Shark 00:09 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)
- I protected the Earl Doherty article, pending resolution of this issue. Please come to talk:Earl Doherty and talk it over. --Uncle Ed 23:54 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)
Ancient Imperial Names
I see Minoa was the focus point of the Empire of Minoa. Everybody else disagrees, but what do they know? Lir 15:57 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)
- I think "Minoa" is not a good term. How about the "Thassalocracy of Minos"? Also, as Toynbee points out, whenever a dominant minority ceases to lead and tries to create a Universal State it arouses opposition, both internal and external, that leads to its breakdown and disintegration. You wouldn't want your hegemony reduced in this way, would you, O Great Empress? --Ed Poor
I will accept the Thassalocracy of Minos. I am quite agreeable to the concept.
Afghanistan
- 65.96.161.106 - changes to US anti-Taliban articles: perhaps not really "vandalism" per se, but not really correct either. Take a look, please. --Ed Poor
- Looks like a genuine contributor to me, by no means a vandal, even though he badly stepped on your feet. I think he's right about merging "Operation Enduring Freedom" into "US Invasion of Afghanistan"; perhaps he could have been gentler. This alert should go to "edit wars". FvdP 17:53 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)
"Semitism"
Stervertigo is currently vandalizing Wikipedia. He has a long history of anti-Semitic taunting. His newest vandalism is the creation of a Jew-bating article he calls "semitism". Be aware that no such thing as Semitism exists. He made this word up. However, as the links in the "Talk" section show, this kind of argument has recently been used by Jew-hating anti-Semites. Please do not allow people to fabricate words and fields of study that do not even exist, and then use these phone entries to butress one's attacks against Jews. Just ban the vandals, please.
- This isn't vandalism, RK. It is a questionable contribution, and one I suspect won't be around in this form for very long. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:06 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
- I disagree with you Stephen, check out his user talk page called 'logical fallacy' where Stevevertigo equates Zionism with racism. His odious POV is seems pretty clear to me. The page RK is referring to also fails the Google test.Lisiate 00:10 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
- No, vandalism would be adding porn pictures, deleting text and replacing it with incoherent nonsense and the like. This may be entirely undefendable according to Wikipedia policies but it is not vandalism. Equating Zionism with racism means little -- plenty of people with leftist politics (myself included) believe that any form of nationalism, and perhaps even the very idea of a nation state, are inherently racist. It does not make him racist, it makes him opposed to the idea that Jews deserve a state for themselves, and his POV does not make his contributions inherently vandalism. This is why talk pages exist. Tokerboy
- I disagree with you Stephen, check out his user talk page called 'logical fallacy' where Stevevertigo equates Zionism with racism. His odious POV is seems pretty clear to me. The page RK is referring to also fails the Google test.Lisiate 00:10 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have complained so much if he only added porn pictures, especially if they were tasteful, and compressed so that we could view them with a narrow-band connections :) RK
- Exactly. Biased contributions, while a problem, are rather different from vandalism. -- Stephen Gilbert
- So is this more of an Edit War? Should someone move this there? Lisiate
- My argument is that one can only have an edit war on actual topics. One can't make up a word, and then totally make up "facts" from scratch, and create an article based solely on Stevertigo's imagination. If that isn't vandalism per se, it surely must be something that is a no-no. The total content of the Semitism article was created solely out of thin air. RK
Jehovah's Witnesses
- This user: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clutch Keeps on vandalizing the entry on Jehovah's Witnesses. He keeps censoring the article, and forbids the rest of us from describing this religion. He appears to be a pro-JW proselytizer, who knows that Christians find his religion to be non-Christians. Therefore, despite the clear consensus of the entire Wikipedia community that has worked on this article, he single-handedly keeps censoring information on this group, to falsely make it appear to be a mainstream Christian denomination. None of us have been able to reason with him. Sometimes he censors words, othertimes whole paragraphs. His goal appears to be to remove NPOV to make Wikipedia safe for proselytizing.
- What Clutch has done is no worse than what you did to predestination. Some of your changes there appear entirely without merit.
- Clutch, like most contributors, responds to kindness and reason. If you disagree with his edits, please explain why in detail, on the talk page for that purpose.
- Do not misuse the vandalism page, or you could be banned for vandalism. Keep it on talk. First and last warning. --Ed Poor 21:56 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
Ed, if misusing the vandalism page was grounds for banning people, many of our contributors would be gone. Try to apply kindness and reason to both sides of an edit war. ;-) -- Stephen Gilbert 02:50 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)
- Hmm, kindness and reason -- where have I heard that before? Sounds like something I might have said myself... --Ed Poor 15:21 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)
History of China, Genocide, New Imperialism ...
User:172 and a number of other users are reverting to-and-fro in History of China.
Similar edit-revert war on Genocide.
Was also the case a few day ago on Pol Pot I will stop editing Genocide I let other wikipedian have their own opinion about NPOV according to User:172 Ericd
Similar edit-revert war on New Imperialism.
Pacifica
The article Pacifica has been used as an over-literal article about a fantasy micronation, in the format of a real country entry. It's Fifth World all over again. The Anome
- See also User:Pacifica and User talk:Pacifica for more on this topic. olivier 19:43 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)