User talk:Giftiger wunsch: Difference between revisions

This editor is a Grand Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain.

If you left a message and it's no longer here, it's probably in one of my talk archives.

Template:UAA/doc

Hello, Giftiger. I've noticed that you reverted my edit at Template:UAA/doc. The reason that I attempted to transclude the editnotice at the top of the UAA page is so that it could conserve wikicoding as well as save time. You see, this would allow one page to be updated in concurrence with the other, and alleviates the frustation of having to jump back and forth between the two whenever one of them is changed. Could you please clarify your edit as well in more detail? I'm afraid I didn't understand it much. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you were trying to do, and I think you may be confusing the response template with the UAA guidelines. You replaced the documentation for the former with a transclusion of the latter. The template documentation explains how to use the UAA responses, such as Wait until the user edits. and Not a blatant violation of the username policy.; the UAA header, showing the guidelines for posting to UAA, is irrelevant to this page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps some of the documentation (especially the table) could be alternately transcluded onto the editnotice page instead? Either way, it would ease some of the work associated with it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not at all following your reasoning; there's no link between the edit notice for UAA and the UAA response template documentation. None whatsoever. The documentation for the template is to help UAA regulars use the response template, the edit notice at UAA is to inform users of which reports to bring to UAA and where to bring other reports. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, look, both of them exist to help whoever uses the template on the UAA page to comment with the specific params involved, right? You can see that they both contain this wikitable:

Result	Shorthand	Longhand
Wait until the user edits.	:{{UAA|wt}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|wait}} ~~~~
Being discussed with the user.	:{{UAA|d}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|disc}} ~~~~
drfcn	:{{UAA|dr}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|drfcn}} ~~~~
rfcu	:{{UAA|cu}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|rfcu}} ~~~~
Keep monitoring the user, until their username is more clear.	:{{UAA|m}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|mon}} ~~~~
spam	N/A	:{{UAA|spam}} ~~~~
aiv	:{{UAA|v}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|aiv}} ~~~~
ani	:{{UAA|a}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|ani}} ~~~~
rpp	:{{UAA|r}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|rpp}} ~~~~
ssp	:{{UAA|sp}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|ssp}} ~~~~
Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard.	:{{UAA|ci}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|coi}} ~~~~
Not a blatant violation of the username policy.	:{{UAA|not}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|notexist}} ~~~~
notb	:{{UAA|b}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|notb}} ~~~~
nb talk	:{{UAA|t}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|talk}} ~~~~
Stale: This account has not been used in the last 2–3 weeks.	:{{UAA|e}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|stale}} ~~~~
Comment:	:{{UAA|c}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|com}} ~~~~
Note:	:{{UAA|n}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|note}} ~~~~
Question:	:{{UAA|q}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|question}} ~~~~
merge	:{{UAA|me}} ~~~~	:{{UAA|merge}} ~~~~

but each time a param on one of the pages is updated, the other would have to be updated as well. So I suggest that we contain the entire table into a single page that would automatically update both pages at the same time. Can you see the problem? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed (I recall seeing it before, but forgot it was there) that the documentation table is collapsed and included in the edit notice. I see what you were trying to do now; I'll fix it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the table alone to a seperate page at Template:UAA/doc/table so that it may be seperately transcluded into both Template:UAA/doc and Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention; the latter is protected, but I've added a protected edit request to the talk page and that should be done shortly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cineworld

Hello.

Can you stick a caption on pic no.2 along the lines of 'The cinema was rebranded as Cineworld in 2005' or somesuch? Perhaps even swap the pics, as the image in the top pic shows it as a UGC? I would do it but lack the technical expertise. I tried to do it, but f*cked it up. Thanks. --78.101.62.79 (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers buddy. Teamwork. That article is never going to win any prizes but how much better is it now? --213.130.122.198 (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

I have a query there about your {{editprotected}} request when you have a moment, but there's no rush. Happy new year, mate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've replied; thanks, and a happy new year to you too. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

UAA

Hey Gifitiger, happy new year, mate. You might have just noticed that I blocked Iiic 2006 (talk · contribs) and I just wanted to explain the rationale for my decision. Basically, I know that some admins do (or have in the past) decline UAA reports where the username is an organisation's initials, but I find it quite a stretch of the imagination that they would pluck those four letters in that order out of thin air and then, equally randomly, create an article on an organisation that happened to have those initials. It may seem inconsistent with my decision on Schdirector01 (talk · contribs), but the addition of "director" to that username clearly indicated that the account belongs to the director of SCH, an individual, rather than SCH the organisation. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah as I mentioned in one of my comments on the report, this seems to be an area where some admins block and some don't; really I think the username policy needs some alterations and some fresh consensus to decide how certain types of reports should be dealt with. I believe the rationale for those who don't block usernames like Iiic is that since it's an acronym which the company doesn't use for itself, no one is likely to know what it stands for by looking at the username, so the username itself isn't promotional; it may be that the user represents the company however, which would be a violation regardless. The fact that they're spamming the company certainly makes that more likely, anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if they edited an article on bananas, we'd probably have no idea what "Iiic" stood for, so I wouldn't block for that, but they made it quite clear what it stood for. I suppose the policy could use some improvement, but I think the usernames that really need to be blocked are and those that aren't a violation of anything are dismissed. I think there'll always be a grey area in between where there'll be (hopefully amicable) disagreement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect so; I've noticed a few times that reports have been marked as non-vios and removed from UAA, and later picked up by User:Cirt and blocked; since that sort of block is at the discretion of an admin I've left it to Cirt to decide, but I think the issue of some admins blocking and some dismissing the same sort of report means that we do need to have a bit of renewed discussion on the username policy to try to make its enforcement a little more consistent. As you say, there's quite a large grey area on many usernames; perhaps RFCN should be used more often. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Quoting eight words of a poem as part of a conversation does not constitute copyright violation (particularly not when the poem is from 1854 and the copyright has lapsed). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It was not eight words, from what I could see it was 6 entire lines, except that the user had made a series of grammatical mistakes in its reproduction. It was certainly close enough to constitute unattributed reproduction of the work. I wasn't aware that the copyright had expired however; the fact that the content was found on the internet and was not declared to be public domain or have a license compatible with wikipedia's is enough to assume that it's a copyright violation until proven otherwise. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it is longer than eight words (I missed the other lines in the diff somehow). In the future you should consider doing a bit of cursory research into the copyright status of a passage of text before deciding to censor it (it took me less than 60 seconds to determine the poem's public domain status). If it sounds "old" it's probably out of copyright, and you will almost certainly be able to verify that with some easy Googling. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A poem is a poem, I can't judge the age of it by reading a passage; if material is found on a website without it being declared as being public domain or licensed as CC-BY-SA or similar, we have to assume its reproduction would be a copyright violation unless shown not to be the case. In any case the usual presumption would be that the author retains copyright, and the work would have to be at least 80 years old for this copyright to have expired; apparently that is the case so your revert was valid, but with copyright issues it's best to err on the side of caution. In any case the material's been determined to be public domain and reinstated, so problem solved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so against the idea of doing quick searches in the future to prevent mistakes? You don't need to err on the side of anything if you consult the vast database at your fingertips and apply a little common sense before editing other people's comments. If it only takes seconds to check then you really are obliged to do so before slapping a big copyvio notice on somebody's innocent message. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I did the required research. Once finding the poem on a website which declares itself to be copyrighted, I rightly redacted what appeared to be a blatant copyright violation. The fact that you found material contradicting the first website doesn't mean I was incorrect to remove it based on the information I found on the link I provided. As I said, we err on the side of caution. You should also have provided your source demonstrating that it's public domain when reverting it, but let's not go into that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP adding non-commercial cats

Hi Wunsch, Would you happen to know any other edits the IP made today, that were either false or bad otherwise, apart from the one you shown on ANI? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm? I think you've got the wrong person; User:Moxy filed the report, I merely informed the user of the discussion. I was made aware of the IP due to a report filed on AIV, and had a quick look: I didn't see anything I could classify as vandalism, though it did seem an unusually large-scale addition of categories; it's possible that every one of these channels really are advert-free, however, and that it was all done in good faith. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure (at all). I'll see what I can find, but I might have made a bit off a mess here. I'll ask the AIV reporting editor. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages

Is quoting the title of a Commonweal article a BLP violation? I don't think so. In any case, it's just your opinion, which is why I added "purported". If you don't want people changing your text then don't change theirs.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You didn't quote the title, you made a contentious claim about a living person which wasn't supported by the source; BLP violations aren't allowed anywhere, including talk pages. And if you continue to modify my comments without cause, I'll be taking your behaviour to ANI. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not supported by the source?

• In conversation, Ms. Geller habitually refers to herself as a “racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot” — all one word in her pronunciation — which hints at her sense of humor and her evident frustration at her public persona. [1]

Please stop edit warring over my talk page entry. Your injection makes the text unreadable and there's no reason why "..." would not suffice, even if there were a BLP violation, which I contend there was not.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The quote you just provided directly contradicts the claim you made on the talk page which I removed, and yet you contend that it was not a BLP violation? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Pedophilia

First thank you for pointing out that it Should not be in mainspace But you should go READ Pedophilia before suggesting that the article be merged with it. By claiming that Having a preference for sexual partner that are prepubescent is the SAME THING as acting on thous preferences and brakes the law to sexually abuse a child. you are Violating neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia. and an edit that sole effect if to violate a wikipedia policy IS vandalism of a Wikipida page. The words "pedophile" and "pedophilia" are sometimes used informally to describe an adult's sexual interest or attraction to pubescent or post-pubescent teenagers and to other situations that do not fit within the clinical definitions. The terms "hebephilia" or "ephebophilia" may be more accurate in these cases.[2][40] This was especially seen in the case of Mark Foley during the congressional page incident. Most of the media labeled Foley a pedophile, which led David Tuller of Slate magazine to state that Foley was not a pedophile but rather an ephebophile.[114] Another erroneous but unfortunately common usage of "pedophilia" is to refer to the actus reus itself (that is, interchangeably with "sexual abuse")[2][20][21][22] rather than the medical meaning, which is a preference for that age group on the part of the older individual.[23][24] Even more problematic are situations where the terms are misused to refer to relationships where the younger person is an adult of legal age, but is either perceived socially as being too young in comparison to their older partner, or the older partner occupies a position of authority over them.[115][116] Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided.[23][40]

• The term pedophile is commonly used to describe all child sexual abuse offenders, including those who do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards, which is seen as problematic by researchers,[23][27] as most distinguish between child molesters and pedophiles.[3][27][28][44] A perpetrator of child sexual abuse is commonly assumed to be and referred to as a pedophile;

• In law enforcement circles, the term "pedophile" is sometimes used in a broad manner to encompass a person who commits one or more sexually-based crimes that relate to legally underage victims. These crimes may include child sexual abuse, statutory rape, offenses involving child pornography, child grooming, stalking, and indecent exposure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigStripyKitty (talk • contribs)

  I'm not interested enough in the subject of paedophilia to go over the finer points of what it is, but note that I am not making any claims about what paedophilia is; I'm simply stating that it is synonymous with pedophilia: it's simply an alternative spelling. If you feel that pedophilia does not adequately cover the topic, feel free to edit that article; but there's no sense in having a paedophilia article as well as a pedophilia one. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

moving pics

Please move the pics into the correct place (not under the babel). Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking me to do? Which pictures, where are they now exactly, and what do you want them? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That weasel and this broomstick should be in the correct place (left after the text or right after the text) in this paragraph. If you will edit there, you will see what I meant.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You may need to fiddle with it a bit to align the columns as you want them, but I otherwise I think my edit just now has done it? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant that the weasel should be right between the babel and the list:

Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I messed it up a bit the first time, I hadn't noticed that one of the pictures had been in the same box as one of the lists etc., I think I've made it how you wanted it now? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That's better than I wanted to have :). Now I have more space to the right and can edit more articles. Thank you again!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please withdraw from User talk:Giacomo Returned

Collapsing hypocrisy

If you are not capable of making a non templated warning on a long standing editors talkpage[2], then it be best to leave it to someone who can - lest your actions be considered as inflaming the situation. Giacomo/Giano is fully aware of policy and the consequences of violating them, as his history clearly indicates. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Well for starters, if you came to my talk page with a message beginning in "If you are not capable" and expected anything other than an equally hostile response, apparently you're wasting your time. I chose to use a template, and a perfectly valid template, I may add, due to the result the last time I warned Giacomo without using such a template. Finally, in case you hadn't notice, I have already withdrawn from the talk page. Take your snide comments elsewhere. Thank you for your note. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC) I also suggest you withdraw the accusation that I am a troll. Take a good long look at my long history of constructive contributions and then reconsider how you choose to treat your fellow editors. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Templating regulars

We have an essay entitled Don't template the regulars, that I would have hoped that you were familiar with. Although the essay carries no other authority than that of common sense and courtesy to others, I'm sure you would agree with the point it makes that a very long term editor like Giano doesn't need a template to explain 3RR to him. The polite thing to do is to write a personal note explaining your concerns, particularly when it is obvious that the editor is already aware of the policies. Templates have a place in helping new editors to understand our policies, but are rarely helpful for established editors – and may do no more than exacerbate an issue. I hope you'll consider this advice in the spirit in which it is intended. Regards --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the essay and have explained why I chose to use the template regardless in the thread above. The last time I issued a (handwritten) reminder to Giacomo that he was at 3 reverts there was a lot of unpleasantness in reply, so I chose to expend as little of my energy as possible this time. I'm well aware that Giacomo is familiar with policy, and I'm also sure that no matter how I phrase the warning, he will continue to ignore it as it suits him in future. Thank you for the polite note, however, your message is received and already understood. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and I understand your reluctance to expend energy on a fruitless task. I'm grateful you've taken the time to respond so politely to me. Regards --RexxS (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Joint (cannabis)

Perhaps the list of alternative herbs was overlong, certainly however based on a perception of which are most frequently used.

A search over a year ago, and also earlier today, has provided little help in locating an approvable reference-- which may reflect on the lack of courage among academic researchers, especially those employed by institutions which receive tobacco money.

I propose that hops (Humulus lupulus), lobelia and peppermint be mentioned.

In lieu of a guideline at WP I would invoke the 2008 fundraising slogan, "Help Wikimedia change the world!" If ill-advised combination of tobacco with cannabis accounted for a twentieth of the cigarette addictions worldwide, that would eventually add up to 270,000 deaths a year (based on WHO estimate, February 7, 2008). If the article mentions mixing with tobacco at all, that leaves an implied endorsement unless alternatives are mentioned.

I'll wait for a response...

Cheers,Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. Bedeutet "giftiger Wunsch" den Wunsch, eine Zigarette zu rauchen?

Unfortunately wikipedia isn't here to change the world by persuading people to stop smoking tobacco. See what wikipedia is not. What wikipedia is, however, is an encyclopaedia: we collect information already published in reliable sources and present an encyclopaedic description of the subjects of our articles. Articles are not instructional or advisory, per WP:NOTHOWTO, and adding suggestions of herbs which may be used in place of tobacco is problematic both because of WP:NOTHOWTO and the fact that we cannot accept original research. Instead, you could mention herbs with which cannabis is often smoked to replace tobacco; but the information needs to be verifiable in reliable sources. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your question regarding my name, that's not specifically what I had in mind but that's one interpretation; it's meant to describe something which you wish for and then wish you hadn't received. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Himara revolt

Hi, just saw your tagging of the Himara revolt article. There's now also a related ANI thread about the user in question. I've commented there to the effect that I believe the account should be treated as legitimate. Just for your consideration. (Not taking admin action myself here.) Cheers, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; a request was made to delete the article at IRC so I tagged it as G5 but pointed out that it may have been a good-faith attempt rather than block evasion since the user's account was blocked as being compromised, so Fox created the thread to reflect both of our concerns. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In the past user CrazyMartini was bitten by a specific user who also misinformed a number of administrators from irc. Fortunately CrazyMartini was unblocked when things settled. I have suspicions that this 'request' was made by the same user from irc as part of his wp:gaming the system strategy.Alexikoua (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no attempt to misinform users in IRC that I could see (at least not this time), and in any case the situation is the same regardless of how it came to the attention of ANI. Feel free to comment about this on the ANI discussion if you haven't already. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi,

Sorry about messing up the helpme category. I'm confused how I was breaking the canvassing rules though - seems to me all those articles are relevant? 86.178.52.148 (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Placing excessive messages about discussions is a violation of WP:CANVAS; the way you're placing them, a large number of users may be influenced by them. In addition, talk pages are only for discussing how to improve the article, not for general talk or to point out discussions elsewhere. I've undone a few of your edits, but if you could help to revert these "adverts" you've been placing that'd be helpful. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, ok will do so - how do you recommend I draw people's attention to the matter though? I looked at the history and basically only a few people cared last time and that so-called consensus is being used as policy... seems to me far better that a lot of people look at it. I did try to write the advert as neutrally as possible and was only placing it on talk pages on subjects related to Derry. 86.178.52.148 (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If people aren't interested, that's just something you'll have to accept I'm afraid. Have a look at WP:STICK. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well some people are clearly interested if it's in a manual of style, right? But they need to know it's an issue. I've only got involved in the first place becuase I tried to edit another article. Otherwise why should I listen to this manual of style? The article isn't even anything to do with Ireland, or hardly! 86.178.52.148 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just placed {{rfctag|policy}} at the top of the discussion, which lists it as a request for comment on a policy issue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, cool, thanks - I'll sit back and see what happens. 86.178.52.148 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Note: this conversation started or continued here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

For the message. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 23:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem; glad you found it useful. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit War Reporting

I was rushing it and realised that I had made a mistake... had it corrected but went to save it and noticed you'd deleted it because of the duplication. I suppose great minds think alike. Anyway, I hope Afterlife is dealt with correctly. --NorthernCounties (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I realised there was 5 minutes between the two reports so you'd probably started it as the other one was being filled out. Afterlife will almost certainly be blocked, a block is a no-brainer for edit-warring on someone's talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

On consensus

About your reversion here: What, exactly, do you think doesn't reflect consensus about these examples? (I'm aware that I didn't seek prior permission, but that's not actually required.)

We currently have users who identify themselves by name and company affiliation: "User:Steve at Apple" seems like a good generic example of that. We currently have users who identify themselves by their interest in a particular product (especially books and movies). "User:I Love My iPod" seems like a good example of that. Do you disagree? Do you think these are not permitted? Do you think it's merely an accident that User:Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK has been held up as a good model, rather than being blocked on sight for disclosing the corporate COI in the username?

We don't, however, permit account names that claim to be a whole corporate department ("Microsoft Marketing Department", tell people to go to a website ("Go to Microsoft.com") , or indicate that the account is used by multiple people ("Group 3 in Ms Smith's class"). Do you disagree? Do you think these are permitted?

I meant these examples to illustrate the existing metes and bounds of the frequently misunderstood policy section. Do you think they are inaccurate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think they're likely to be disputed, given the discussion currently ongoing on the talk page. The examples aren't explicitly supported by the policy as-is, since to some extent there is room for differences in interpretations. It also seems likely that a more thorough discussion of this policy is going to be required in the near future since as it stands at the moment, it may not actually accurately reflect the way usernames are dealt with; though a couple of the examples did seem fairly straight-forward to me, at least one is the sort of username specifically being discussed to determine whether or not it would be a violation ("Steve at Apple") and making changes during this discussion may confuse the issue. I don't necessarily think your edit is incorrect, but I do feel it should be discussed first, especially as it's making a couple of cases explicit, when the current version of the policy isn't quite so specific. I think a supporting section would probably be beneficial to clear up the "(name) at (company)" issue, anyway; maybe an advisory note that such usernames may indeed be a good thing as they openly indicate a COI (as indicated in WP:COI), but bear in mind that if such a user were to advertise for the company named in their username, it would generally be considered a violation since their edits have indicated that the username is intended to be promotional. This is a very fuzzy area of policy, so while I appreciate that your edits were made in good faith, I think it's better to get some firm consensus on the policy.

Sorry for the essay there; the short version is it's somewhat controversial especially as WP:U may be in the process of reform, so it's best to get consensus; it makes it easier to really nail the phrasing and potential integration of such examples into the policy explanation that way, anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You say that you think it "likely to be disputed" (i.e., by hypothetical editors) and that it's possible that the policy might change noticeably (which IMO is unlikely). What I want to know is this: Do you personally think these examples are an incorrect illustration of the current version of the policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see how you can say the disputing editors are hypothetical: the discussion currently taking place on the talk page is directly challenging usernames of the format "(name) at (company)"; it's clearly controversial. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

An accusation of dishonesty counts as a personal slur. A accusation of sock puppetry counts as a personal slur. You withdraw your accusations and I will withdraw my comment. I have decided not to report you for the time being, but you are seriously starting to push my patience with your constant harassment and unwarranted accusations. Warning me rather than discussing the issue like an adult would be considered by some to be absolutely pathetic. Py0alb (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)