Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lysdexia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 13:36, Nov 29, 2004), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC).

(Lysdexia | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

User:Lysdexia has been editing on Wikipedia for a few weeks, giving special attention to misspellings, grammar and punctuation errors (real or perceived). This user's edits have frequently focused on the addition of [sic] and other proofreading marks to other users' comments on talk pages, often accompanied by an insulting remark, directed at previous editors, in the edit summary (though, to be fair, these insulting edit summaries seem to have abated). Some of this user's edits, while intended as corrections, introduce new spelling, grammar, or usage errors into articles.

Simple correction of mistakes would be fine; this user appears to be more interested in making those mistakes stand out by adding proofreading commentary throughout. Another common behavior is adding {{disputed}} template tags to articles without any justification or popular support. Requests for justification go unanswered.

Repeated pleas by other users to stop this behavior, particularly the addition of [sic] and other proofreading to talk pages, have met with silence, and a continuation of such edits.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Evidence of disputed behavior

Addition of [sic] to talk pages: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]
Evidence of personal attacks (though, as noted above, these appear to have abated): Earlier edits in the history of Lysdexia's contributions
Addition of {{disputed}} tags to generally undisputed articles without justification: Helpfully notated in edit comments of Lysdexia's contributions

Applicable policies

Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, This user has made many personal attacks questioning the perceived mental capacity of other editors, particularly in edit summaries.
Wikipedia:Talk page, though not an official policy, misrepresenting other users is discouraged.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Requests to stop adding [sic] and so on to articles: [13], [14], and other edits in the history of User talk:Lysdexia

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Wapcaplet 18:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Chinasaur 19:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Iain 20:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Deglr6328 22:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Conceited correction of casual Talk page comments is a habit which is quite off-putting. -- Netoholic @ 22:20, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
I and others mentioned the insulting edit summaries on Lysdexia's talk page. As said elsewhere, these have ceased. I agree with the issues about {{DISPUTED}}, putting [sic] on talk pages, and Lysdexia often not answering. -- Han-Kwang (talk) 11:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure where I'm supposed to sign. I haven't seen the disputed tags and cannot comment on that. But I have seen the insults, even on archived talk pages. And some of Lysdexia's edits or comments aren't even correct. Maurreen 06:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He's[sic] at it again on the talk page for Laser--Deglr6328 22:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Hes also at it agein on this veyr page [15]. -- Netoholic @ 23:57, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
Something has to be done. The user is not responsive to any comments, and persists in his behavior. --Ben Brockert 03:23, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Sanctimonious correction of users' typos is irritating (we're all human here at Wikipedia), and is considered vandalism; personal attacks in edit summaries are unacceptable; lack of response is troubling; persistence in such behavior is trollish. Especially when high-handedly editing the comments of users whose first language is not English and calling them illiterate. I shouldn't have to point out that the preceding fragment is intentional, and it's not anybody's business but mine how I express myself. Respect for other people and their comments is a basic principle of Wikipedia, and inability to adhere to such basic principles will, no doubt, result in exclusion from the project. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 04:46, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Lysdexia made a bizarre series of "corrections" to my talk page (thanks to Ben Brockert for spotting & reverting). The nature of changes was to switch upper case to lower case, and substitute commas for hyphens, in a seemingly random and inconsistent fashion. Very odd. The edit comment bore no relation to the action taken. Pointless, unhelpful and just plan wrong. RFC endorsed. --Tagishsimon (talk)
And still he[sic] persists....[16]--Deglr6328 03:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I used to be like this myself. And I cringe at the memory of it. The disputee's comments below do not help her case at all. Note also the unhelpful, self-gratifying nonsense on [17] -Ashley Pomeroy 10:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I got into a 3RR violation with one of lysdexia's IPs, and we battled back and forth. This user is definitely somebody to be wary of (and I'm aware that my comment is a bit late, but it must still count for something). SpK (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

I've not responded to any of my user talk comments, and must not read any new messages, until I've done reading and editing whatever chunk of Wikipedia I've opened. This is also why I haven't put up a user page. It might be more helpful to leave comments on the article talk pages, but I'm not likely to get to my watchlist to read those either. I usually reply to comments if they're on a Google page I find as I'm looking for references to my work, as I don't have the time to check my messages the normal way. I've made no factual mistakes in my corrections unless they were accidental, like the typo that Wapcaplet cited. Using [sic] is not limited to quotations as it can be used on whatever text the term is meaningful on. As I wrote on my meta talk page, "quietly fixing" them does barely help the people who made the mistakes, or those who stumble onto the pages who can't tell the difference between the right and wrong; I also complained about the admins' abuses on my contributions on meta, but they abused me again by blocking me and reverting my own user talk page, with my points which they did not bother to deal with. There is no rule or law, here or anywhere, against pointing out the mistakes of others, and the only people who would find it rude are those who prefer making such mistakes. What I wrote was the sheer, open truth. There is no justification for disallowing someone to point out the mistakes of others. How I behave is needed to deal with the many mistakes, lies, fabrications, myths, delusions, red tape, obstacles, timewasters, obfuscators, and shysters that stay and run in any large group of people, here and everywhere else in the world. I hold that forbidding personal attacks, if they are true and needed to discourage someone wilfully wrong, hurts and hinders any information source, especially if they're given along with the bare correcting. Many people don't get what they deserve. Reverting a page after someone posts a comment that needed to be said cannot be justified by the admins, yet they do it. I do not offend unless I've been offended, more. You think I might be a troll when I'm sensitive to what people say and do, when others aren't. You think I've made a mistake when it is mankind which made the mistake, and I know better. I am self-important; I can't and mustn't let people be dumb and ignorant and wrong. I can't and mustn't let people do, say, and write however they want or like. There are more important rules than those a few people had thought of. Wikipedia must not encourage carelessness, and indifference about how some caused real problems is. lysdexia 02:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It'll be some time before I check those pages to show that I wasn't incorrect. Why complain about using templates? What's their point otherwise? Ye are complaining about me using Wikipedia? because it was meant to be used, not just read. lysdexia 23:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I never misrepresented anyone and you can't prove it. Fixing someone's wordy mistakes, though, is misrepresenting someone. This is why I try to read the minds of the authors and only insert something if it was really a mistake and not, say, a mistype. lysdexia 23:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixing spelling and grammar in articles is helpful, because those are the public face of Wikipedia. Please, continue to correct mistakes in articles! Such mistakes in talk pages, however, are of vanishingly minimal importance; talk pages are an informal forum for conversation between users, and are frequently edited in haste, with priority being placed on the expression of ideas, rather than the ideal form for that expression. Adding proofreading marks to talk pages does not help anyone. They do not help the original author (how often do authors go back and review all their old talk-page contributions?) and they do not help others who stumble upon the discussion, except to distract them from the communication, albeit informally-crafted, that takes place there. You are perfectly free to continue adding your proofreading marks to talk pages, just as others are perfectly free to revert those changes. When I see the addition of [sic] and the like to talk pages, by you or anyone else, I will revert it. I had hoped you might realize the futility of your efforts, and try to concentrate your talents on more productive activities. You talk of yourself as a campaigner against obstacles and timewasters, but somehow fail to notice that a great many of your activities are, in fact, a waste of time, and serve only to create obstacles between yourself and other contributors. You have managed to refrain from insulting other editors, for which I commend you; if you can also refrain from proofreading talk pages, I think you may become a valuable contributor. -- Wapcaplet 03:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- By the way, editing the user pages of other users could certainly be perceived as a deliberate misrepresentation. You have done this on several occasions ([18] [19]). This is a misrepresentation in that you make it appear, for example, that User:Scooter prefers "US" over "U.S.", and "amok" over "amuck", or that User:Tagishsimon prefers to arbitrarily mix capitalized and lowercase list items. These preferences are yours, not theirs. In both these cases, both forms are correct English, so there is no justification for altering them. -- Wapcaplet 20:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Lysdexia, it took a lot of restraint for me to keep myself from marking up your response with corrections. It is littered with run-on sentences, mismatched subjects and verbs, incorrect capitalization, awkward expressions, and even a misspelled word ("wilfully"). My point, I guess, is that you have no business correcting others, especially on stylistic issues where there is no single correct approach. Please stop making corrections, especially to user pages. I'm posting this to your talk page as well as your RFC. Rhobite 05:35, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I have already thought of everything that ye have, and they needn't be told to me. As such, I expected everyone to reply as one did and furthermore increase my contempt for the sheer and unending ignorance, meddling, and self-trapping of mankind. I already made distinctions between true mistakes and temporary carelessness before marking up. I make plenty of allowance for different expressive or rhetorical writings, as seen by my untouching of uncapitalised lines in some lists, or interjections in the right places. But I do not allow writing that is plainly wrong. Notice that I did not mark the typo Tagishsimon made, yet I marked Deglr6328's gender confusion.

Wapcaplet, you've not given any evidence that my marks help no one. They can only help to bring attention and the note that the language is wrong. You cannot (Hmm, some people ignorant of English might see that as a misspelling with the way writing now goes—I shudder!) ever prove that proofreading is a waste of time. But that's a strawman because I not only proofread but proofwrite. It doesn't matter what background the editor has, and plenty of Americans and some Britons certainly count as illiterates, especially teenagers. Calling them as such is very appropriate to limit their influence, and helps people pay attention to and think about what they write.

The note by Rdsmith4 above and in my email expressed the same basic message, that he is ignorant of what vandalism is and that none of my actions in talk pages or articles constitute vandalism. Not only do talk and user pages not apply—with my actions—to vandalism, being irritating or harassing other users doesn't apply either: Wikipedia:Vandalism. Yet he has acted under his wilful mistake, based on yet another's mistaken words, after very limited involvement in the relevant areas of Wikipedia, by blocking me, so he deserves to be reprimanded. Any change I make that improves Wikipedia that is reverted or removed by another user or admin is vandalism. The users and admins here and on meta who do not understand this simple and universal rule should likewise be reprimanded and removed of their editing and admin privileges until they do.

As said early, I already consider writing preferences before editing. If there was a preference I changed it was because the use was wrong. Although both spellings of amok are used, Scooter intended to spell the word right and mistakenly defended his use by offering the dictionary entry saying that amuck was a variant, as an allusion to being a right use, rather than saying that he meant to use the word because, say, he preferred it over amok. For Tagishsimon, his careless complaining makes it look like I really vandalised his page. If either of ye actually, carefully looked at my change, it was to differentiate names and words, which he was not doing. I also changed the " - " to ", " because it's not a valid clause separator, and is only valid, say, as similar-title separators or for computerised indicing. As for removing dots from the acronym, considering the argument that it's to distinguish a capitalised word from an acronym, I did it because all arguments for keeping the old use fall apart: Now that most computer users accept that typing in all caps is shouting, and that it has fallen away to styled text, an acronym now cannot be mistaken for a word. The letter-dots are meant for abbreviations, where the reader is expected to say out the word past the dot, and the capitals are meant for acronyms, where the reader is expected to say each letter name. There is no use in typing U.S..

Rhobite, keep to yourself and maybe go back to school. You are the kind of person I face every time I take over what is right—being an inimitable, incorrigible, prodigious savant who is taking over the world—someone who thinks I can be taken down using the pitiful, common background of mankind. I know and ken more than ye put together, and I'm likely younger too. Stop accusing me of silly and dumb mistakes when I can point them out in others and more. I made none. A midsentence mark is grammatical, rhetorical, expressive, literary, and historical. Wilfully is the right spelling for a combining form which Americans have since befouled. I used no awkward expressions that did not intend to express awkwardness. The people who've gone up against me are unfit to edit, and have been repeatedly proven wrong. I deserve to take over by virtue of having the resources and abilities.

I'll make another argument to blanket my deeds. An edit cannot be considered vandalism, say, if the main editor of the page gave informed consent of such. Because informed consent includes making edits according to the intended meaning and meaningful intention of the page and its edits, any following edit that falls within these goals is not vandalism. If a plaintiff of vandalism gave noninformed nonconsent of the edit, the report was faulty and the edit was not vandalism. Such was Tagishsimon's. I did not do wrong.

lysdexia 01:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One thing I would like to point out here: why are you simply adding proofreading marks? In articles, it might make more sence to simply correct the errors yourself. And if a persno maeks a tpyo now and then in their conversations on talk pages, why correct them? It's their business, not yours. hfool/Wazzup? 01:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay bro, do what you like. Just be aware that a lot of other contributors here won't agree with your edits, and will change or revert them. -- Wapcaplet 12:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't call me that. And if they can't support their changes, like I can, I'll change them until they're right. lysdexia 00:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I demand apologies from those people here, and on this talk page. lysdexia 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um, no thanks. -- Wapcaplet 12:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please hold your breath while waiting for this to happen.--Deglr6328 22:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Outside views

These are summaries written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

According to Wikipedia:Talk page, "typing errors, grammar, etc are always fair game." Even though talk pages function much differently from articles (where we all agree that a grammar correction is acceptable), this is still a wiki. I don't think I would mind if someone corrected a typo or a grammar error in a comment by me, although I'd wonder whether they had something better to do with their time. I'm curious about what people think of this—people may not realize that Wikipedia allows grammar corrections on talk pages. On the other hand, adding "[sic]" to talk pages is awfully rude. Lysdexia seems to have studied writing and the use of language, so of all people he/she should know that "sic" is mostly used in quotations to indicate that an error has been left intact. We aren't quoting people here, so don't use "sic". It's simply mean-spirited to point out other people's grammatical errors instead of quietly fixing them.

For the earlier stuff: Edit summaries like "learn English", "learn how to punctuate", and "learn the difference between brackets and parentheses" are incredibly rude. Not everyone has lysdexia's command of the English language, and not even lysdexia's nitpicks have been correct 100% of the time, for example changing "viruses" to "viri". [20] Hopefully lysdexia will continue to refrain from making overt insults.

I'm also puzzled by lysdexia's recent behavior, adding {{disputed}} notices to various phonetics pages. I know next to nothing about phonetics but his/her disputes appear to have been quickly dismissed as minor or incorrect. This spelling error he/she introduced is also odd: [21] Clearly people should keep an eye on lysdexia's contributions. Correcting grammar or spelling isn't bad, but it's harmful to add "sic", use insults, and initiate pointless disputes.

I never agreed with the tendency to only have one summary on RFC. Someone else should summarize this dispute in addition to me. Rhobite 04:58, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

I believe this same user caused similar problems on Meta and was blocked at one point, though I haven't checked back to see how/whether things resolved themselves. --Michael Snow 06:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Link: Lysdexia on meta-wiki (no further comments, I already endorsed -- Han-Kwang)

I think that "Lysdexia" is such a clever, clever Wiki-stage-name that you guys should cut him some slack. And, by the way, I found in Merriam-Webster that either "wilful" or "willful" is OK. Carrionluggage 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.