::You mean there are times on Wikipedia where someone doesn't have grounds to complain about another person's conduct? I've yet to see it. Perhaps if you took the time to review what I've had to deal with, you might understand why I am in the mood I am in. So far, my experience of Wikipedia has been anything but one of collaboration. At various times and by various people, I have been completely ignored, I have been told I am or I do things I provably do not, I have been told provably false things about what Wikipedia's rules supposedly say, and I have had to endure several people telling me all about a subject they clearly know absolutely nothing about, to the point where they are making quite ridiculous claims about how long it would take to write an article to their satisfaction (and obviously, the two of those are linked - people who know nothing about the subject or the media that covers it, aren't likely to have the first clue how long it would take to find and summarise that media, are they?). Apparently though, judging by the fact none of that has attracted any warnings for their conduct, I suppose all of this is completely normal here, and it's just me who is in the wrong for complaining about any of this by referring to people's actual names. So be it I guess. I'm struggling to see how me slowing down is going to change that. It appears to be hard-wired behaviour. I'm afraid that what you may or may not appreciate is that people like Dave are always going to feel insulted when the truth is told - when it's pointed out to them that the facts tell quite a different story about whether or not their claim to be a "bus enthusiast" are remotely true - or when it's pointed out that their claim to have "literally" found no results on Google doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny. Similarly, people like Charles, who are quite clearly only interested in trolling and annoying people, will always act like jerks whenever people follow up their 'reading advice' with questions which expose the fact that their advice appears to be based on nothing contained in the reading material at all. I'm really not sure why any of this needs to actually be raised at an administrator's 'noticeboard' before any notice of it is actually taken. Laziness/disinterest is all I can think of. There certainly seems to be a complete disinterest about the fact articles like NIBS are disappearing from Wikipedia based on absolutely nothing, certainly nothing that subject experts would agree was good reasoning. Still, this is all now being swept under the carpet because of the perfectly normal behaviour on Wikipedia - don't like what the other guy says? Ignore him and he'll go away. If he doesn't go away, complain loudly (and in a completely hypocritical manner in the case of Dave) in the hope someone gets rid of him for you.