Content deleted Content added
78.70.36.35 (talk) |
→Ramazzini again: forgot to sign in |
||
Line 508: | Line 508: | ||
::How am I harassing Verbal about it when I simply ask? He didn't respond, I didn't continue pressing him. "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Outing is when someone else than the person involved is publishing personal info. That is not the case at all here. What [[wp:coi]] also says is this: '''Dealing with suspected conflicted editors: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline.''' That is exactly what I've done. Do not make it look like anything else by quoting irrelevant parts of Wikipedia's policies. It's also side-tracking the real issue I described above. [[User:Immortale|Immortale]] ([[User talk:Immortale|talk]]) 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
::How am I harassing Verbal about it when I simply ask? He didn't respond, I didn't continue pressing him. "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Outing is when someone else than the person involved is publishing personal info. That is not the case at all here. What [[wp:coi]] also says is this: '''Dealing with suspected conflicted editors: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline.''' That is exactly what I've done. Do not make it look like anything else by quoting irrelevant parts of Wikipedia's policies. It's also side-tracking the real issue I described above. [[User:Immortale|Immortale]] ([[User talk:Immortale|talk]]) 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
::: Therefore you should have asked on my user talk, rather than the post I did receive on my user page. I have no COI, I am employed by the EU and I am a theoretician. I have no interest in aspartame except for occasionally consuming it (with no ill effects). Asking an editor for their real name in such a manner is disruptive, especially on an article talk page. [[User:Verbal|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Verbal'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<font color="grey" face="Papyrus">chat</font>]]</small> 17:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
::: Therefore you should have asked on my user talk, rather than the post I did receive on my user page. I have no COI, I am employed by the EU and I am a theoretician. I have no interest in aspartame except for occasionally consuming it (with no ill effects). Asking an editor for their real name in such a manner is disruptive, especially on an article talk page. [[User:Verbal|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Verbal'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<font color="grey" face="Papyrus">chat</font>]]</small> 17:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::I only followed protocol. No where it states that discussion needs to be done on the editor's Talk Page. That's your own private opinion. But there was never a discussion about it in the first place, I simply asked. But it seems you've found yourself a good companion for your pro aspartame editing. Why don't you investigate the false reference I mentioned 10 days ago and repeated above. How long does it take to read a study's results? [[ |
::::I only followed protocol. No where it states that discussion needs to be done on the editor's Talk Page. That's your own private opinion. But there was never a discussion about it in the first place, I simply asked. But it seems you've found yourself a good companion for your pro aspartame editing. Why don't you investigate the false reference I mentioned 10 days ago and repeated above. How long does it take to read a study's results? [[User:Immortale|Immortale]] ([[User talk:Immortale|talk]]) 18:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Opinions vs sources == |
== Opinions vs sources == |