Literaturegeek (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
:::::::::::I am personable scuro and I can compromise and I can be diplomatic but if you keep accusing I and others of being liars and playing the victim role then people's patience will run out. I have to be honest and you may not like what I am saying now but if I don't raise these problems with you now and try to resolve them then this will just fester on.--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literature</span><span style="color:red">geek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |<span style="color:orange">''T@1k?''</span>]] 21:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC) |
:::::::::::I am personable scuro and I can compromise and I can be diplomatic but if you keep accusing I and others of being liars and playing the victim role then people's patience will run out. I have to be honest and you may not like what I am saying now but if I don't raise these problems with you now and try to resolve them then this will just fester on.--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literature</span><span style="color:red">geek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |<span style="color:orange">''T@1k?''</span>]] 21:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::No, it's good that you speak your mind as I have done. Better to get it out in the open and then see what we can agree upon and where we need help. I'm not sure what you mean by "envoking Jesus Christ". My apologies if I offended you. --[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 02:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
::::::::::::No, it's good that you speak your mind as I have done. Better to get it out in the open and then see what we can agree upon and where we need help. I'm not sure what you mean by "envoking Jesus Christ". My apologies if I offended you. --[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 02:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::::Well, we both get to experience wikipedian justice now. :-( I understand your frustration here. It irked me to no end that at the initial topic ban proposal that about a half dozen contributors voted yes before I said a word. Looks like votes are coming in too quickly here also. I do want to tell you that I did truly feel that you were sympathetic and wanted to find common ground me. That was appreciated, thank you! :-) If you want to continue with this after the topic ban I'd be willing to do that. :-) I'm sorry if I caused you any stress. I know that you are very passionate about these issues, the world needs more people like you who care. Best wishes, --[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 23:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Proposed deletion of Ecinofloxacin== |
==Proposed deletion of Ecinofloxacin== |
Revision as of 23:00, 20 October 2009
PLEASE DON'T USE MY TALK PAGE TO ARGUE ORIGINAL RESEARCH/PERSONAL OPINIONS. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMETHING IN AN ARTICLE THEN PLEASE USE REFERENCES FOR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ARTICLES ON MY TALK PAGE. MY TALK PAGE IS NOT AN INTERNET FORUM BATTLEGROUND FOR ORIGINAL RESEARCH POVers. IT IS ONLY TO BE USED FOR IMPROVING ARTICLES VIA RELIABLE SOURCES.--Literaturegeek
compromise
The first compromise would be where discussion should take place. I do not want it on my talk page, those orange new message boxes are annoying. Do you want discussion on your talk page, or should we ask for another venue?--scuro (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- On my talk page is fine.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds ok to me, if you are happy enough to do that. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I could do that today. I could sign on and let them know that the article should be nominated as soon as the amendment request is closed. Sound okay?
- I'm a lot more comfortable talking one on one. This sort of conversation is very agreeable to me. Could we keep the conversation closed to others for the time being? You could certainly talk to others on their talk page and I would have no issue with you taking ideas from others. If we make very good progress, then certainly I would see the need for bringing other parties in to try to achieve broad consensus.--scuro (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see that you haven't posted today, hope all is well with you. I'll hold off with signing on until I hear from you, and I know we are on the same page. Nothing would look sillier, and illustrate continued animosity, then for me to post something which displeases you.
- I don't think we are that apart on content. I could see us discussing things like undue weight and generally being on the same page. There might be some things that we disagree upon, and there will be no obvious answer or specific policy to follow. We could pass on those things and simply nail as much down as we can. The bigger issue from my perspective is behaviour. We can tackle content first if that is what you wish.--scuro (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds ok to me, if you are happy enough to do that. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did post about half an hour ago on ofloxacin article, fixing refs. Was about to reply to talk page. It sounds good to me about voting on Med Collab. I am not sure what you mean by keep the conversation closed? I am not intending on dragging people into this conversation if that is what you are concerned about. All is well with me thank you scuro, I hope all is well with you to. I think that we can make progress on content issues for sure but like you say there will probably be some parts where we can't agree on but at least we can start making progress.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I am well also, thanks for asking. I'll give you some context, I've had about 8 sanction processes initiated against me in the last half year. All of them were public with a 1/2 dozen to over a dozen people involved. For me this is a very refreshing to talk about change with one person and I am hopeful. It is unusual for me to have someone listen and consider what I have said, and then respond accordingly to seek the same goal. I'm kindly requesting that we keep it like this and spur anyone who tries to jump in. There has been a cast of characters who seem to be following me around. ;) (later edit - See, look who just popped onto my talk page! [1] ). Perhaps I'm bit jumpy but your reassurance would put me at ease. The focus would be much better and trust would build quicker. It doesn't have to be a binding thing, but would show good faith, much as my voting for Med collab will. Your word is good enough for me. As for voting, should I make it a conditional vote: a yes vote...but asking to wait until the Arb amendment request has been closed? I did say that I could do that today but I really want a direct answer before I vote. Is the conditional language above okay? Finally I like your attitude. I want progress as much as you. Scientology, and those who believe the disorder is not real/overblown, have a place on the main page. Undue weight is the issue, and placement. There can always be internal links so that readers can learn more. I'd even go so far as to help you create new articles if you felt viewpoints are being squelched out, I've written for this viewpoint before.--scuro (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't see it as following you around scuro, people probably have your talk page on their watch list if they have been involved in the ADHD drama and arbcom. I added most of the arbcom people to my watch list but removed some of them after it. I would imagine you and others have checked my contribs from time to time as well especially during ADHD drama or arbcom. I don't think that it is following around. Yes internal links can be useful to resolve undue weight and see also links can be good as well. Ok, sounds good to me, we can resolve the undue weight issues and tone and other issues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am happy to and agree to talk to you one on one. However, I have no right nor powers to stop other editors from engaging in discussions regarding the article and also it would lead to charges of WP:OWN if I or you were to try and block other editors from discussions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have already said yes that that is ok with me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll do that now then. I'm sorry I must of missed your approval that this would be a conditional sign on. Lets word the other point differently. If we are not to use a mediator as I suggested, I would like that we not consider the input of other editors in solving our differences. Does that work for you? Onto business. Can we both agree to the basic tenants of undue weight? Is there anything that needs to be discussed with regards to undue weight?--scuro (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think that it is always better if we can work out problems first before resorting to mediation or arbcom etc. Those options should be second line option or last resort options I think. I can agree to tenants of undue weight. At this present time there is nothing that needs to be discussed about undue weight. Thanks for signing on to Med Collaboration project scuro.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem with signing on. I agree with you about talking about things personally first, it could have solved many problems. It's always better to communicate 1 on 1. I would truly appreciate it if you committed, to solving our current differences alone on your talk page. I won't pester you further about this but I would appreciate that commitment.
Things seem to be moving along without any real roadblocks so far. Lets keep it moving. You wanted to "cut right to the point". One potential roadblock I see is fringe viewpoint. There is majority viewpoint, minority viewpoint, and fringe viewpoint. Fringe viewpoint does not have to be included on an article unless it is noteworthy. Do we agree on the basic tenants of viewpoint? After we have agreement on that we get into sources, where I think there will be some debate.--scuro (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have given the arbcom my opinion that I feel the issues regarding filing the arbcom request from my point of view have been resolved. So basically I am saying to them I think it should be closed and no action taken with regard to allegations of you blocking Wiki Med intervention. Oh on my talk page is fine to talk one on one, I thought that you meant on article talk pages. It is unusual for editors to jump into conversations anyway unless there is some sort of major drama anyway. I am happy with one on one talking to resolve differences on my talk page. Yes I can agree to the fringe view point, at least I am willing to try and hopefully you are to. I think that if it is possible debates should not be very long and drawn out and as stated before we should first focus on what we can agree on before focusing on what we have difficulty agreeing on. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am totally willing to try and I want to keep on trying!!! There are some minor content issues still to talk about but what I would really like to talk about is behaviour. I feel wronged by this arb amendment request and I'll give you my opinion on why I feel this way. The issues presented were done so with false accusations, and bad faith assumptions that painted me in a bad light. As before, this sidetracked us from the real issues and led to animosity. This never had to go arb. and other venues could have been chosen instead. Do you agree with any of these observations?--scuro (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- No I do not agree per evidence submitted to arbcom. People tried to talk to you about Med Collab but you ignored questions or changed subject etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm wondering why this attempt at compromise looks to currently be a low priority? Initially we were making 4 or five entries a day. Now the entries are coming every two or three days. I would prefer to give the arbitrators a solution to these long standing issues, and I would kindly request that a far reaching compromise becomes a top priority.--scuro (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think arbcom was the only option given the circumstances. I have been busy the past couple of days. I am known for sometimes taking a couple of days to reply to messages. I will reply to your messages but I like to try and avoid my talk page or even article talk pages turning into almost instant message boards.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Another option then would be meditation. It appears that we are both earnest in our goal for compromise. Mediation has it's own separate page. From what I hear, it's pretty hands off. While the goal of mediation is compromise, it can be ended at anytime without consequence. Vassyana had originally encouraged us to seek this route.
- Back to the idea if you had to do it all over again. So if another issue were to pop up now you would still first consider another amendment request? Do you not find that these sanction processes have never been conductive in finding common ground between us? Do they not create great animosity?--scuro (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mediation is only meant to be used to resolve serious disputes. I am happy to use it for serious disputes. There is no justification at the present time for mediation. I would prefer to resolve things diplomatically before going to arbcom.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I meant a med cab. That would suit our purposes. Take a look.[2]. And lets also keep the discussion going, "Back to the idea if you had to do it all over again. So if another issue were to pop up now you would still first consider another amendment request? Do you not find that these sanction processes have never been conductive in finding common ground between us? Do they not create great animosity"? What is your opinion here?--scuro (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Scuro you reported Doc james and had him blocked for reverting twice in a week so I really don't view your stance here as fair. It works both ways. I only went to arbcom after talking to you about Wiki Med collab failed, so after diplomacy failed it was time to go to arbcom. You did not give Doc james a chance and requested he was blocked after his first slip up and then tried again to get him blocked again via filing arbcom enforcement request. So your questions that you are directing at me should equally be answered by yourself if not moreso by yourself. This would be my opinion on the situation. I have never used arbcom as a first resort.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would do it differently under the right circumstances. Consider that you folks never bargained or would allow any mediation throughout the topic ban proposal or arbitration. In fact you and others shafted me with a bunch of bogus accusations and assumptions of bad faith, and you are still doing it in the AAR. Having experienced a blanket shunning and unfair castigation, no, at that time I wasn't willing to let a violation of remedy go unnoticed.
- I would let a violation slide under the right circumstances. Are you willing state the things that shouldn't have been done, and make amends if necessary? Do you want to seek true consensus and do things in a collaborative way? When I talk to you one on one there is a personable side to you that I haven't seen on the talk pages. I see no reason why communication can't always be like that. If our goal was the mutual betterment of the article, and we formed a positive relationship...sure I could see doing anything that I did in the past differently. What's your opinion on this?--scuro (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Scuro, this hypocrasy and playing the victim role is not doing you any favours. We reported the truth that you were evading direct questions of why you would not sign up to med collaboration and that you were making comments on med collaboration that ADHD should not be nominated or nomination should be delayed etc etc. We told the truth and provided diffs. It is hypocritical to accuse editors of being bad faithed (for telling the truth with diffs) whilst then accusing us of "lying" and making "false accusations". You know that they are not false accusations as they were backed up with diffs. It is you here who is personalising this discussion, not I. It is you who is accusing people of lying not I or other editors. You have been character assassinating editors to your mentor and even envoking Jesus Christ to convince your mentor that you are the "righteous one", at least that is how it looked to me. I recommend for the good of your relationship with the wikipedia community that you change your behaviour. Your mentor will eventually see through these games I feel. Pleaase stop these games and lets get back to productive discussions and consensus building.
- I am personable scuro and I can compromise and I can be diplomatic but if you keep accusing I and others of being liars and playing the victim role then people's patience will run out. I have to be honest and you may not like what I am saying now but if I don't raise these problems with you now and try to resolve them then this will just fester on.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's good that you speak your mind as I have done. Better to get it out in the open and then see what we can agree upon and where we need help. I'm not sure what you mean by "envoking Jesus Christ". My apologies if I offended you. --scuro (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we both get to experience wikipedian justice now. :-( I understand your frustration here. It irked me to no end that at the initial topic ban proposal that about a half dozen contributors voted yes before I said a word. Looks like votes are coming in too quickly here also. I do want to tell you that I did truly feel that you were sympathetic and wanted to find common ground me. That was appreciated, thank you! :-) If you want to continue with this after the topic ban I'd be willing to do that. :-) I'm sorry if I caused you any stress. I know that you are very passionate about these issues, the world needs more people like you who care. Best wishes, --scuro (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's good that you speak your mind as I have done. Better to get it out in the open and then see what we can agree upon and where we need help. I'm not sure what you mean by "envoking Jesus Christ". My apologies if I offended you. --scuro (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Scuro you reported Doc james and had him blocked for reverting twice in a week so I really don't view your stance here as fair. It works both ways. I only went to arbcom after talking to you about Wiki Med collab failed, so after diplomacy failed it was time to go to arbcom. You did not give Doc james a chance and requested he was blocked after his first slip up and then tried again to get him blocked again via filing arbcom enforcement request. So your questions that you are directing at me should equally be answered by yourself if not moreso by yourself. This would be my opinion on the situation. I have never used arbcom as a first resort.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I meant a med cab. That would suit our purposes. Take a look.[2]. And lets also keep the discussion going, "Back to the idea if you had to do it all over again. So if another issue were to pop up now you would still first consider another amendment request? Do you not find that these sanction processes have never been conductive in finding common ground between us? Do they not create great animosity"? What is your opinion here?--scuro (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mediation is only meant to be used to resolve serious disputes. I am happy to use it for serious disputes. There is no justification at the present time for mediation. I would prefer to resolve things diplomatically before going to arbcom.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Ecinofloxacin
The article Ecinofloxacin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- It is dubious if this drug ever existed, the available sources might have even picked it up a hoax from wikipedia. Even if it does exist it most likely does not reach the threshold for inclusion on wikipedia per WP:N.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet tags
Nope. Do you enjoy being hostile? Mutual monarch (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Please log onto your usual account. I do not communicate with sockpuppets.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I am not a sockpuppet. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Never heard of those people, and I am not involved in whatever disputes you're currently involved in. Feel free to ask someone to check IPs. I don't feel comfortable editing Wikipedia because of this hostility. Mutual monarch (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
New message
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I've responded again on my talk page. Regards, Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding WP:A/R/ADHD
Please see this motion. MBisanz talk 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- About this, I don't think you need to worry about it. Members can, and do, change their initial votes when further information or ideas become available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. :) I do worry though about voting because changing a vote means losing face in some people's eyes but perhaps I am being paranoid. I just feel it is less likely if everyone votes to support before reading evidence then it will be less likely that a majority will change their mind especially with all of the work load they have to do. I have mentioned your name in the arbcom motion and I hope that I have not said anything which you disapprove of, if feel free to "complain" here or on the arbcom motion. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- You need to dramatically shrink your comments, ASAP. You only need to address one issue, which is the statement from Vassyana on 02 October 2009: "In my view, LG and scuro both seem to have personalized this dispute, continued derailing discussions with personal commentary, and persist in exagerrating (if not outright misrepresenting) the comments of the other and other editors."
- Your invocation of the pending RfC/U is an example of the personalization that Vassyana decries. Whether or not Scuro chooses to tell me which statement(s) bother him now, or through an RfC/U about his persistent refusal to make it possible to resolve this dispute by providing the necessary fact, is absolutely unrelated to whether or not you can be a productive contributor to ADHD. Don't talk about Scuro: This has nothing to do with Scuro. Talk about yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I am in the process of shrinking, I initially just added lots of text because arbcom were voting hastily. Yea and her comments are thoroughly unfair with my efforts on this talk page with scuro.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I only mentioned the RfC as a way of saying lets wait until RfC is finished before banning anyone. I don't understand how thiss was personalising? I have however, deleted it. Thanks for your comments. The only reason that I am talking about scuro is because it is arbcom and they are meant to investigate things ya know. I will try to focus less on scuro. I did not personalise to my knowledge outside of arbcom for a long time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because "Look! Scuro's such a bad guy, he's in yet another dispute!" is all about another person. "About another person" = personalizing. The comment makes Scuro look bad and provides zero information directly about yourself. Indirectly, however, ArbCom is going to read such things as: "Look! All I care about is making sure you know how terrible Scuro is!" Any statement against Scuro will convince some of them that you have personalized the dispute, that is, that your primary goal in your (wiki)life is to punish Scuro. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- The reality is that I just want the drama to end, diplomatically preferably, but you are right, it will be read by some arbcom staff that way. Thanks!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Length note
Your statement at Arbcom is currently 894 words long, please redact it to within the 500 word limit as specified on the page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. :) I was planning to do that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)