User talk:Ca2james

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Commentary on ANI Initiated by JYTDog[edit]

Hi Ca2james,

I see that you commented on the ANI complaint against me that was filed by JYTDog. Thanks for submitting your opinion. I'd ask that you take the time to look through the actual source material rather than JYTDog's complaint because of cause he will have a biased view and most of his examples were taken out of context. Based on your short commentary, it looked as though you referenced JYTDog's materials but maybe I am mistaken. Here are just a few examples of where I felt his complaint was very off base and I'd appreciate it if you would update your opinion if you even partially agree.

  • He referenced edit warring on several occasions but the reality is I have never actually edit warred despite his accusations. A few occasions I have have reverted another editor's change but never have I reverted anything close to more than 3x in 24 hours (as defined by wiki policy). Formerly98 I know has definitely violated this policy and been reprimanded and I think the same is the case for JYTDog but I am not sure on the latter.
  • He criticized me because I was subject to a sockpuppet investigation along with around a dozen other editors. This was entirely baseless and was closed without any consequences to myself or others. Although I had nothing to do with it, this would obviously create the impression I am a disruptive editor even if it was entirely untrue.
  • Many of his complaints were mistakes I made back in 2011 and 2012 when I was unfamiliar with wikipedia procedures and policies. Unfortunately, I was not assisted by any helpful editors in the early so I had to figure things out by myself over time, but these were mistakes of a frustrated newbie that didn't know up from down.
  • There are plenty of other problems with his accusations and he has been the aggressor in many skirmishes with other editors along with Formerly98. I just ask that you look at things holistically and update your impression once you get a chance to do so.

Thanks Doors22 (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Doors22, and thanks for your message. I did look at your contributions and the article Talk pages before commenting because I believe in doing my own research. While neither Jytdog nor Formerly 98 have behaved perfectly, IMHO the bulk of the disruptive behaviour came from you. You have my sympathies: dealing with side effects is the worst part of taking medication, and getting unknown side effects recognized is difficult. And I also sympathize with editors who come up against MEDRS as I know it's frustrating to meet those requirements. However, your editing behaviour and personal attacks have gone too far. Editing in another topic area and becoming more experienced on Wikipedia can only benefit both you and the encyclopaedia in the long run. Ca2james (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for following up. Let me ask you this question. Two days ago Formerly98 was very aggressive about added the source of a small unrestricted gift from a high-quality meta study which certainly complies MEDRS standards. Literally, the next day he is arguing on Glaxo Smith Kline's article using logic that is completely contrary to he day before. How would you deal with this kind of situation? He writes:
  • "Why would we add the information that the trial was GSK funded except to raise questions about the reliability of its conclusions. Wouldn't that be second guessing the MEDRS compliant sources that took the fact that the trial was GSK funded in forming their conclusions?" -- Diff Source
Let me ask you how it is possible to reach a compromise with an editor that is completely uncompromising. While it may look like a personal attack when I say he is acting deceptively, I don't see how you could interpret his edits any other way. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Doors22 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi again Doors22! Reaching a compromise with another editor starts with communication, the assumption of good faith, and the assumption that a compromise is possible. Trying to interpret the edits myself is the road to conflict; just because I think I know what someone is saying doesn't mean that I'm right so the first step is to clarify what was said. I don't know why Formerly 98 appears to argue the same issue two different ways, so I would have posted something like this: Over at GSK you said to keep the funding mention out of the article and here you're saying to include it. I'm confused; I don't see how these are different situations. Could you please explain your reasoning? Thanks! If I was dissatisfied with the answer, I would have posted over at WT:MED asking for additional views on the subject.
Under no circumstances is it ok to personally attack that editor or to edit-war because those behaviours are against WP policies - and they indicate an unwillingness to compromise. Ca2james (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WP: Edit summaries[edit]

Thought I would just drop you a line to note that I have edited the Help:Edit summary essay to indicate comments should be raised on the Editor's Talk page, rather than the Article's Talk page.DrChrissy (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary is an information page, not a WP:Essay. And I reverted DrChrissy, as seen here. As editors who watch my talk page know, it annoys me when editors bring an article dispute they have regarding me to my talk page instead of to the article talk page. Those matters belong on the article talk pages, so that those watching those talk pages or otherwise visiting them will know about the matters and clearly see that they can weigh in on them. It is also best to document article disputes at the talk pages of the articles so that editors can refer to what matters have been disputed without searching the edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
As I have indicated elsewhere, it does not really bother me strongly where I take a dispute, but at the moment, I can be attacked either way if I raise the issue at the article Talk page or the Editor's Talk page. Surely this situation should not exist. It needs clarification.DrChrissy (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The text should simply state "talk page," like it currently does. It is the editor's decision to address another editor at the user talk page or at the article talk page. In some cases, I go straight to the editor's talk page, but that is usually if I think or know that the editor is an inexperienced Wikipedian and that I can reach the editor quicker/better that way. Otherwise, WP:Pinging the editor at the article talk page if I think or know that the article is not on the editor's WP:Watchlist suffices. Flyer22 (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have tended to do the same as you Flyer22, but when I recently raised the issue of the behaviour of an editor on an article's talk page, I was told in no uncertain terms that such discussion should not be there, but on the "offending" user's talk page. If I remember correctly, I was even threatened with being labelled disruptive if I continued to do this.DrChrissy (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22, article Talk pages are for content discussions whereas discussions regarding editor behaviour go on that editor's Talk page. So, for example, if an editor is at 3RR or is writing uncivil edit summaries or has made an uncivil comment, other editors would bring up those issues on that editor's Talk page and not the article Talk page. Zad68 recently brought up this issue on DrChrissy's Talk page; perhaps he can clarify for you why discussions of editor conduct are properly raised on editor, not article, Talk pages.
That said - DrChrissy, editing long-standing Help pages, policies, guidelines, or even essays can result in your edits being reverted because those pages are the result of long-running consensus. Since your change have been reverted, the appropriate thing to do now is to raise this discussion on that Help Talk page and try to develop consensus for your proposed change. Ca2james (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't speaking of editor misconduct. But if an editor is editing inappropriately at an article (for example, making edits that violate WP:Neutral), yes, that should usually be discussed at the article's talk page. And that's usually the case, unless the editor also needs to be warned at his or her talk page. I've been editing Wikipedia for several years, Ca2james. Rest assured that I know what are the best talk page protocols. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And for an example of what I mean, see this recent discussion; that editor misapplying the WP:Neutral policy at that article is absolutely a discussion for that article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah I see. It wasn't clear to me that you were specifically not referring to editor behaviour, which is why it seemed like you were unfamiliar with WP:TPG. I see it may also have been unclear that DrChrissy was specifically talking only about editor behaviour. So now that we're all talking about the same thing - which is where to comment on editor behaviour, not article content - do you see a way that the Help page could be improved to differentiate between the two? Ca2james (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oldest people[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oldest people. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tensor[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tensor. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


Just a friendly reminder to preview your edits before breaking important noticeboards. :-) Good comments, btw. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops! My apologies, and thank you for fixing those issues DrFleischman. I had previewed but I obviously didn't look closely enough. I'll be more careful in the future. Ca2james (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)