The article Alcoholism, which you nominated as a Good Article, is undergoing review. The article does not seem to meet the requirements for a good article. It has been put on hold for a week; if these issues are addressed satisfactorily within that period the article will be promoted to GA, otherwise it will be failed. Lampman (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to do an indepth review of the article Lampman. I have resolved a couple of issues. Hopefully with a bit more work I can get it up to GA status.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LG, I'll try to help out where I can when I find some of that 'time' stuff ... any bits you find trickier than the rest - with luck they aren't mine too! Lee∴V(talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lee, a helping hand would be much appreciated; a lot of issues to resolve. I understand what you mean about time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok think I'm done breaking up the sentences.. am going on a stag weekend ( ironic eh! - think I'll moderate my drinking! ) so I'll do a more thorough copyed next week. If you do move bits around I'll clean up - and I'm pretty sure there will be more points for GA I'm afraid, but progress is progress :) have a good 'un! Lee∴V(talk • contribs) 00:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have done a great job Lee, much appreciated. Ah, well a couple of drinks might be in order to celebrate alcoholism being a soon to be a GA article, hehe. I hope you enjoy your weekend.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - it was great - no incidents and even paced correctly avoiding hangovers! Stopped by to check in - the alcoholism vs alcohol dependence debate seems to have exploded - I'll have to read to take it in later, want to concentrate on the copy editing and merging sections I've pointed out first. Lee∴V(talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear that you had a great time. :) Did the other guests avoid hangovers? :) Yea I know, it is the dreaded debate of alcoholism versus alcohol dependence combined with mixture of other controversies. I am thinking that it might be better winding the debate up for now as no consensus can be achieved. I am sure the naming of the article dispute will return at a later date, i.e. after the GA assessment has been completed. The last thing I or we need is a major content dispute in the middle of a GA assessment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - and yes ( mostly )! - I'm sorry, I'm good at finding and opening cans of worms - but they all need to be opened at some point! I've had another quick look before my head went pop - this reminds me of the MCOTW on Pain, it was all solved when we managed to split into nociception, pain (philosophy) and left pain to give a good overview of its history, terminology etc. Maybe that is where this conversation is going, and I sort of feel this needs resolving. Whatever the result the efforts on this article won't be lost as we can say move all medical terminology to the resolved article. As you have said the article is getting long - maybe it is because we're trying to cover too much - maybe we do need an overview type article - especially as there seems to be a few different medical types turning up... The GA queue has been dropped drastically so if we find the correct direction we can quickly get the others back in the queue. So in summary resolve this issue and I think the direction and content of several of the subarticles will become clearer... Lee∴V(talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the worms seem to be climbing back into the can now Lee. Seems the debate has fizzled out with no consensus for a page move. I don't think that there can be consensus to have both alcohol dependence and alcoholism as they both are the same thing, well alcohol dependence being the official diagnostic term and alcoholism being an outdated diagnostic term but common name used in society. I think the article is really starting to take shape now and we have lots of eyes on it which is a plus, so it should get through good article assessment without too much bother. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[undent] I'm not sure if we want to put them away yet, it would be good to get to the bottom of the can and put it in the recycling. I'm now leaning towards an overview article - covering common usage and it's breakdown by medical definition, and covering the percieved concept af alcholism as a whole - e.g. from epi section 'total cost of alcohol use in uk...' coers more than alcohol dependence by the look of it - and split/merge the medical article structure we have to the relevant specific conditions. MMy main issue that started this was we need to drop the terms 'alcoholic' and 'alcoholism' as soon as defined in other terms - we shouldn't use monikers for any diseases / characteristics, it's so 20th century! --Lee∴V(talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the articles on alcohol are very substandard and need a lot of work, eg binge drinking, alcoholic dementia are two articles that need a lot of work. I am happy to keep to the 21st centuary and for the terms alcoholic and alcoholism to be dropped once the disease/disorder is defined and explained.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CONGRATULATIONS !!! A fine day to celebrate - I see from your user page that this must be a pretty cool milestone to achieve! :) Lee∴V(talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Leevan. :) Yup, it is a good milestone for me. :) I think that it is a good informative resource for our readers.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
I am wondering if you should rename your article to "Versed (book)" for a couple of reasons. With the title changed to "versed (book)" means people looking for versed book searches are going to get a relevant page. Another reason is versed is a widely known name for a drug and is best served as a redirect to midazolam. I think at some point someone is going to request the move anyway and it is inevitable. As you don't have a registered account, I can perform the page move for you if you like. What do you think?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
adding {{Redirect}} (e.g. {{Redirect|Versed|the Pulitzer Prize-winning book of poetry|Versed (book)}}) to the top of midazolam so people could find the book
The half-dozen existing book links listed here would need updating
Since MOS:MED requires the article to be under its International Nonproprietary Name, going to the trouble to change the existing situation isn't something I would do but feel free to do so if you think it's warranted. 72.244.206.202 (talk) (f.k.a. 72.244.207.85) 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, yea you are probably right that if versed was redirected to midazolam that a link would be needed at the top of the midazolam article to the versed book. I agree that it is not urgent at this time. I shall have a think on it. Keep up the good work and happy editing! :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I'm attempting to correct the issues that the Sinclair Method page was tagged with last month. Since the majority of those issues involve the page being one-sided, it is impossible for the person who wrote most of it (me) to make it less one sided. I wouldn't have written it that way in the first place if I'd thought it was biased.
As such, I'm asking the various people who participated in the review to help me identify which characteristics of the page need to be adjusted. Could you stop in and help? Robert Rapplean (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert, thanks for doing that. I have replied to you on the Sinclair Method talk page. I do not think the article is biased, I wrongly jumped to conclusions about the method. It has sourcing problem, more references to reliable sources are needed I feel.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Testosterone replacement therapy is proven to be a safe and effective anti-diabetic treatment, do not remove citations, please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.32.223 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not expert in diabetes, do not remove citations of scientific articles please. if you read the articles you can understand I say true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.32.223 (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are deleting massive chunks of referenced text and you have a long history on diabetes articles of vandalising, and edit warring and ignoring consensus. You are disruptively vandalising as well as adding a small referenced piece of text which you never got consensus on, which everyone opposed. You have been blocked before for doing this. You need to stop this disruptive editing and civilly and professionally have a conversation with other editors on the relevant article talk pages.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a liar...see the discussion in november, there was the consensus, but some corrupted admins remkove the citations, LIAR!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.116.8.121 (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah but I am not lying, I read over the discussion you reference, you only got a couple of people or a consensus of sorts for including information that metformin could adversely affect testosterone levels. You wanted to go way beyond that and do synthesis and original research; you never got consensus for this nor for your edit warring, personal attacks, mass scale vandalising deletions of content, harassment of individuals. Had you conducted yourself more sensibly you would probably have achieved a small compromise. Sadly you seem completely paranoid that this is drug company conspiracy; when in reality the real reason which you cannot see is that your behaviour have annoyed people so much so that any good faith small compromise has been ruined and the person to blame for is you as it is you who is in control of your actions and behaviour. Now please do not keep posting here, you are starting to irritate me and I really have little interest or knowledge in the subject matter of diabetes and do not have any particular feelings on the outcome of content disputes on those articles. Believe it or not I am and have been trying to help you as well as the community to persuade you to cease your counterproductive hostile disruptive conduct.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm a "he" but don't worry about it. Apparently I write like a girl as many have made the same mistake in the past :)
I've asked TimVickers for more sources. At this point I think it is very obvious that the problem is the editor, not the page. Hillinpa hasn't changed his/her arguments in, at this point, over a year. Nor has s/he indicated any awareness of how the position statements by so many high-profile medical bodies can or should be reconciled with the minimal statements by single proponents (actually, I believe once s/he said that you couldn't trust any of them because they were all funded by the drug companies; see here). I hate single purpose accounts and am idly contemplating a topic ban. What do you think? I very much doubt this will end except in tears. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, I assumed you were female because of your interest and knowledge in hormone replacement therapy, oh and the baking of cookies. :) You could request a topic ban, though it may not pass because there is no serious disruptive editing, apart from long-lasting content dispute. There was a long break of calm there for a while, which is encouraging that things are beginning to settle down. Hopefully the recent comments are not an indicator of a return to times gone by of non-stop arguing; if it goes back to the almost daily or weekly drama then a topic ban might be worth persuing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks for the suggestions. Have I offered my pie crust recipe yet? Also epic. I'll wait a bit, but until Hillinpa drops the whole OR thing, I can't see it being resolved.
Don't worry about the female thing, seriously you are like the third person I actually like who has made the mistake. There's still more that I don't like who just seem to do it to piss me off. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No you have not offered my pie crust recipe yet. :) I think if the drama keeps up I will be advocating for a topic ban with or without you lol. Glad to be one of the ones you like, I think I am one of those editors who people either really like or really don't like, maybe because I am opinionated and don't walk away from content disputes. You have a similar strong will and endurance for these content disputes which is a good quality for wikipedia lol.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
POV pushers hate editors who know the policies, can source, and know when to apply WP:PARITY the most above all others. The worst thing a POV-pusher can ever do is revert and contest a change made by me, because then I use my secret weapon. I've got access to two universities and an extensive, enormous library collection, as well as a very supportive interlibrary loan service.
Much as I'm glad Hillinpa's actions are restricted to tagging rather than editing, it's still time-wasting and encourages others to similarly advocate for OR and idiosyncratic interpretations of the research. And that tag is itself nonsense, not to mention his/her "just read the archives" comment, which doesn't lay out a specific dispute or grounds for discussion. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am good at sourcing but previously was not hot on policies. Being through an arbcom and several content disputes I now know the policies quite well and know how to handle content disputes better. I went through a burn out there which I am recovering from from bad stress of multiple content disputes which were going on at the same time and harassment by sockpuppets. I am very familar with disruptive tagging, soap boxing and so forth but doing little editing and like you say this then draws others into the drama who have minimal or at best modest knowledge of the subject matter.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly there are three new sources about BHRT in the past month or so, one is from a UK and New Zealand doctor pair which, given the European's propensity for nonsynthetic hormones should be interesting. I've got two (PMID 20000171, a lit review, adds little that isn't covered by HHW or Holtorf and cites basically only Holtorf as its primary source on the literature itself, PMID 20337216 which is a case study about a dangerous reaction to implanted estradiol-17B), but the third I'm still waiting on (PMID 20067429 and if you can get it, I would be very grateful - not even an abstract on pubmed yet). That's one negative, one positive and one uncertain but potentially very interesting (an outsider's perspective on the US obsession with BHRT from two countries where bioidenticals are mainstream treatment modules but not seen as either a panacea or risk free). I've tried looking up the authors to request a reprint, but no dice just yet. I've also re-read Cirigliano and am again impressed at how he parses the literature. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, should be useful. Have you tried asking Doc James if he has access or asking on Wiki Med?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's been published yet, but I'll ask. It's Climacteric, I've several articles from them already suggesting they aren't hard to get a hold of, but I'll try it with him. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undent. Got it, added it to the page, quite helpful actually! WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellant! :) I don't see where in the article that you added it?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[1], and [2], but basically two uses in Estrogens and Progesterone, subsection of components and compounding. Also of interest is the refs to Derzko, 2009 throughout. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the additions now, good additions to the article. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you see the irony of the talk page discussion, in light of those particular edits. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just read over the talk page, going around in circle I see. It may be necessary to bring this to admin noticeboard and request some sort of an editing restriction, which reduces circular arguing and WP:SOAP. Things are not settling down.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, given no-one is editing the main page towards a pro-BHRT POV, I'm not too...irritated; also given the potential for mediation, I'm willing to give it a try. As soon as mediation fails, or the main page starts to get edited badly with a strong, inappropriately sourced POV, then I have no reservations. So long as it's restricted to circling the talk page, I'm willing to deal with it. Touch the main page and I have much stronger feelings.
On a positive note, the posts are getting shorter :) WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have lots of patience! Not a bad thing though. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undent. What can I say, I love being right. And I tend to be right a lot on wikipedia. Thanks for your latest comment, I agree 100%. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't underestand the explanation:
cur | prev) 18:56, 26 April 2010 Literaturegeek (talk | contribs) (84,936 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by FoeOfBigC; Paper said "not statistically significant" after controlling for smoking.. (TW)) (undo)
FoeOfBigC (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paper that you cited for the claim said that there was no statistically significant effect of alcohol consumpion on thyroid cancer risk. Your addition to the article said that alcohol reduced the risk of thyroid. The reference did not say that, so I removed it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EEG_cap.jpg
The poster willingly admits in the upload comments that the attribution tag is incorrect. As I state on the (unfortunately lapsed) uploader's user page, I was alerted to this image by another individual who recognized the patient. Unfortunately, I agree: this image appears to be a patient who is known to me who underwent a medical procedure and not a research study. Therefore, the image may both be unfree and, in the United States, in violation of HIPAA. Since all other sources I found online with the image cited wikipedia, I'm really not sure where to go from here. I can't establish that it's not public domain, aside from the uploader's comments, and I can't exactly prove it's the patient in question.
Any help would be appreciated.
Schz (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated it for speedy deletion, if permission to use the file has not been demonstrated by the 4th of May an administrator will delete it. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd like to ask for your input here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie. Recently you commented on Minphie's conduct and we ask if you could come and give feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie as the editor appears not to have taken any heed of the community's feedback on his approach to editing. If you don't remember your exact interactions with Minphie, it is detailed in the RfC/U page. Thankyou for your time, --Figs Might Ply (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a baseless accusation, as evidenced from a review of the article history. I suspect you noticed that, because you deleted it and instead got concerned that I am campaigning to get him banned. For your information, not so much to get him banned as to make him stop soap boxing and insisting on having the right to do so. Steinberger (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck the banned word and added in community sanctioned as you did indeed use the word sanctioned rather than banned on this editors talk page.
Apologies it was not you who wrote that; I never said directly which editor added it initially but can see that other readers may have thought it was you. I have reworded my comments, but why did you not delete these uncited commentaries from this article section? "Little anecdotal evidence supports them beyond the arguments and claims put forth by anti-harm reduction groups themselves." and "Critics furthermore reject harm reduction measures for allegedly trying to establish certain forms of drug use as acceptable in society:".--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LG any interest in being nominated for adminship? We could use some more people with mops around WP:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, well I have always seen adminship as a hardship because of the thankless task they do and getting grief from disatisfied wikipedians. Also I think that it is a bit too soon since the ADHD drama. I will need time to think on this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i dont really know how to do it actually. Ill try to figure it out. The picture was taken by me, of me... so it shouldn't be too hard. thuglasT|C 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps you could help me in locating, sourcing, and re-uploading the picture to the EEG page, as it is a accurate and current image of an eeg in progress... i kind of forget how to use wikipedia thuglasT|C 18:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a picture before and can explain how to upload a picture if you like. The concern of the editor who brought that image to my attention was that they thought that they knew who the patient was. Are you aware if the man in the picture has granted permission for the picture to be made public? I can't help you locate the picture, as it has been deleted from wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am the person! It was not medical, it was experimental. I still have the image on facebook... I was quite fine with the picture, actually i kind of liked it :) I also felt it was helpful as it was a more modern EEG cap (there is one on the page that is modern, but it is in an artistic setting, which is not one of the caps primary uses. Thanks for the help thuglasT|C 05:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. :) If I were you, I would be tempted to just reupload the picture and say that the picture is of yourself and you give permission for your image to be used freely on wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done, thank you for not deleting the photo code, it was much easier to just delete the bracketing thuglasT|C 19:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LG you should send those people offers. Also we need to keep an eye on who is up for adminship so that someone can post a note on WP:MED. The person up is not allowed to "canvas" but I think it is okay for other people to post in areas were that person has done a lot of work. I feel bad for missing User:Mikael Häggström RFA. Usually a keep half an eye on them. Didn't read his page before I sent him the offer. It was a bit of bad timing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent them questions to their talk pages about if they want to become an admin. Yea it should be ok to post on wikimed to notify people. Ah I should have told you about Mikael, it was a short-lived vote, he failed on the answers to questions. Hopefully next time he will pass.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Literaturegeek, you have suggested that there may be some way ahead on edit wars over Safe Injection Site and Harm Reduction pages. I am open to your view of a way ahead.Minphie (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you just did another revert after I warned you a little over 24 hours earlier. You may end up blocked for doing that. The way ahead is to use the talk page and not edit war. Dispute resolution is another option.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LG, I'm just about to step away from the keyboard, so I won't be able to look into this other matter now. If it's urgent you may want to ask another admin. Will Bebacktalk 12:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go offline and don't know when I will get back online again, might be later this evening. I will gather evidence of the situation with Minphie when I get back. Thank you for getting back to me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To address your concerns that I and rakkar/FMP are friends and know each other off-wiki, I want to say no, we are not friends and do not know each other off-wiki. The sometimes collegial tone is fully explained by shared concerns about Minphies behaviour and edits. That might not be flattering and probably supports you in your concerns that we are "tag teaming" and POV warring against him, but it is the truth. ... One other thing, rakkar/FMP indefinite block was a soft one (if the expression is understood) as he did retire rakkar before beginning to use FMP. He is explicitly said to be welcomed back, he only have to choose what account to use and is even allowed to make a new. So calling him a sockpuppeteer that have gamed the system is a stretch to me. ... Personally, I think it is curious that you can't see the problems with Minphies non-consensus seeking behaviour or his edits, seeing him as a victim of a unjust and bad faithed conspiracy. Judging from that, I suspect that you have not penetrated his verbose, uncivil and self-righteous remarks. ... I only want to have this said, getting it out of my system so I can focus on other matters and leave this behind. And to have this said to, I also think that the RFC against Minphie should be closed down, but for other reasons (mainly that it have stalled and thus will fail the purpose to modify his behaviour anyhow). Fare well. Steinberger (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well check user confirmed him as a sockpuppet. It is ok to retire an account and chose another one, correct. What rakkar did was edit war on that account, then got a new account and then used it to edit war with, presumably to avoid getting blocked; you helped edit war as well. Then Figs might ply sockpuppet filed an RfC on Minphie, hypocritically accusing him of trying to GAME the system and a range of other faults. Another sleeper account had also been created for who knows what purpose. If you can't see the problem with rakkar's behaviour I don't know what else I can say.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not do what he did, so sure. It was problematic, but no way near as problematic as Minphies behaviour in my view. Steinberger (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:
The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
"Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
"Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
"Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
"Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory(u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was struck by your comment at the Doctors' Mess: "I have been working on binge drinking for the past week or so ...", and I hope you're recovering well :D Seriously, I'm not a medic, but I can help with another pair of eyes. I've just done a nit-picky copyedit of Definition (I always leave the lead until last). If your happy with my butchery, I can do the same for the other sections over the next few days as time allows. If I'm getting in your way, just tell me to lay off – I won't be offended. Just a couple of points that really belong on the article talk page (but it's late here and I'll forget otherwise): (i) CAS says "consuming [drinks] in about 2 hours", and I couldn't see the "one hour" used in the article in the sources I was able to look at; (ii) Is 'nondrinker' commonly used in the US? My instinct is for 'non-drinker', but that may be Brit reluctance to make new words. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took a break from wikipedia for a couple of days to recover. :) You are welcome to "take a stab" at the article and "butcher" it a bit. You did a good job on the midazolam article. I am not sure, which sentence you are referring to but parts of the article I did not write and it could indeed be wrong. Feel welcome to correct anything which is not referenced or you feel is wrong. There may be original research left over that I missed. Definitions do vary a bit from country to country though. I don't know about US spelling but yea non-drinker looks better to me. :) Thanks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note regarding the recent history of BHRT. It's pretty self-explanatory. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, not really worth the effort. I've never been convinced that sockpuppeting was occurring on that particular page, and since no-one is blocked there's not much reason to expect it here. If we start to see tag teaming or similar abuses of the 3RR, maybe. The 'pa accounts may think they'll get a better hearing if they lacked their history of POV-pushing, but since the arguments and sources are similarly problematic, they have the same failings and get the same treatment. I'm most curious if there's a message board somewhere that brought about all this interest. Mostly because I'm curious if I'm mentioned by name.
If you manage to get the ML article alluded to in SBM.org, I'd love a copy! WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I suppose; hopefully if those 3 accounts were sockpuppeteering, they will realise there efforts are in vain after the page protection etc. Google, google google search and see what you can pull up. Have you tried to see if there are any off wiki discussion of you and bioidenticals? I may have a look.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for a bit (before the socks hit the fan) and couldn't find any mention. Possibly more likely to turn up now that the evil admins of wikipedia have stepped in and protected The Wrong VersionTM. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LG! I just spotted a merge proposal with no discussion so started it - Talk:Standard_drink#Merging_unit_of_alcohol tying in all the units into one article might be more comprehensible and get a better global picture ... what do you reckon? Lee∴V(talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Lee, I have replied on the article talk page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll consider creating an account for myself, since I seem to edit once in a while.
I'd like to ask: I've seen that many of edits get deleted because those are not proven, yet the encyclopedia has a lot of information without any kind of a proof. Why is this? What could I do to ensure my edits wouldn't be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.148.222.65 (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that RexxS has dealt with your questions. :) I agree with what RexxS said.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Literaturegeek. You have new messages at Tomcloyd's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ahem, everything I post is already referenced, in the references already available at the bottom of the page. I'm not adding new information from any source that isn't already cited, I am just adding relevant passages from the already-cited and referenced research that other "editors" have cited that they either felt were irrelevant, or left out in order to support their own biased viewpoint, which seems extremely prevalent around here, in spite of the official "neutral point of view" policy (fallacy?), in order to correct outright misinformation (e.g. "opioid withdrawal is not life threatening") to adding pertinent details and clarifications to another "editor's" interpretation - interpretation at best, not representation - of the research (e.g. "alcohol withdrawal has a 5-15% mortality rate when treated," changed to "ethanol withdrawal when progressed to delirium tremens has a 5-15% mortality rate with the best modern medical treatment, including benzodiazepine protocols" (Hell, and those were my two latest reverted edits, remembered nearly verbatim). The information that I add is already contained within the reference material cited in the bibliography, it was just left out by "editors" for one reason (lack of insight) or another (biased point of view). All I do is read the references again, in the order they are referenced, and add back in to the article all pertinent information from the research so the articles more accurately reflect what the research actually says, instead of some "editor's" interpretation of it: contrary to the popular Wikipedian sentiment, science is not subject to post-modernist ethics, and the literature is not subject to deconstructionism, and has no place for "points of view," "debates," "opinions," or "aesthetics." Thus it follows that everything I state, every word I write, is already cited with complete references, well beyond what most other editors give. As I said, there seems to be a group of people on here who view writing an encyclopedia as an alternate, free version of some sort of "knowledge-based MMORPG," complete with levels and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.176.190 (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you post is not already referenced, for example; [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] are all original research with no reference being expanded upon or corrected upon. Although I did notice a couple of instances when you did reference your content, for example; [10], [11], [12] With regard to this edit to the delerium tremens article, which you claim is clarifying on what the source say, your addition of content is not in the citation, with regard to what you said about opiates, thus it appears you are misrepresenting what references say at least in some cases. Specifically this content appeared to be original research which was why I reverted the edit to the delerium tremens article.
If you mix original research with a sentence which was not original research and do not use an edit summary, editors are going to assume the whole edit is likely to be original research and will revert all of it rather than part of it. I am not an administrator.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wwoods. Yes I agree that it should be merged and redirected. I have done so. Thank you for bringing this to me attention.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, looks much better. Good job.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for your work on this :). I am certain that my view of editing here is necessarily both limited and skewed, and very much appreciate your perspective in working that page into a guideline the whole community can use. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realise until today that it was you who had done the most work for this guideline. It is very good and well written. I think the remaining issues should be easy to iron out. I think they are largely down to controversial scientific articles where one side is worried about pseudoscience and misuse of inappropriate sources to promote dubious or fringe claims but then the other side being worried about controversial scientific articles promoting a singular "truth. I think some good common sense, review of how guidelines for medical articles and baring in mind the policies FRINGE, DUE WEIGHT and NPOV should bring about a sensible and acceptable consensus for everyone. We are almost there--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your supporting comments regarding adding links to the eMC website over at the pharmacology page. I feel these links would be a useful addition to all wiki pages that mention brand or generic medicines. As you mentioned, the SPC and PILs are regulated by the MHRA and this website provides a comprehensive archive of documents that are updated regulary. I have also mentioned eMC Medicine Guides whihc would be a useful resource for patients. How do you think i can take this further e.g. adding relevant links to the eMC from medicine wiki pages? Any advice would be appreciated. (Ozybolairy (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
A user has commented on your position here [13] stating "some external editors progressively changed their position as they received more information". Wondering if you could clarify your position at the RfC [14] Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I am too late, I see that the Arb Enforcement has been concluded.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Literaturegeek!
I'm translating your article "Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome" to Spanish, actually this is my first formal contribution to Wikipedia. I think you have done a wonderful job with this article, and when i got realize the huge lack of serious information in Spanish, I decided to start from here to try to generate awareness about this issue in Spanish speaking countries. I want to know if you can give me any advise to try to find references in Spanish and ask you about a (apparent?) contradiction:
With a slow gradual withdrawal program the success rate is between 88 - 100 percent.
The success rate of a slow withdrawal schedule is approximately 65%.
Hi N.francisco. Yes I noticed there was a translation into Spanish of the benzodiazepine withdrawal article. Thank you for doing that. I asked a couple of people if they were interested in translating the benzo articles into French and Dutch but alas they were not interested. :-( It is a big job, nobody (except you) is interested in helping. Are you intending to translate the other benzodiazepine articles into Spanish, or just the withdrawal one?
Oh, hmmmm, as I do not speak spanish I don't know where to point you to do literature searches. You could try posting on these projects, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology and asking the editors there if they know of spanish medical search engines or other useful Spanish resources. I would imagine that someone there would know of a spanish medical search engine.
What about Spanish government healthcare sites, like regulatory bodies? Many, non-english peer reviewed papers have their abstracts translated into english anyway and indexed in English medical search engines such as Pubmed. With regard to the contradiction, this is just two different papers coming to two different/varying conclusions. Perhaps one study withdrew people slower, or added in support, or the doctors or psychologists were "better" or the patient selection group was different and that explains the differing success rates? I would need to read the papers to figure out the difference. I have fixed the contradiction, see article history. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer! Right now my plan is to finish the translation of this article, meanwhile I'm looking for references in Spanish. After I finished, I'm willing to go on with translations but I don't know how much time I'm going to have to dedicate to this. The “benzodiazepine” article in Spanish is a mix of the following articles in English:
List of benzodiazepines,
Benzodiazepine overdose,
Benzodiazepine dependence,
Benzodiazepine drug misuse,
Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome,
Long-term effects of benzodiazepines,
I'll try to create sub-articles and put some order in it.
I'm also interested in improving the article about “Alcoholism” and “Alcohol withdrawal syndrome” in Spanish, they are really poor.
--N.francisco (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. Are there any Projects or noticeboards where you can ask for help for volunteers to translate? Ah, very good, I did a lot of work to those alcohol articles, infact I actually started the alcohol withdrawal syndrome article. Alcoholism is classed as a GA (Good article) on the English encyclopedia, so if you translate it, you should easily be able to get it promoted to Good Article on the Spanish wikipedia. Keep me updated on your progress and feel free to ask me for any help you need. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again,
Could you help me with this sentence?
Titrating reduction speed against withdrawal symptoms with a flexibility during the withdrawal phase is the most effective way of reducing the intensity and duration of withdrawal symptoms.
What is the meaning of “Titrating reduction speed”? From what I know about benzos, I think it is something like “dose reduction speed”. The meaning of titration I found is not a dose, but a type of laboratory test.
I'm planning to ask for help after this article (There are Projects where you can do this). I want to do this one by myself, because I'm learning a lot about how Wikipedia works.--N.francisco (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means, like adjusting the speed or size of dose reductions like slowing down if withdrawal symptoms become too severe. I have altered the sentence slightly.[15] See if this helps. You could add the British National Formulary as a source for that sentence (but not the sentences that follow) if you want a better source, they say something similar. The only way to learn is to get stuck in. I found working on featured article candidates and good articles the biggest learning experience on how to develop good quality content. I hope that this helps.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's more discussion going on, this time about whether/how to incorporate sources which address the underlying/specific claims made by Ernst. It'd be good to have you check the sourcing and presentation in Talk:Chiropractic#Proposed_edits_to_Safety. Thanks! Ocaasi (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I know you're reading of the situations you comment on is "on the surface" and that you are misinformed or have been misinformed at the same time I thank you for your efforts to be congenial and assume you are acting honestly and in good faith.(olive (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)([reply]
I am not convinced that I have been misinformed. Thank you for assuming good faith.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should make an official ArbCom statement[edit]
I've noticed that you have made several posts regarding the CC ArbCom case. I would like to alert you to the fact that ArbCom has indicated that they will pay more attention to the posts in the Statements section than the Discussion section. As such, your posts may end up being missed by ArbCom or not given the attention that they deserve. I recommend that, in addition to your posts in the Discussion section, you consolidate your more important points into a single post and add that to the Statements section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. At the one and only ArbCom I was involved in I told ArbCom that they would not see me again or words to that effect. I have purposely avoided submitting any evidence for this reason but also because I was not involved in any CC related disputes or editing. I only became involved in requesting ArbCom take the case because I followed it and saw that it was one giant battle ground. I will not submit any evidence against any editors (as I do not want to get involved in the dispute or battlefield) but I am happy to point out any mistakes ArbCom is making. Anyway, to get to the point I am not comfortable submitting an official statement and need time to think about it as it is crossing the line too far and going back on my word to ArbCom. It is also very late and I need to go to sleep soon. :) You are welcome to take my statement and rehash it in your own statement to ArbCom if you like with regard to Mark Nutley and wiki link to my conversation. If you could also wiki link to this talk page discussion to explain to ArbCom why you are rehashing my statement and also to show that I have no problem with you doing so.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are largely on the same page re Mark - he is a genuinely nice guy, and means well, but does make mistakes. I think the proposed sanctions are harsh, but they needed a victim, and he was handy.
Regarding alcohol - I don't have a clue whether you are in favor of or opposed to binge drinking :), I just took a quick glance at recent contributions to pick a subject to make a point. I didn't make it effectively, but it isn't important enough to drag it out at the PD page, so I'll mention it here, then drop it. You thought Mark should have known better than to off-wiki-canvass. My simple point is that this is a Wikipedia rule we learn, but it isn't obvious form first principles, so I think it is quite understandable that any new editor might think asking for help was acceptable.--SPhilbrickT 00:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I felt it was a bit off to say the least and it was quite easy to show the evidence presented was flawed or weak with regard to the proposed site and topic ban proposals. I still cannot agree fully with you with regard to off-wiki canvassing as he did try to recruit by his own words to get around 3rr so he knew he was doing wrong but he has admitted it was wrong and it appears to be a one off incident when he was fairly new to wikipedia so on its own it warrants an admonishment at best. The other evidence really is just clutching at straws in my view.
With regard to binge drinking, I am not the morality police so if people decide to go out and get tipsy or blind drunk that is their decision, I have done it many times myself in my younger days. I know it can be recreationally enjoyable and pleasurable but on the other hand it can lead to very anti-social behaviour, vandalism, fighting, health problems and so forth, moreso than some illegal recreational drugs. I suppose people want the articles to talk about the "benefits" (presumably pleasurable or harmlessness) of getting drunk at the weekends, well they need to find a reliable source which talks positively about alcohol abuse, no reliable sources talk about binge drinking in positive terms so I have got a bit of drama for that, when it is not my "fault" but it is the literature's "fault". :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case you're wondering why I trimmed your signature, it's because the telephone I'm using to edit has a very limited text buffer and trimming unnecessary material increases the space available for substance. Using a large signature clutters the talk page and it serves no useful purpose. Yours isn't a particularly large signature but it was at the time the signature in the way. I don't mind you restoring it but bear in mind that at some point our dialog will end for purely technical reasons exacerbated by the amount of clutter. Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes I was wondering. Thank you for explaining. I did not know that this could cause a problem. Do you use a telephone regularly for the internet or wikipedia to be more specific?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you weighed in briefly at Chiropractic and there is now a mediation. You're not named as an involved party, but since the majority of participants tend to take one side of the argument, I thought you might want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-23/ChiropracticOcaasi (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I do not have the time to get involved in this content dispute. I don't mind passing the occasional comment on talk page or RfC if invited to do so on content related issues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you withdrawn your defence of me? My question section has been moved and i no longer see your comments. Naturally you have the right to remove it :), but i was wondering if it had been lost in the shuffle over there? Thanks mark nutley (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that someone has moved it to archive 2. My issue was the evidence presented, did not demonstrate the claims made by ArbCom. One of the things that I did request was that ArbCom provide stronger evidence to justify their ruling on you and their proposal to ban you. ArbCom have cited your block log and other restrictions on editing; additionally they have cited that of the 8 edit wars which resulted in page protection during the ArbCom case, 7 of these you were involved in; I was not aware of these when I posted my defense of you. Being involved in 7 out of 8 of these edit wars is the stronger evidence that I had requested, so unfortunately there is little that I can say.
I am however, still worried that editors who have behaved worse than you are not even mentioned on the proposed decision page, but perhaps this is due to not enough evidence against them being cited on the evidence page and I also still have concerns that giving you a full topic ban and another editor only a topic ban of article content but not talk pages is an unfair decision; these parts of my postings on the proposed decision discussion page still remain in effect from my perspective.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, one thing, one of those edit wars was to keep a BLP violation out. It was a bad block and should not have happened. The others i`ll have to look at as i am fairly sure i have not edit warred that much. Thanks again mark nutley (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Litgeek, I am puzzled because in Australia where I live this is spelled "barbituArates". Can you shed any light on this? Melba1 (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Melba1. I just did a google search on google australia and selected the option to list pages located in Australia or Ozzy domains and it seems to is spelt barbiturate. What makes you think that it is spelt differently in Australia?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to leave you a note saying that your calming influence on the arbcom talk page is appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome Viriditas. As I am not involved and avoiding becoming involved I am able to comment calmly despite my own beliefs, of which we all have beliefs, on this subject matter. I just hope that ArbCom bring about proposals where calm can be restored.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
second block for a ccopyvio was done by an admin who edited the article and was potentially involved[edit]
Looks like excuse-making. Vsmith had made some spelling corrections, that is all. Did you actually check his (two) edits? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at this one. The "two edits" were not linked in his block message. What is the other diff or am I looking at the wrong one? Why would I be making excuses for Mark? I saw what looked like hounding and bad blocks so I spoke up.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to changing my mind if you can point out where I went wrong.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean. The diff you've given is by MN. The edits by Vsmith are [16] and [17]. Also, I think your "the copyvio is disputed" isn't really right. MN disputes it, because he will never back down about anything. And a couple of the other "skeptic side" editors - FG and AQFK, if I recall - stepped up to defend him; but they always will. I'd urge you to look at the actual texts and judge the copyvio for yourself. I left them on the article talk apge William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I looked at the wrong edit diff initially, I should have checked the article talk page, I was looking for the diff for the copy violation by Mark. It wasn't a clear copy and paste, it didn't look deliberate so I do still think the block was too harsh a measure and may be part of the general hostile feelings among editors on these articles. I have struck parts of my comment and updated it. I also agree that the admin is not WP:INVOLVED--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For context, it would have been harsh for an editor without past problems for copyvios. It might have been harsh for an editor with past problems whose response had been "sorry, I will try harder in the future". But between the history and the response, I don't really think it was harsh. Yes, I'm not unbiased. Yes, of course there are always alternatives. But I think the block was within the envelope of "appropriate" responses. Guettarda (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC) (And don't worry, I don't need to be right, and I won't pester you with this further. Guettarda (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Yes but he was fairly new, only being on the encyclopedia for 4 months when he got the copyvio block. What concerned me was Mark created an article having nothing to do with climate change and several climate change editors soon arrive on it and it turns into a battleground with him being blocked for what looked for a goodfaithed mistake of summarising a source too closely to the source. If he had copied and pasted that would be bad faith but this was good faith with evidence of hounding. Mark was not in the wrong.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way you are correct about one thing, I have noticed that Mark Nutley does sometimes refuse to acknowledge his mistakes and wrong doings which only serves to escalate the drama and fuel the battlefield. I have noticed his problematic behaviour and due to evidence brought to light I do not oppose his proposed topic ban from CC articles, per this discussion above.User_talk:Literaturegeek#Quick_question Anyhow, enjoyed the discussion, no hard feelings, have a nice weekend.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "created an article having nothing to do with climate change", that isn't entirely true. I don't remember the details, but I'm sure I'm not the only person who looked through all MN's edits when the whole copyvio issue came up. But the connection to this article begins with Carbon Dreams (which is a climate change article of a sort), runs though Susan M. Gaines and goes from there to Echoes of Life. Guettarda (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, that makes sense now why climate change editors ended up on the article. I interpreted the situation that Mark had moved away from climate change articles but was being followed by climate change editors to other topic areas and thought he was being harassed. I still do think that the blocks were not warranted. Thank you for clarifying the situation.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say thanks for revising your comments in the light of re-interpreted evidence. An all to uncommon reaction around here! Best, William M. Connolley (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ask yourself why WMC is at that article? From the moment i created it all he has done is give me grief on it. His first post being Errm well, it is a book. But is it a notable book? His first edit was to revert my removal of a notability tag, even though on the article talk page it was pointed out that the book was clearly notable [18] His second edit was to remove over half the reception section [19] His third edit was the same as i had reverted him [20] his forth edit was to remove yet more content [21] his fifth edit was yep you guessed removing content [22] and again [23] and then we are onto the latest fiasco [24] is it any wonder i reverted him? All he does on that article is remove content and his sole purpose for doing so? Well i think the answer is obvious mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would have been better posted on the proposed decision talk page but anyway. I have asked myself these questions and I know the answer, this is part of the battleground atmosphere and hostilities. Likely many editors in a battleground atmosphere monitor each other contributions. I have never said that WMC is not involved in battleground atmosphere, he is battling you but you are battling back. The article is still loosely affiliated with climate change in that the author has written a book on climate change. The other thing was that you appeared to respond to hostilities in kind by refusing to acknowledge any mistake on your part. This fueled the dispute. You should have said, yes my summary was too close to the source, I did not do it intentionally, I will fix it, please WP:AGF etc but you didn't. If you had done that you could then take the moral high ground and complain about other editors. You didn't so I must say that all 3 people, yourself, WMC and the blocking admin were at fault. Now we could argue that so and so is twice as bad as so and so editor in this situation but that would just be more battleground and disruption and almost endless back and forth bickering. I initially interpreted the situation as people trying to say you are disruptive outside of climate change articles, i.e. trying to hound you off the encyclopedia or get a site ban etc, so I came to your defense for that reason, not realising all of the facts properly.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What book on climate change? Carbon Dreams? That is a work of fiction, but your right i do tend to fight back, i suppose it`s the irish in me :) but i do personally feel that WMC is attacking this article for no reason other than to get to me, call me paranoid if you will, but there is no other reason for his going there that i can see I suspect my best course of action is to just ignore him, although i have tried that and it did`nt work either :) Thanks anyway and sorry if you got grief over this mark nutley (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, I won't call you paranoid. I stand by the fact that you do contribute constructively to the encyclopedia but I can't defend your actions which are also battleground unfortunately. Ignoring can be disruptive as well BTW. I already explained above how you should have responded. No need to apologise for grief, I brought on the grief myself by not looking into the dispute in greater detail initially.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say not to feel bad for having trouble understanding some of this stuff and the different names being used for one side or the other. It's exhausting just trying to figure out the little things never mind the bigger things like should so and so be under remedy 3 which I have to admit I'm having trouble with understanding how everyone fits under the same kind of umbrella like this. There are editors who misused sources and editors who have edit warred yet some who are shown to edit war were actually just reverting socks and then some were just arguing on talk pages but all are under Remedy 3. Hard to make this understandable for myself yet, but I'm trying to understand. Be well and good luck with understanding things too, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chronie, it is like walking on egg shells trying to not upset people's feelings; it is sad that it is such a polarised topic area for the community. ArbCom are using remedy 3 probably because it is simple and avoids them having to get into the "he is worse than she" and "she is worse than he" and then he and she arguing that they are wrong because X and Y mean that, they are worse than them blah blah. :) Yes it is putting everyone under the same umbrella, but it is not the same umbrella as some people will have say 6 months down the line their remedies lifted whereas others will have remedy 3 changed to a less restrictive one and others remedy 3 will stay in effect based on how they behave in other topic areas and how productive they are in other topic areas. Remedy 3 broad topic ban is basically just a first attempt to restore calm in the area, so anyone who has been repeatedly disruptive will fall under remedy 3. I actually think that ArbCom has little choice but to do it this way even though it will upset some people but any remedies or lack of them are going to upset people.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Literaturegeek, in response to KillerChihuahua's concern about the increase in length, I've tightened parts of the wording a bit. Does it look okay? --JN466 11:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a related discussion at Awickert's talk page. --JN466 02:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
