User talk:Shot info

Warnings

[1]

It's weird but I have never read any of Dr clarks explanations

that some editors think that Wikipeida is not about an encyclopedia [2], [3]

And some editors need more and more WP:TROUT applied: [4].

Several applications are obviously required... [5]

I'clast harassment

Given that others have made the accusations, I'm going to stay out of I'clast's attempt at a cover for Ilena's ArbCom until such time they (whoever "they" are) go through the appropriate channels (which I have pointed out to Levine and Ilena above). I don't see that there are any issues on my part per se however I am happy to deal with you as a neutral editor should Ilena and/or the others decide to actually substantiate their claims. Until they do that, as I have pointed out previously, "I for one will not bother with a rebuttal." Shot info 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This COI issue with you is only part of a larger picture that involves *many* hostile environment problems for "minorities" in the QW related articles.

Shot, I am quite serious about the COI part with you and, besides a number of recognizable hints, have more or less let it alone for most of 6 weeks, especially after your earlier message to me[6], after I earlier dropped another hint,...nipping at my ankles...(Arthur's, NCAHF talk), do you have a special interest here?--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007.

I give all kinds of people *lots* of chances to rehabilitate their editing, make their points, and get things off their chest, even having reasoned with demonstrable, bannable trolls rather than just pounding them with embarrassing documentation and policies. (I have been lucky, one troll finally embarrassed himself enough to abandon that particular account, and me.)

I encourage you to discuss this matter forthrightly.--I'clast 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'klast, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why you are performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations. If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through (as noted above). I note that you still haven't elected to do this, but brings it up as a smokescreen to defend your POV warriors who you have defended in the past. Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal. Shot info 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The primary value is to help clear the air here and in the future.

The other value of forthright is for you, it should be less painful and less crippling. I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks and I do think COI would be unpleasant, for you. Many people would like my "cooperation". Well, I want theirs. I am sick of suffering in partial silence as a minority when I am being messed with, either COI or trolls, because of a slanted field and I have some capabilities. Now if that means trampling every kind of COI, troll or less literate, that probably means I will be one of the survivors. Even at the brink of a pitched confrontation, I am quite capable of achieving collaboration, I recognize merit. Some very pro-QW editors who know me well, could attest to that. I prefer to miss the confrontation part. In many ways I have tried to recognize your merits. If I thought you had little merit, I would have skipped some dialogue, grace period & hints and just let you have exactly what you are asking for.

I am not blowing smoke, I've been forebearing. There is far more organizational astroturfing and "skeptical" trolling going on all over altmed related topics than is generally recognized (I sometimes know who is who), some that genuinely scare me. I simply am not in a position to trust so many counterparts enough to deal promptly with these problems when I would like (I sometimes have to wait 6+ months to clear up other problems first). Your COI issue is one that I expect to have acknowledgement of, now, even if others' issues have to be redressed later. Ultimately this is all part of clearing the air, one serialized step at a time. In fairness for the current RfArb, it needs to be done now. You-all want *more* help dealing with POV warring? Sure, when the field is a little more level and demining is not needed first.

"Baseless"? Do you feel lucky?--I'clast 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cabal sighting!

Rumors are that the mysterious, secret cabal has once again been caught editing articles. Stay tuned for further developments ;^) --Ronz (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fish

42.  :-) Avb 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

-) Good luck Shot info (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice one

I think you did a great job of pointing Number48 to some basic policies/guidelines he needs to know, and doing so in an civil and approachable way [7].

If you have the time, I've requested something similar for Talk:Steve Hoffman in Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Talk:Steve_Hoffman. While there's some debate if it will really help (User_talk:Jéské_Couriano#Steve_Hoffman), I think it would be useful before anyone tries further dispute resolution with this group of WP:SPAs. No one has really introduced them to the basics, and I think they deserve a chance before the situation is escalated further. --Ronz (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG - I think things are just about there...will have a closer look but I'm thinking that perhaps my comments will be the stick that pricks the hornet's next :-( Shot info (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother if you don't think it will help. The article is protected until May, so there's no rush. --Ronz (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Aust Barnstar

		The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
		for your efforts with Australian articles Gnangarra 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruby Muhammad

I'm not sure if you care or not, but Bart Versieck once again is trying to reinsert original research on the Ruby Muhammad page without discussion. Do you think perhaps it is time for an RFC? 71.42.216.100 (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

jossi

Comments like this[8] aren't helpful; civility questions aside, there's no sense in making enemies of influential people. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not trying to make enemies of anybody, but when one sits on the fence, sometimes it hurts when one falls down. Shot info (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)