User talk:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

We have a talk page

I have just noticed that there is a talk page for the W. Kehler page that I put up originally! This may be useful. All the usual talk page conventions should apply here.

The aim of the original page was to open up some stable communication, and to try and resolve some differences. It is normal for there to be some level of dispute between editors. In most cases it can be resolved fairly easily with mutual good will and tolerance. Sometimes it gets more difficult, and there are various ways to manage a dispute. See Resolving disputes. The first step is always to talk; but since W. Kehler uses a dynamic IP cluster, there was no stable location available for addressing disputes that were regularly occurring between W. Kehler and other editors. So I tried to open up this first level of informal friendly communication in my own user space instead.

This talk page is only to explain edits being made in the main communication page. We should not try to repeat the any of the actual argument here. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to the list of issues

The idea of the list of issues was to list neutrally the main issues Mr Kehler was wanting Duae Quartuncae to address. Please don't use the list just to restate the arguments for one side or the other. The rest of the page is for that, and it can start up again when I start giving a response to issues on the list. The idea is to step back for a bit, and try to regain focus, and ensure that Duae Quartuncae does give a reply on the listed points, without presuming what the reply will be.

I have made some changes to the list of issues. (diff applied on 00:29, 4 August 2007.)

There were four points all about the photon relativistic mass. I get it. Mr Kehler want me to explain myself on this issue (again). I will do so. Please leave the list for a simple neutral statement of the issues you want me to address, and leave the actual arguments for other sections of the page.
I have removed five new points that had been added to the list under the heading "MEANINGS HAVE TO BE ERASED IN ALL ARTICLES OF KNOWN SCIENTISTS, e.g.". Have mercy! This was a list of external references to off-site writings by five dissidents. They are Arp, Assis, Ashmore, Burbidge and Marmet. We could add to the list Lerner, Alvfen, Barber, Jenkins, Tresman, Setterfield, Bennett, Gentry, Humphreys, Tifft and a whole pile of others, all with their own particular ideas, and with widely variable levels of professional credibility and standing. I am not going to go into a long analysis of the pros and cons of the writings of a selection of dissident cosmologists. I am planning to address the general issue of fairness on Wikipedia. I will not try to anticipate in advance how I will manage individual cases that might be brought up in the future. I will explain myself with respect to Ashmore; which is already a listed point.
Kehler has added an "exact solutions" issue. I had no idea what this was about as I have had no involvement with that at all. But on following the link, I can see what you are talking about. I will comment on this issue, because you might be surprised at some of what I say, and perhaps it can help. But please have mercy and don't just list out every other dispute with every other editor you have had in wikipedia and ask me to give analysis and commentary on all of them. I have removed a second bullet point on the exact solutions issue that was actually argument for a point. Just list the issue thanks.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand a change made to the bracketed comment at the start of the list of issues. Previously, it read

(This section can be freely edited by any user. It should contain no argument and no presumption as to the answers to issues; please apologize: the editor is no native English.)

Mr Kehler added the last bit, reading "please apologize: the editor is no native English". I don't know who you want to apologize, or for what. The sentence was just asking that this section be kept for questions, rather than for claims or arguments. I'm asking for claims and arguments to be in the other sections, with this section being kept only for questions that you would like me to answer.

I understand you have poor English. Actually, I am impressed with anyone able to communicate in another language, even if not like a native. I'll try to keep my writing simpler. But I cannot see anything in this short bracketed comment where anyone needs to apologize. I have replaced it with the following, which may be a bit clearer:

(This section can be freely edited by any user. The aim is to give a simple list of issues that Duae Quartunciae should answer. Please just list questions where you would like an answer. Your own claims and your own arguments can go in the other sections.)

I'm still here, but working on other things, so I'm not going to do anything on the main page for a while. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]