User talk:Mythobeast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{unblock|The IP address 198.152.13.67 is shared by an Avaya site where I work. This block prevents me from making small adjustments during the day. I have no idea who the spammer is who is messing up that IP address, or what articles he/she is adjusting. If the abuse is serious I can edit the page from home, but this is a serious inconvenience to me.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Collateral damage

Request handled by: Pilotguy (roger that) 00:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Mythobeast, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Alcoholism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Mythobeast, I've made a formal request for mediation regarding the alcoholism article. You can vote to agree or disagree with that request here if you're interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Alcoholism

I hope you choose to participate, you're one of the more level headed and informed folks who have made a positive contribution to the article. Cheers! Mr Christopher 16:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alcoholism

Robert, I never know how my written text is going to be translated and it is the contentious atmosphere found on the talk page of the alcoholism article that leads me to want to let you know I am not trying to be difficult with you regarding the definition section. You and I disagree on some of that (as I outlined in my reasons there) but I have respect for you and your opinion and look forward to us working together and getting that article in shape. Mr Christopher 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Got your note on my talk. Cheers! And also I read your latest comments and replied to you on the talk page. Also, when you get a minute would you do the agree or disagree thing there, I am fine with whatever you decide, I'm just waiting for you and a few others to give us their thumbs up or down so to speak. Mr Christopher 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi RR, I took a crack at combining the troublesome sentences in the intro and so far other editors seem agreeable to it. I'm still holding my breath though because I want to hear from you as well. I feel like there is much more positive spirit of cooperation on the page at this point and I'm sure we can all work together to produce a better article. In fact, I'm pretty sure that we could bring it up to Featured Article status. BTW - I also wanted to thank you for making me, as a newcomer to the article, feel welcome there :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color me confused

I may have misread the intent of the vote at Talk:Alcoholism. I hope my comments at least made my intentions clear that:

  1. We can, and probably should, archive some sections of the Talkpage, but it's generally best to keep the discussion at the article rather than move it to a new location.
  2. I strongly support your move to create a new article regarding the controversy. Copy and pasting material from the Alcoholism article and talkpage will be a good way to "seed" the new project.
  3. I'm glad you're taking steps to move the project forward; it seemed to be stalling out somewhat with a debate that could continue ad infinitum. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice work on the article(s); progress feels good, eh? I thought the IP edits were you, it seemed to fit, but could you explain (to a dummy) how you redirected it to your Username? I'd like to do the same for mine since I've forgotten to log in more than once myself :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Doc. I'd respond on your user page, but I seem to be blocked from editing anything except this page at work, will transfer this to your page tonight.

I think that we're in agreement on this, baring some semantics. The objective of the move was to give those interested in that topic a place to discuss the issue and present their findings, where it wouldn't overwhelm the other discussions about alcoholism. Essentially I entirely split off the disease discussion to its new home. Leaving the elements of that discussion on the Alcoholism page would only serve to encourage the discussion to continue on BOTH places, which would not be good for that discussion OR the alcoholism discussions.

This move is equivalent to archiving the discussion, except that we're archiving it to its own topic where it can grow and flurrish (and maybe produce a decent article) instead of archiving it to a little-referenced sub-talk page off of the existing talk page.

We still need to leave reference to that discussion on the alcoholism page for three reasons. The first is that it'll prevent people from continuing to discuss it on the alcoholism page. The second is that we need it as a pointer to the new page. The third is that the topic of alcoholism isn't really complete without it.

Does that make sense?

I've responded on my Talkpage and at Talk:Alcoholism. I was shocked to see an unblock request on your page; based on what I've seen of your contributions I couldn't imagine you getting blocked. The fact that it was "Collateral Damage" explains all :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about splitting Disease Theory of Alcoholism off from Alcoholism: I would have wailed and gnashed my teeth if you hadn't have sent it. I'm new to Alcoholism so I haven't followed the argument but I can see there's been some debate over this topic and hiving it off seems sensible to me. Nunquam Dormio 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forging Ahead

Thanks for your excellent contributions to Alcoholism. I'm pleased to see good progress on the article itself, and not just the talkpage :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Hi...you wrote, "Hi, Doc. I'm still plugging away at the Alcoholism page. I wanted to check with you about merging the Epidemiology section with the Societal Impact section. As you know, I've been gearing the article towards a reader who has to deal with themselves, a friend, or relative who has alcoholism, and not those who have expertise in the field and probably have much better resources and strong opinions. As such, I'm thinking that the broader topic of how alcoholism effects society is secondary to that of how it effects individuals, and would like to move the epidemiology content in with the societal impact content, which exists after the treatment options. I know you had strong feelings about the placement of the epidemiology section, so I thought I'd check with you before doing that. Robert Rapplean 22:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)"

My first thought was that this is fine, but on second thought, merging the epidemiology content with the societal impact content would diminish the medical aspects of this condition. For instance, would we do the same thing for lung cancer or for diabetes? Both have significant societal impact and both also have issues around prevalence and incidence. I think both sections are important and I don't really care if they're merged IF the differences remain distinguished. In terms of how you're gearing the article, I think you're right that some readers are very likely to be people dealing with their own personal issues (or with friends/family). This is very likely to be the majority of the readership - I'll bet the same is true for all diseases (conditions). Drgitlow 20:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

Thanks for writing! I'm going to check out that podcast!--Twintone 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/y/t/User_talk%7EMythobeast_6860.html"