User talk:Shot info

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Warnings

[1]

[edit] It's weird

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]

[edit] 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)

[edit] Aust Barnstar

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

[edit] Civility

Hi. You said at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2: ""civil" is almost always in the eye of the offended, not the policy." I disagree. Would you be open to discussing this point? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, not because I don't wish to discuss, but often I find that such discussions only fossilise our already established positions. However in saying that, the things that different editors find that they are offended over, and pull WP:CIVIL out is amazing. You can see on JzG's RFC who and what get's offended about things that people just shouldn't be offended over. However given that WP is evolving into this oddball social experiment where the #1 policy is not offending people, I suppose it makes sense. A better place to discuss, rather than my talkpage, is here. Thanks --Shot info (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mercury poisoning

Thanks for catching that howler in Mercury poisoning. I made this change which I hope fixes the immediate problem. The article still needs organizational work but one patch at a time. Eubulides (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem Shot info (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)