User talk:Bittergrey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome!

Hello, Bittergrey/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 00:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

All up to you now

Time to add references to your article. You should work quickly though as it isn't a long term lock down. --OrbitOne 06:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

KAS et alii

Very breifly: I'm looking it over, and I've roped in someone else to look it over. So for the short term I'd suggest just looking away. In fact, everyone involved should just find something else to do for a day or two. I'm more tortoise than hare, be warned.
brenneman ^{L} 03:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be looking into this dispute during Aaron's (uneventful, I'm sure) absence. Please note my comment on KAS' talk page and feel free to pursue the matter in those terms. I am protecting the article, for now (on her version, simply as it is the latest one). Also: If someone is threatening you, or stalking you and you fear physical harm, contact law enforcement in your area, we are not the police. Regards, El_C 08:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your cool in this matter. If there is a dispute which originates outside of Wikipedia then let's not drag it in here. To the extent possible it's best if we pretned we dont' know anyone here, and simply focus on the editing. Feel free to contact me or another admin to help work through tht problems. -Will Beback 08:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Brevity

I know that I can be uncontrollably prolix at times, but enough is sometime too much. Can you put more links and diffs and less prose? Have a look at this and see how much information is crammed into a small space. In particular, contrast with the bit that evaded refactoring. The more tightly you can present the argument, the more likely you are to be heard.
brenneman ^{L} 09:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to boil it down to the sentence below...BitterGrey 18:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Information

[Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

On being bold

On Impregnation fetish: When I say that I don't have the sources, I mean that I looked for them and couldn't find them. So I can easily call an article OR when I haven't seen the published sources given that I cannot find any published sources.

On everything else: When an article says "some believe, some do" etc that is weasel wording, and wikipedia policy is to remove weasel worded statements. Citing sources is a great way to do this because "Sometimes" turns into "According to."

Maybe you should stop worrying about being cool or whatever half insult you think isn't a personal attack-- and adhere to policy like I do-- the burden of citations goes to the people that want the text to stay, and anyone who thinks text is not clear or in bad style can tag it. The article on paraphilic infantilism is mostly clear, but there isn't any reason why I shouldn't ask that it be improved.Lotusduck 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I and others have invested many hours, many Saturdays at the library, many late nights, many months of our lives into wikipedia in general and the paraphilic infantilism article specifically. Those who have invested in it - by first learning about the topic, and only then contributing text and references - have helped to make it one of the best paraphilia articles on wikipedia. With this investment comes a seasoned understanding of wikipedia in practice. For example, while references are important, not every sentense has to have a reference number at it's end. [1]

There have, of course, been others. Those who just wanted to make changes, neither adding new references nor respecting references already in place. They wanted to claim articles as their own without investing in them. Marking large numbers of articles as unreferenced without first checking their references is such a behavior.

These others have consumed far too much time from those who actually contribute.BitterGrey 02:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Admirer

I just wanted to say that I saw you webpage about infantalism some years ago. It was a voice in the wilderness and very informative. Thanks for your service to the AB and wider community for helping people to understand all the facts and nuances. :) Bongothemonkey 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm honored, and glad that the site helped. Thanks. BitterGrey 01:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Source

Hi, you recently altered some links on the diaper page because of copyright issues. I was just wondering if this website would be an acceptable source. Thanks. Coop41 01:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being mindful of copyrights. A superficial check of that site shows some material that is up on other sites as well (e.g.[2][3]), but no apparent reason to doubt disposablediaper.net as the original source. BitterGrey 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Discipline

I'm sorry if you thought my response to Kelisi's message was defensive, I didn't mean to overeact. I have explained why I took offense on his talk page. I can be rather opinionated at times, and I just felt that his attitute towards Fsecret was unacceptable. Again, I apologise if this was out of line or has caused trouble. Coop41 19:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I implied an overreaction. Given the harsh (and easily offensive) language in Kelisi's post, a defensive reaction wasn't out of line. You do not need to apologize. However, I am trying to pull the conversation toward a common understanding. This mutual understanding (or at least acceptance) is necessary, assuming that none of us are leaving Wikipedia soon.BitterGrey 02:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Notice of mention on Adminstrator's Noticeboard

Please be aware I have opend a thread (asking for review of my actions) that mentions you: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_assessment_of_my_conduct:_warning_someone_when_I.27m_involved_in_a_content_dispute.
brenneman 13:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So to summarize, if I follow the example set by an administrator, I'll be punished? BitterGrey (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to be able to actually work with you on making this article better. Really. And it's been suggested that a more "gently gently" approach would work. So...

• The source from January 2006 was woeful.
  • But you removed the source, and left the material. You can't do that.
  • I'd certainly not use that source now.
  • But there were no other sources at that time.

As nicely as possible, have you actually read any of the guidelines on sourcing? I know I've linked them to you before, so I won't do so again.

• Things you know are not sources
  • Putting bucketloads of unsourced material back in [4] when it's been challnged is not allowed.
  • Using undo for non-vandalism edits is also not acceptable, it leaves no meaningful edit summary.
• The Geocities source is almost literally the worst possible thing you could attempt to use as a source

You do not (having reviewed the history with you I had forgotten) have a great track record of wroking within the guidelines: You've brought personal disputes onto Wikipedia, you've consistantly ignored or misunderstood the core policy, you've focused only on articles that you have strong personal opinions about, you've consistantly re-insetered links to a website you own or moderate.^pending

If you can simply accept that there are quasi-rules, that you need to follow them, and that you and I both want the best article that can exist within those rules, all will be well. I'm happy to attempt to work with you on this.

The alternative is as stated above: A probably topic ban. I don't want this to sound like a threat per se simply as a statement of fact. It's what happens when someone is unable to colour within the lines. In order to avoid this, if you nominate an article totally outside this subject area, we can work on building it up together. This will help you undertand (and internalise) good editing practice in a safe space without any personal issues interfering.

Oh, and please undo your recent undo, or find some sources, ok?

brenneman 02:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The notice was archived to here. To summarize, support for the above admin's actions dissolved when it became clear that he was not acting on good faith. Assuming good faith involves giving users the benefit of the doubt, gathering facts before making accusations, not deleting a user's contribution in article B just because of an open disagreement with him in article A, etc. I do hope that this editor will correct his ways and learn to set a good example, as opposed to merely finding "easier users" to pick on.BitterGrey (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support or retract this accusation now.

"you've consistantly re-insetered links to a website you own or moderate" - Please support or retract this accusation now. I find it extremely difficult to assume good faith when someone with administrational authority is going around making false accusations. BitterGrey (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm to worn out from this already to go dig up diffs from years ago. I'm not perfect. It's possible I'm mistaken so I've redacted based on that possibility with the caveat that I will go look for evidence later, ok? But which bit are you saying is false, that you moderate the website or that you inserted it into articles?

As far as you failing to assume good faith, well no kidding. It's clear that you feel like I'm persectuing you. It's possible that I've added fuel to that fire unintentionally. It's true that I'd rather not be having the same arguements from over two years ago, and that I may be more snippy than I could be.

But FFS, look at my contribution history. Really, look please: Aaron Brenneman (talk · contribs). I cover a wide range of topics, and I routinly slash through bushels and pecks of unsourced material. That's what we are supposed to do. If you're the appeal-to-authority type, Jimbo our GodKing has said that "no information is better than wrong information."

So, c'mon, put down the stick and step away from the horse. Quit attcking the messanger. Because, while you may find this hard to believe, in the spectrum of cranky block-happy admins I'm pretty far to the side of cuddly. If you want a list of guys who will be far harsher than I, I can point them at you if you want. (ahh, that sounded like a threat again, didn't it?)

I'm trying to give you space to edit, to have a good time here, to be a valued contributor. Really.

brenneman 03:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A good time? All the fun has long since left Wikipedia. It was drained by those who thoughtlessly delete the work of others, make accusations they can't support, apply double-standards, and abuse power.

Making the accusations didn't wait. Supporting those accusations shouldn't wait. Support your accusations now.BitterGrey (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You're killing me here. But *shurg* knock yourself out: User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#Recall_request. - brenneman 03:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here says to me that understanding.infantilism.org is owned or moderated by you. Is this not correct? Here you insert as a reference a survey that my understanding continues to be was operated on and from your website. please correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll continue to provide diffs as I find them. - brenneman 03:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that survey was compiled in England. I'm in the states. My survey <original research> is at http://understanding.infantilism.org/surveys/</original research>. You will note that I refer to my survey results on the talk pages, but have NOT inserted it into the articles. I would hope that you looked into references before deleting them, but this appears not to be the case. BitterGrey (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the linked survey had zero attribution, that it wasn't a previous version of "your" survey eluded me totally. Nothing even remotely like a reliable source, of course. Does it occur to you at all that it's easier to talk about stuff than shrieking and waving your arms? You're surely spending a lot of energy here that probably could be better used. - brenneman 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm utterly confused by this edit, happy to have it explained. - brenneman 03:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here you add a link to understanding.infantilism.org. - 03:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please respond to this one, at least? See, it's really easy. You just go, "Yeah, I included a link to my website. Yeah, it's been there for like two years. I see now that that was a mistake." Potentially you'll get some push and shove on how you managed to be au fait with esoteric stuff like cite tags but that it totally eluded you that you shouldn't have your website down there. You might even get some grief about how could you not notice that there was traffic being directed from WP, or asked how much of your total traffic came from here. But then all will be right with the world. We learn, we grow, we move on.

Instead, you create a tremendous amount o' drahma at every turn. You fling invective like crazy, and made "demands" that you are totally not in a position to enforce. Forgive me if I speak for Wikipedia as a whole here, but we like people who are friendly and contructive. Hopefully both, but we'll accept the occasional Phadreil or Gianno. Right now you're neither: Your being really difficult over stuff that's not currently suited for inclusion.

I'm going to go for a walk in the sun and get some perspective on life. Mate, this is just a website. If you're not having fun (as you said above) then why are you here? Because if you're trying to spread a mesage, or right some wrong, or heal from some past hurt, this isn't the place for it.

Talk to you later,

brenneman 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I had responded. It must have gotten lost in an edit conflict. The point was that that link was from the original article that you deleted. I replaced the links in their previous order, although I should have restored all in the same action. That was my second day on wikipedia, three years ago. Now would you like to fully retract your generalization?

This is a website that I and many others have put a lot of work into developing. It is not _just_ a website. It is the work of hundreds, possibly thousands. Work goes into improving articles. A lot of work goes into defending articles from people who couldn't be bothered to check their facts. This exchange puts you in that second category. BitterGrey (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Argument with James Cantor on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality

I don't know what happens when you're in the wrong, but when you're in the right your pugnacious style of argument doesn't serve you very well. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My attempt at civil discussion last week was ignored completely, so I feel justified in this week's aggressive stance. However, that doesn't make it beneficial.BitterGrey (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for responding so positively. Personally, I can get very wound up in some of these discussions. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic

About this story: The story clearly supports my contention that Jokestress and Cantor have an off-wiki feud running. I'm of course aware of this past issue. I also know that Cantor apologized for his past behavior and stopped doing it (something that you apparently didn't know, because you didn't mention it). During the last year or so, Cantor has been unusually scrupulous about announcing the use of any source that he is connected to. By contrast, you'll have a hard time finding similar announcements when Jokestress adds sources by Jokestress' many personal and professional contacts.

I could add several more stories, but I won't waste your time with what my grandmother would have called "idle gossip".

The only reason that I mentioned the feud in my neutrally worded announcement at WT:EL is that the animosity has been so significant in the past that other "innocent bystander" editors have been dismayed when they stumble into the mess. It's like working with explosives: it's not for the faint of heart (or the thin of skin).

For right now, what's important is to get a decision about the original dispute, without worrying about trying to address historical wrongs. Besides: we were all new once, and any editor that has done anything significant has also made mistakes. It would be both kinder and more productive to focus on current problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is one thing that I'm unclear on - why you and James are directing so much attention at Jokestress. The person who first raised questions regarding the external link (at both locations) was me. BitterGrey (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what gives you this impression. That is, I'm not sure what I have done to give you this impression: I know that Jokestress is unhappy about having a policy-savvy person with zero conflicts of interest watching a couple of BLP-related pages where Jokestress once had essentially free rein to promote an anti-research/pro-activist POV. I know that Jokestress presents my involvement at TMWWBQ as the bane of Wikipedia. But I'm not sure why you would believe this, based on the evidence that you've actually seen. For example, my original message at WT:EL mentions no names, and points the readers at a section in which Jokestress' name did not appear. I don't watch Special:Contributions/Jokestress; I don't watch User_talk:Jokestress; I don't even watch WP:GLBT. I actually make a point of avoiding contact whenever I can. This seems the antithesis of "so much attention".

What happened is this: I saw Cantor's note at WP:SEX. I posted a neutrally worded pointer to the discussion at the de facto noticeboard for external links. If you'll take a look at the history of that page, you'll see that I do this moderately often, and that other editors do this as well. No one has ever considered it to be "canvassing" or "bias" or "gaming of the system" in any previous case, and I can't imagine why it would be in this case -- especially since most editors at WT:EL oppose the idea of links to bibliographies (a fact that I didn't actually know, but is not at all surprising to me).

So do you have a complaint beyond my asking for the opinions of uninvolved editors (who, BTW, agreed with you!)? Is "getting support for Jokestress' position" supposed to be proof of my animosity against Jokestress? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I had a bunch of wikipedians willing to game the system trying to single me out, I'd be unhappy too. James's post described the other side only as "Jokestress"[5], and yours as "a couple of the editors on that page appear to have a long-standing, in-real-life personal feud"[6]. (You never did detail whom you were commenting about. Jokestress and yourself, perhaps?). This, in spite of the fact that the first person to raise the issue of the EL at both articles was me[7][8]. Of course, both you and James included glowing presentations of credentials to support your side of the debate, and tried to imply that the EL had only been added to one article. Still, there is something missing - this doesn't make sense. If you two hated Jokestress so much that she was attacked merely for being present for what I started, that would make sense. Or was she singled out because she was thought to be an easier opponent, that would make sense. If there was some plan to try to trick her into doing something so uncivil that the self-promotional links would be restored to teach her a lesson, that would make sense. Otherwise, it doesn't: You two targeted someone else for what I did.BitterGrey (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope: "a couple" refers to James Cantor and Jokestress (whose last name in real life is the same as Cantor's first name, so I've tried to avoid using "James" to refer to either of them). Two = "a couple". I'm sure it was clear enough to them. I'm also sure that naming the feuders is unnecessary for the limited point that I was trying to make, which was simply to warn editors not to expect a pleasant conversation -- which, in part because of your choice to drag up years-old problems, they were treated to a sample anyway.

It's true that Cantor has "glowing credentials" (your words, not mine) in the real world -- or, at least, credentials that are good enough for the "expert" exception in ELNO #11 to apply in evaluating this link. If you read the entire sentence I wrote about his credentials, I think you'll find it clear that this restriction is why I mentioned it (that phrase, "so I have no concerns about complying with WP:ELNO #11", is highly relevant).

I'd like to add that "we two" did nothing: Cantor posted a complaint on a little-watched page. I happened to see it, I thought that the underlying question was a good one, and I posted a less contentious and more neutral summary of the question at a relevant and well-watched noticeboard -- at a page, moreover, that might want to address the general question of whether WP:ELNO should be expanded to specifically reject links to bibliographies.

I didn't first post an opinion because I hadn't made up my mind. For your future reference, there is absolutely no requirement that I join any conversation or that I can't tell someone else about a public conversation without first joining it. In fact, WP:CANVAS says that the burden is the other way around: people responding to an announcement at another page have the duty of announcing how they heard of the conversation.

Your notions of a conspiracy against Jokestress are rather silly. For example: if I wanted to attack Jokestress, why would I point people to your comments at Talk:Paraphilia? (I chose that section, BTW, because you actually explained your concerns; Jokestress' comment only noted that you had left comments above, and because Cantor's note at WP:SEX did a better job of explaining his long-term frustrations than the actual question.)

If this is all some conspiracy, why would I have posted a neutrally worded question? Why would I have left a vague warning (vague enough that you misinterpreted it as being about yourself, although I would hope that you know yourself well enough to know if you're involved in a real-world feud with another editor) about the likelihood of a contentious discussion, instead of providing a full-on smear so they'd know every nasty thing Jokestress did several years ago? I could have done that -- and even provided multiple reliable sources to back up every statement -- but I honestly just don't think that these past issues are relevant to the actual question at hand (which, in case you've forgotten, is whether external links to bibliographies are desirable).

I'd also like to suggest that you try assuming just enough good faith about my actions that you don't automatically take Jokestress' word for my motives as the absolute truth. I think that you'll find remarkably little evidence to support this contention of "gaming the system". It's true that Jokestress has been on the losing end of some questions at (for example) WP:RSN, but (1) I didn't start most of those discussions and (2) the fact that Jokestress doesn't like losing doesn't mean that asking questions on a noticeboard is gaming the system/wikilawyering/anything else.

Finally: if you really think it's wrong to post a neutrally worded question about a current dispute on a relevant noticeboard, then why don't you try explaining that at WP:ANI? I think you'd get laughed off Wikipedia, but if you are really concerned about it, then perhaps you should do something other than trying to invent insulting motives for my actions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a long non-answer. To start with, I wrote 'glowing presentations of credentials to support your side of the debate,' not "glowing credentials." In what I wrote, 'glowing' refers to the presentation, not the credentials. This, ignoring what doesn't agree with your position, is a convenient demonstration of one of my points. Your non-answer includes other convenient demonstrations, but pointing them all out probably won't do much good. It seems your mind is made up. I still don't understand why Jokestress was singled out for something I started, but am not expecting an answer.BitterGrey (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'm at a loss for how a note that did not mention any editor individually, that did not name any editor, and that pointed to a discussion that Jokestress was not involved in, is somehow "singling out" Jokestress. I'll just assume that you've confused my note with Cantor's (which did name Jokestress), and we can leave it there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that you are at 3RR on Paraphilic infantilism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

It would appear that James Cantor, who neglected to sign the above edit[9] cannot add. 3RR comes in to play after more than three actions on the same text. For example, he is now in violation of it with his fourth action on the same text[10][11][12][13].BitterGrey (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

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) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately...

...someone with an axe to grind is reverting some of my contributions out of spite, it seems. [14] Thank you for noticing, and coming to tell me about it, though... I appreciate it! — e. ripley\^talk 14:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. I was wondering how long it would take someone else to notice that User:James Cantor might be James Cantor. User:Slimvirgin seemed to have thought not[15]. I was frankly saddened to see how little care she was showing while making radpid and undiscussed changes. BitterGrey (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as for the template it seemed obvious to me, he gives quite a lot of identifying information on his talk page, including a link to his information at the University of Toronto. I'm not sure about the other accounts that she removed. I really didn't intend for that template to be controversial in any way, it just seemed useful to me. I am sure that she had her reasons for removing those templates at the time that it occurred. At any rate, I can't speak for SlimVirgin of course but from what I have seen, her interest lies in protecting Wikipedia, so my impression is that she is erring on the side of caution. As for removing information from the article that may be questionable, when it comes to BLPs this is the proper thing to do in every case; our BLP policy is clearly in support of this idea above almost all else. But, remember that Wikipedia's a long-term project and so these sorts of things will eventually be sorted out. It's not the end of the world if some information that could be controversial or damaging gets pulled out of a BLP for further discussion and consensus-building. Wikipedia has become a high-profile project with the potential for far-reaching impacts on peoples' lives, and so we as editors have a responsibility to be exceedingly precise and even-handed when it comes to the way we profile them. — e. ripley\^talk 14:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Formatting on Talk:James Cantor

Your proposal/reply in the RfC is having some formatting issues. Your signature doesn't show up despite the four tildas you wrote, which can I see when I edit the page. If I add a reply, it doesn't show up in the preview either. You probably need to close a tag or something like that. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I left an end tag off. BitterGrey (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your email

I have taken a look. There is no temporal overlap between the two accounts - the second account started editing ~3 years after the first account stopped editing; nor, as far as I can tell, is the first account under any sanction at the time it stopped editing. Even assuming for the sake of argument that these are the same person, there's no violation of the sockpuppet policy. Moreover, the second account has not been editing for ~8 months. Under these circumstances, I do not think it appropriate to take any action. T. Canens (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on WPMed

I really don't think the tone of this edit was constructive at all, if you have any interest in building consensus. That one editor suggested s/he would be surprised to hear that an editor would be incivil does not mean that a the members of WPMed will not maintain neutrality regarding encyclopedia contributions. Your recent edits in that thread continually cite your expectation that you won't get a voice, when (IMHO) it might be more productive to simply state what you believe the content should be. Just a suggestion - I think you've raised some valid concerns about the COI(med) essay, but you're overshadowing them with meta-discussion. I hope you'll take this in the constructive manner that is intended. -- Scray (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, thanks. The "members of WPMed not maintaining neutrality" part followed from "WhatamIdoing is one of our most hardworking editors, so you are very unlikely to be getting a helpful hand". I try to maintain a compromise between being tight with quotes and difs, and the combative tone that a tightly quoted/diff'd comment would have. My next step is to sit back and wait. If other editors get involved, they will have positions and views from which a consensus might form. There might then be some motivation for compromise. BitterGrey (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have misinterpreted that statement, too. In context, it was in reference to your suggestion that Whatamidoing was incivil and disrespectful of WP policy - something that might be surprising (and therefore require strong evidence) for editors who have an established impression in the opposite direction. If, instead, your comment had stuck strictly to edits (rather than the editor) then I doubt you would have encountered that response. This is speculation on my part, of course. -- Scray (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for apologizing for the split, Scray. Between the split and the diversion, the three discussions are now up to 2,200 words (not counting this one). The table itself is only 136 words. Given the verbosity and inaction, it seems even less likely now that neutral editors willing to actually do something will join in. BitterGrey (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's another example of gratuitously negative tone (IMHO). I keep thinking things are getting better, and then I see one of these. I am pointing this out in the hope you'll see how this sort of acrimonious commentary does nothing to advance the goals of article Talk, and just makes me want to stop reading your edits. If you want to comment on the editor's behavior, please take it to user Talk. -- Scray (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If I think it likely that a user is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy, I will go to their talk page and kindly enlighten them (eg: User_talk:Rjewett). I don't think that is the case here. Furthermore, I suspect WhatamIdoing doesn't want me doing anything in her user space. BitterGrey (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind every petty comment you make or tangential jibe at WAID or any other editor's ability to be civil is losing you friends and reducing your ability to influence people. You will find that honestly, most people don't care if WAID or anyone else was rude to you in the past but refusing to let it die in the present keeps reinforcing the idea that perhaps WAID isn't the unreasonable one - you might be. If you really, really, really want to improve wikipedia, just start fresh, right now, and stop trying to suggest you were done wrong. If WAID genuinely can't give you a fair hearing, it'll come out and there are venues to resolve this. Hell and blood, WAID has even implemented your suggestion [16]. So far, and especially after re-reading her comments at WT:MEDCOI, I have seen evidence of WAID being at worst cold or rigidly neutral. If you want to take this as further evidence of incivility, to the point that you think it's worth bringing up repeatedly, I don't know how you'll get anything done here. Let it go man, no-one cares and you're shooting off a little more of your foot with each comment. Do you agree with the general thrust of WP:MEDCOI? Great, say that and leave it. Stop dragging the discussion to places it shouldn't go. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I never have relied on politics to get my way, so I'm really not that concerned with what other people think. I have relied on being correct. Regarding the comment that WAID implemented my suggestion, she was actually partially reverting another editor's change. I never suggested adding headers to the table. I still favor lists, but to facilitate tables, I included a link to a formatting guide and noted some missing tags[17] AFTER the change you linked to. Those tags are still missing.BitterGrey (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops, you're right about the edit. Perhaps you should insert the tags then.

One should never rely on anything but sources to make your point here, but having a reputation for incivility or picking fights means people are going to look for reasons to discount your opinion. It means having the same source will take twice as much effort to make the same point. There's a difference between not caring what people think and actively pissing them off, and people are monkeys. They're irrational and will always colour their interpretation of your edits based on their interpretation of your history. Being right is great, if you are right. Insisting you are right in all cases just invites conflict. Support your edits with sources, policies and guidelines, but don't pick fights and carry grudges while doing so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with you about the monkeys. at least partially. As for inserting the tag, I'd like to see that injunction either retracted or opposed by a majority of editors beforehand. It is clearly not in compliance with how things work in Wikipedia, but if no other editors are willing to get off the fence, I'll leave them to fix the table. Either way, I will continue. BitterGrey (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess this is a case of do as I say, not as I do: The part of the BRD essay I quoted as support that Whatamidoing should have pursued options instead of just reverted twice was written by Whatamidoing:"BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting"[18]. Furthermore, "the first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD" ... which would be me. Guess this firmly rules out unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies as a vector for AGF. BitterGrey (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Userfied section

I've userfied the following section. Talk pages are for improving the related page, not for retreading past grudges. If you have a problem with WAID, there are other venues you could bring it up, including WP:EQ, WP:DR, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI and almost certainly others. You've almost single-handedly hijacked the page and produced very few actual improvements. If you want to keep ruminating on how any particular editor has wronged you in the past, do it on one of the pages remotely related to it, but please stop bringing it up repeatedly on the talk page of a completely unrelated article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion unrelated to page

I was reviewing the BRD essay, and think it supports my actions strongly enough to try to lay this part of the mess to rest. For simplicity, I'll focus on the "Good edits" table in the play-by-play:

• I boldly made a change[19], consistent with the BRD cycle and the Be bold guideline.
• WhatamIdoing reverted[20]. The essay advises "Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can." Had this occurred, there might have been movement toward a consensus.
• I initiated a discussion[21]. The essay recommends "don't get stuck on the discussion ... a new Bold edit as quickly as possible, preferably within 24 hours." After 38 hours, one forking, and 2000 words, no detailed consensus had been reached.
• I offered a different Bold change based on my best understanding of the viewpoints expressed in the discussion.[22] Ideally, this alternative would have been offered by another editor, but none took the initiative.
• WhatamIdoing re-reverted[23], in contrast to the essay: "BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting"
• WhatamIdoing claimed a consensus and asked me to stop editing against his perceived consensus [24]. No editors echoed this consensus except possibly one discussion about whether the essay was or was not in user space. (It was not in user space.) This also is in contrast to the BRD essay: "Do not accept 'Policy' , 'consensus', or 'procedure' as valid reasons for a revert."

Recommendations for WhatamIdoing:

1. Accept that other editors may want to correct factually inaccurate statements. Do not take this personally. They might want to correct such statements no matter who makes them.
2. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Accept that other editors, especially those with differing viewpoints, can and should edit.
3. Engage in discussion and offer compromises. You are an editor like everyone else.
4. If an editor persists in making a change in opposition to a consensus and a second revert is needed, let another editor make it. This precludes any risk of a one-on-one edit war.

While buy-in from a number of editors would be great, I'm not expecting it. Since other editors became involved, made changes in the direction of my second proposal[25], and weren't reverted, the cycle described by the BRD is now occurring. There is interest in putting this behind us.

Thank you for your patience: Given how much policy-editing WhatamIdoing does, I didn't want the tactic she used here to be mistaken for something to be emulated. BitterGrey (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." - If you'd like to move it to the subject's talk page, I'd be OK with that. It doesn't have any meaning here, since I've already read it. BitterGrey (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't change any meaning, I moved it wholesale. If you want to move this to WhatamIdoing's talk page, be my guest though I have very, very little hope for any sort of meaningful response. Just please do not repost it at WT:MEDCOI. It is completely unrelated, and I see utterly no merit of revisiting a series of minor diffs that have essentially no relevance and no support. I see no reason to make recommendations to a specific editor on a talk page other than their own, and I really, really doubt you'll ever get any traction for it. You've made one minor edit to the page, but added perhaps 35,000 characters to the talk page, very little of which was concrete suggestions actually aimed at improving the main page. Just let it go. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Worse than that: Everything was reverted. Even changes that you suggested, and that I mentioned thinking were good ideas, didn't happen. This is what I'm reacting too. (Not some ancient grudge, as someone might have lead you to believe.) I too doubt that section will enlighten WhatamIdoing - she wrote some of it, after all. I would have liked a type of closure that reaffirmed the policies and practices of Wikipedia: That editors were all created equal in that the same policies and guidelines applied to them all. Archiving, while not the ideal type of closure, is at least a type of closure. It is now, in at least one sense, in the past. BitterGrey (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3