User talk:NJGW/7

Right

all right. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What the heck...

...did you do to that guy? All I started seeing was a series of F-bombs showing up in edit summaries. I had a wikistalker for about 24 hours, but it ended there. This one doesn't seem to let up. Good luck. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 06:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yasis and his little play time

Good hello. Sorry you seem to be the focal point for this kid's childish anger. I've gone ahead and reverted all of the edits I can find by the IPs you have listed at the sock report. There were maybe 2 edits that were not vandalism. If I can do anything to help please let me know. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

???

What? I liked the intro, but I don't think I can continue to fight users who clearly hold a polarized opinion but are allowed to edit articles regardless. If you didn't show up, Ceedjee would have continued with his fixation on Morris and dismissed every suggestion I make, like...oh, I don't know including a notable expert who might have an alternative view or similar view to Morris to either affirm/dispute his analysis. this is why I am leaving, so you can do what you want with the article. I don't think I'm being hostile or unfair, this is my POV. It seems everyone can have an opinion except for me. Have I crossed any lines? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion board

In order to resolve a dispute with 2 editors without editing warring, I had made a request at wp:3 because I wanted an outside opinion by people who don't have a particular bias on the article. I then withdrew the request because the other editors involved were not being patient, one of the two editors removed the WP:3 tag from the article claiming to have given the outside third opinion, which the other editor attacked me for rejecting that opinion. So since you are very active on the WP:3 board, could you take a look to see if there are policy violations and end what could be a disastrous edit war and a exchange of personal attacks that I am sure GHCool will love to be part of? Talk:Recep_Tayyip_Erdoğan#Meeting_with_Sudanese_vice_president --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for intervening and bringing a stop to the escalation. I am a newbie and was not sure how to go about resolving disputes so I appreciate your advice and direction. What I just learned about resolving disputes is to not inform the other editors in the dispute that you will request an outside perspective. Ain't doing that again. Anywho, I will do the RFC if I don't get a response on the BLP board. I don't dispute the credibility of Cagaptay (The Washington Institute is another case), I just think his opinion is not worth noting. Edrogan's statements at Davos is noteworthy so that is why it is mentioned in the article. His statements must have sparked criticism (as expected with all things), but it was not at a significant degree that media spoke of it. If criticism was expressed at a significant degree in which the media reported it, then one would find such a source and add it to the article. For example if the NYTimes reported that Edrogan was criticized by Turkish politicians for his comments at Davos because of..., that would be acceptable IMO. Putting Cagaptay's opinion just seems like the article is a debate of whether Edrogan's comments was justified or not. It is like a persuasive essay in which analysis/evidence is provided to support an argument rather than just reporting the situation. If you have opinion on this or if you know what Wiki policy says regarding this aspect, please let me know. Thank you! --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The policy which relates to this issue is wp:UNDUE. If Cagaptay's opinion can not be shown to be a significant one (he may or may not represent a significant position), then this view point should be presented in due proportion to its importance. If it is a minor, yet notable, position, it should still be mentioned (perhaps as an aside). If other positions are more important (according to the published consensus... not editors' opinions), then they should receive more coverage and discussion in the article. There shouldn't be a "debate of whether Edrogan's comments" were justified, but if there was enough criticism then it may warrant a mention. NJGW (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean about this being a weight issue. Also, since this is a BLP, minor positions should not be mentioned (I think?). So editors will have to prove that Cagaptay's opinion is a major position as opposed to being a minor position. Thanks for your input, I appreciate it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion

You have removed the dispute over Talk:Non-citizens (Latvia)#Major Copy Edit saying that there are 4 editors involved. However, 4 editors speak now in section "I'm confused", with quite differing themes. In the section~"Mayor Copy Edit", however, no one has added his third opinion or else intervened - there remains a dispute between two editors. Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

EL section of the Egyptian pyramid construction techniques page

I recently added to the EL section of the Egyptian pyramid construction techniques page my external link to my paper The Great pyramid - How on Earth did they build it? http://www.raven17.freeserve.co.uk/GPpaper.pdf

I did this because I noticed that you had allowed F Steiger to do the same with his 'Pyramid construction using movable wooden ramps' paper.

You then reverted my edit and revamped much of the rest of the EL, including also removing F Steiger's link. I note Twinkle did the job in my case but not apparently in the case of the others. I have ensured that in all respects the hosting site linked to is appropriate as defined in WP:EL. Please would you explain why this axing of the EL has taken place? Mehtopa (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

See wp:ELNO #s 2 and 11. NJGW (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility

I have been nothing but civil. I was merely reminding you to do the same. Please do so. Rapparee71 (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated." - [1] Rapparee71 (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)]

"Dealing" with me is not something with which you should be concerned. I am trying to contribute to the project and hope that you will also. I'm sorry if you have taken offence to anything I've written. I merely responded in the same tone in which you addressed me. Maybe you aren't aware that your tone sounds condescending or belligerent. Maybe I have sounded condescending and belligerent to you. I assume you did not intend to do so, but it came across as such. Let's agree to disagree and just drop the whole thing. It seems we got off on the wrong foot. Rapparee71 (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You did good

You did good here. The revert was good but what really caught my eye was that you understood the situation regarding relevance and false implication. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Update

Unprotection is done. In my logs, you might notice a technical measure that was addressed to one source of your recent annoyance. Let me know if you're still being followed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

talk pages advice

Hi, I slept on it and can see the logic in your advice and the counter productiveness in that edit of mine. Thank you very much for taking the time. Abbarocks (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.

Thanks for your edit here. Just in case you may be interested, see the new verbose reply here with personal attacks (excerpt: "If Wikipedia wants truth without fear or favor, then Wikipedia should restore all of my accounts of the Quanta case and discount any comments by PraeceptorIP as either flawed legal writing, blatant mischaracterizations, or self-interest spinning. This PraeceptorIP guy is clearly not one carved out for objectively educating the masses."). --Edcolins (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

First I apologize about the article on Astronomy, I did not read the source enough so I thought it was just another POV by that user, thus I removed it. And please don't revert my other edits without giving a reason. I am trying my best to be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dep4e (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3PO

Thanks for your 3PO on the talk:Phi Kappa Phi page! --Lhakthong (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Soybean

I saw your listing of this problem at WP:3O. Then I checked the edit history, and I thought the anon was edit-warring. But finally, I suspect the anon could be right! The names the anon was removing from the lead are actually common names of the related plant, Apios americana, a/k/a Glycine apios. So they aren't other common names for the soybean! So, if the article is about the true soybean, Glycine max, then the lead should only have alternate names of Glycine max. Whatever those may be.. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Swoopo

I've answered at Daniel's talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)