User:Radvo/sandbox


 * Johnuniq: I note that you write:

I must have missed this before. Please excuse me. What is your standing to write to me like this? I am quite unaccustomed to be addressed in this way by a peer. Are you an administrator or other Wikipedia named volunteer or staff person giving me an order? Failure to accept orders result in disciplinary action? Have you discussed this with other editors elsewhere and you are speaking for some unidentified editor consensus? May I please see the URL of the discussion so I may know how the discussion went without me? Are you speaking as an experienced editor to a new comer? Would you be so kind and provide me with the URL with the relevant policies that support your various points? What are the direct consequences and punishments, if I fail to move this within your "very soon" time frame. Your standing to address me with this tone will clarify my choices and their consequences. I assume with good faith that you are seeking my informed consent and are not forcing anything on me. I await your response, so your response can inform my decision making. Thanks for your consideration. You wrote above that a sock puppet who posted a very long post that is mostly still in tact as it was posted, that included IMHO very serious BLP issues, and those BLP were tolerated here for years, was "a trivial matter." Dr. Rind and I do not agree that these matters are trivial, as they are legally actionable. By your measuring standards, how serious a matter is moving that draft of my welcome letter which you and other experienced editors are invited to improve while this page is still protected from all new users and anonymous users? Editing of this talk page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled until February 16, 2012. Nothing is more discouraging to new or unregistered users than having this page semi-protected! As for experiences users like you, you feel free to post three times in one day (and announcing you did this once without reading what I wrote). What are you talking about? You seem quite animated and eager to participate by writing here, and you feel free to do so without reading my post or responding to my questions. By the way, I want you to know that I gave all your posts the courtesy of very careful reading. I am not ignoring you. I asked you several questions recently, none of which you answered. I would like to take this opportunity to repost them and assume your good faith that you will read and answer them. This article is about the controversy that followed the publication of Rind et al. (1998) and Rind and Tromovitch (1997). Have you made the time now to read these two scholarly papers so you can fully participate in the editing here? You have a strong interest in math, and I assume good faith that you are an excellent candidate to understand Dr. Rind's mathematical calculations. Much of these papers is mathematical calculations, which you may even find interesting if, with your strong interest in math, you study them. If you refuse to read these papers, your lack of cooperation in building the competence you need to edit this topic leads me to ask you to stop wasting my time with your posts. You contribution to the page so far was to redact a complicated and thoughtful edit I made here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rind_et_al._controversy&diff=prev&oldid=471610978 --Radvo (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It may be acceptable
 * 2) is not acceptable here
 * 3) may not even be acceptable
 * 4) it goes too far
 * 5) move it very soon because it cannot stay here
 * 6) very soon (within the next minute, hour, day? Would you be more specific how much time I have to decide.)