User talk:Crohnie/Archive Jan 2008

Happy Holidays
Same to you. Anthon01 (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Thanks for the kind words. Hoping that you are having a happy holiday season! --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note
What a sweet note! Merry Christmas to you too! :D I'm glad to have met you and become friends! Peace, delldot   talk  14:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you, too!
Thanks for your lovely note. Happy holidays to you and yours. All the best in the new year. Ante lan  talk  20:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays! (4)
Thanks for your warm message. Belated wishes for you and yours: I hope you're enjoying the holidays; you certainly deserve it. Thanks for being there as a Wikipedian and as a friend. You're a true voice of wisdom. You really make a difference, both for the atmosphere on talk pages and the quality of the articles you're editing. Avb 01:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Also, what article are you referring to? Complementary and alternative medicine‎ ? --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifing. Yes, you're probably right in that there is unnecessary duplication across the articles.  I think the behavioral problems need to be resolved first though. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Same to you
Thanks again for the kind words, Crohnie. I'm glad to have gotten the chance to work with you and become friends! Peace, delldot   talk  04:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

reply re Ronz
The last part from my talk page:
 * Hi, you stated how frustrated and angry you get when working on the Barrett articles and you have only been doing it for a brief time. Other editors have been for quite awhile and some of us have limited or stopped posting to any of them do to the problems.  I think if you go back and see how Ronz has been in the fray for a long time and how his patience got worn down, maybe you will understand better.  The articles have been highjacked in a way, with editors getting the articles protected for really minor things.  I for one stopped for a long time do to attacks on anything I said.  Please read the archives to get a better idea of the history of things.  Of course this is just a suggestion, happy editing, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  21:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks (and I'll reply at your Talk). I think it's extremely important, when defending science against non-science, that we not stoop to fighting fire with fire; because what we are defending, science, comprises the very tools of good arguement: logic, observation, accuracy, verifiability, etc. I don't doubt for a minute that lots of crackpots (from pseudo-science naifs to outright con-artists) swell the Loyal Opposition (alternative-medicine optimists/sympathizers/practioners, some of whom are contributory and not anti-science) but if our frustration turns us into crackpots, nobody wins. If all the pro-science editors are calm, patient, stern (as needed), but always fair, we (or they) will win. But never totally, there will always be more. There will always be more science, there will always be more data that doesn't fit well with existing theories, there will always be refinements and improvements, there will always be setbacks, and there will always be crackpots. We need to take it in stride. I'm not unsympathetic to Ronz, I just can't (and no longer) address him. Pete St.John (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you reconsider. I believe all editors need to work together to achieve a good article with balance. Ronz has a lot of information from past discussions and is going to be an editor there still I'm sure.  He helped me a lot when I first came here and was patient to explain policies and so forth even though I am a 'slow' editor.  I think in time you would understand better his reasonings and find him very helpful in many ways, but of course this is your decision.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

invisible typography
Crohnie, your earlier edit of "extra spaces" at my Scratchpad (see this diff) deleted elipses "..." that I had intended to indicate ellisions; that is, the quotes are cut from a longer text. Without them, the impression can be given that I editted the text out of it's context. It doesn't really matter, but the flamewar is pretty hot, and generally you want to append-only to other folks' user space, not delete anything. I really don't mind, but you should be aware of it. Pete St.John (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded on your page, sorry. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)