User talk:Crohnie/Archive Jun 2007

Barrett & certification
I suggest you summarize your own perspective on Talk:Stephen_Barrett rather than let Levine2112 do so. I think Levine2112's comments about what you've said in the past can be easily misinterpreted and misunderstood. --Ronz 01:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Many things have previously been offered as solutions and compromises. I've refactored the above per your concerns. --Ronz 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (sorry but it's my talk page and my understanding is I can change things so I undid your refactor as I found no problem with what you said,  You were just being honest in my opinion and not uncivil to boot!) Crohnie Gal  Talk / Contribs  20:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok so both of you know, I am rereading the talk page and making notes on my Microsoft office outlook. I would love to have the time before voting or a consenses is taken about where I stand.  I did suggest what seems a long time ago, to add the small comment that he is not board certified.  I am gathering info now because I was a new editor and since then I have learned a lot about policies here and want to post to the talk page what I think now about everything.  Levine, if you would be kind enough to give me a little bit of time to finish this I would really appreciate it.  Please don't be angry with me, either of you.  I am trying to do the right thing with the policies I have now learned, granted I have a lot more to learn.  I am trying to figure out weight and point right now which shouldn't take too long.  Thanks,  Crohnie Gal  Talk / Contribs  20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Crohnie, you don't need to cite policy if you don't want to. You'll note that other's haven't. --Ronz 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I'll have to get back to this another day. I am in a major flare up and have been up most of the night and ill all day.  Please be patient but I have my reason and read notability differently than you are saying.  I'll try to tell more when I am feeling better and have less meds in me, again, sorry. Crohnie Gal  Talk / Contribs  17:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you feel that way Levine2112. I disagree. --Ronz 18:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)er:1px #996600 dotted;background-
 * Thanks for asking questions. I stand by my statement. Crohnie can respond as she sees fit.  I have no comment on your rationale on why you've asked Crohnie to do otherwise. --Ronz 19:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop. You've gotten all the answers that I feel like giving you. Sorry if you don't like that. I don't appreciate your making an issue of it. --Ronz 19:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am just checking in and seeing what is going on. I don't feel well so if I am testy I am apologizing in advance. I think that Ronz and Quack Guru has explained completely why this information is not notable and is trivia along with the link I provided in our conversations on the Stephen Barrett talk page. Being board certified is not a big deal, it wasn't then and in my opinion and with my past experiences it isn't now. I don't feel I should have to explain myself any further. When mediation was still on going, if I remember correctly, the consenses then was not to add it to the article because there was only OR and the secondary sources coming from detractors of Barrett. Why is this not enough to give closure to this which from my understanding has be going on longer than I have been a Wikipedian? I don't care one way or the other but it is a negative comment no matter how it is worded and doing as you and others had suggested, I read other articles and it was either deleted or in critism section. It's time to move on now don't you think? Crohnie Gal Talk / Contribs  20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Both QuackGuru's and Crohnie's opinions are relevant.
 * It's not clear that are any sources at all to WEIGHT the issue in any way similar to what Levine2112 has suggested.
 * The mediation stopped 25 April 2007 for reasons that Anthony will not detail. --Ronz 20:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Crohnie, I've removed two cases of the same link Levine2112 added above. I hope you don't mind, but Levine2112 is using it as an attack on me. For more information, see User_talk:Levine2112 and User_talk:Ronz.) --Ronz 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please keep my talk page civil or it will be removed. No, I don't mind uncivil comments being removed.  Crohnie Gal  Talk / Contribs  21:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What I find uncivil is comments like the one I struck out from you. Yes I did read the link you keep putting up. My read of it is his asking Ronz to stop claiming people are incivil. When the mediation was on going, he was talking about more than one, at least that is what my read was on the email he sent out. Can we please give this all a rest for a bit till tempers calm? I really don't like this kind of thing at all. I guess you can say I am a pacifist. Crohnie Gal Talk / Contribs  22:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to say that what QuackGuru said and myself are revelent to the conversations here or it would have ended long ago. Crohnie Gal Talk / Contribs  10:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability vs importance
Answering your email for all to see, since it's an important issue:

When someone talks about "notability" or something being "notable" it is usually interpreted to be a reference to it's use in WP:N, which is a guideline on how to determine if an topic is worthy of being it's own article. WP:N provides some good guidelines for worthiness of subtopics being included in an article, but it's specifically not for limiting content of articles.

I prefer to use the word "importance" when talking about worthiness of subtopics' inclusion in an article. I'm referring to WP:WEIGHT rather than WP:N. My interpretation of WP:WEIGHT is that it applies to all content to determine how information is presented in an article so that it's presented neutrally.

Does this answer your question? --Ronz 21:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll get back to this I promise. I am cooking with hopes I can keep it in me and then I am going to bed.  Crohnie Gal  Talk / Contribs  22:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I put a suggestion on the talk page of Stephen Barrett.
This has gone on for way too long and it doesn't look like anyone is going to help stop the continued arguments about putting it in or taking it out. I think my suggestion is simple and not over bearing. Please check out the talk page to see my suggestion. If someone has an idea on how to stop this debate, I am all ears. I just know that as it stands now it's like a scenerio of he said, she said type of debate.

Also, I posted a notice on my website earlier and reverted myself. I am sorry if I offended anyone as I don't mind people talking here and so forth. I was just tired of it all and it got to me. Sorry to say but I guess I am just human after all! ;)  Crohnie Gal  Talk / Contribs  17:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I sincerely appreciate this, Crohnie. Yes, I did see what you posted, but I can relate to how frustrated you must have been feeling, and that you immediately erased your comments speaks volumes to me about your character. No, I wasn't offended. I am feeling quite the opposite based on your good faith efforts in proposing a compromise that should be satisfactory to all parties involved. Much gratitude. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I can change my mind about this, depending on what the others have to say. Crohnie Gal Talk / Contribs  22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. You can do anything you want. I am just glad that you're open to compromise. I think it is tremendously in line with the cooperative spirit that the Wiki community strives to acheive. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry how this has affected you. I'm tired of this too. As a result, I've offered a different compromise that minimizes violations of policies and guidelines. --Ronz 03:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, there is obviously no consensus. Hence my suggestion is, limit the discussion, there is nothing that Andrew is offering that hasn't been discussed at least several times before and answered.  Hence changes to articlespace can be reverted without discussion as consensus hasn't been made.  It's unfortunate that Andrew cannot let the matter go and wishes to continue the arguements.  We don't have to follow his example however.  Keep your chin up, sometimes this place has it's tigers.  Shot info 05:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I left an option to change my mind. Well after reading the thread that Ronz started and reading what others said and the links provided I have withdrawn my recommendation to add this material into the article, sorry.  If there is a need to continue this I would suggest taking it to another level where it can finally be decided.  I think we are all beating a dead horse as it stands right now. I am going to go back to another article to edit and work on for awhile.  Crohnie Gal  Talk / Contribs  11:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, look forward to seeing you when you get back. Of course we all know that the "discussions" will be continuing over at Barrettland, that's a fundamental constant of the universe *LOL* :-)  Shot info 22:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking of taking a Wiki break
I am not used to nor do I like how I have been treated. I came here thinking things would be different but I guess I was wrong. Maybe I'll see you all soon. Crohnie Gal Talk / Contribs  18:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 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 06:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Answers to some questions to check into.
There are some exceptions to the 3RR that are worth referring to when you're in doubt, especially for certain types of vandalism: Wp:3rr. In general, I try not to make more than 2 reverts a day, and I know that many experienced editors have a personal rule of only one per day. Instead, I encourage the editors involved to discuss the problems on the article talk page, commenting on their personal talk pages if necessary. I also tend to give 3RR warnings fairly liberally - if someone has made a couple of reverts over a couple of days without contributing to the talk page, especially if the edit summaries aren't descriptive or civil, I'll give them a warning. I think it's better to use these warnings for edit warring than for three reverts in a day. If editors will not discuss the problems, or if the discussions are uncivil and disruptive to resolving the dispute, it's a good idea to remind editors of WP:DR and WP:TALK, especially if there are new or inexperienced editors. If things still are out of hand, I start a discussion on the article talk page where I suggest page protection WP:PROT. If the page protection discussion goes poorly, then I propose page protection on WP:RFPP, using the discussion as evidence. "Can an article be edited about other things that don't have anything to do with a dispute be added without commentary on the talk page?" Definitely. It's a good idea to do so if there's a need to demonstrate proper use of edit summaries, or to find other areas were the editors can work together and agree on changes. "Right now I am trying to stay out of disputes because it was becoming to stressing and to be honest, too confusing to me with what is being said." That's a very good idea. There's lots of editing to do elsewhere, so why get stressed trying to work with editors that you won't enjoy working with? Does this explain much? -- Ronz 16:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz"

Signpost updated for June 4th, 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 07:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

font parameters
In a similar way that you use coloured letters in your signature.

In a similar way that you use coloured letters in your signature.

Note that in addition to the colour of the letter the border style and colour as well as the background are defined too. David D. (Talk) 20:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

To let you all know...
First David thanks for telling me how to change fonts. I didn't make my sig it was a gift but I saved what you said on my Sandbox to work on at a later date.

I want to let all of you know that I am terrible ill right now. I will probably take the weekend off until I see my GI and Gyn this week coming. (maybe my pulmonary too) I do appreciate all the kindness and help I have received while try to learn all this Wikipedia stuff which, with my disabilities and slow learning, is very much appreciated. Thanks to you all. Crohnie Gal Talk / Contribs  22:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I slept my life away yesterday and last night. I'm feeling better though not perfect but at least my eyes are open. :)   Crohnie Gal  Talk / Contribs  14:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing
Hi, got your note. makes the wiki software not interpret what you write. so say for example I want to write ~ and have it not show up as my signature: I have to enclose it in    or it will automatically get turned into my signature. You tell it to stop not interpreting it with a at the end of the material you don't want interpreted (note the slash after the <).

That's a common way to do stuff in wiki markup (as well as HTML I think). you start the stuff you're interested in with and end it with. For example if you want to put a line through some text, like this, you enclose that bit of text in.

Usually when I want to figure out how to do something, I find it somewhere, look in the edit window, and copy the way it's written there. Then I use "show preview" a lot and tweak it until I'm happy. Looking at your signature, it looks like they enclose the text they're interested in in   and then tell it what they want the span to do by writing  with whatever they want the style to be between the quotes.

If you're reverting vandalism and stuff a lot, this probly won't come up all that much. You can ask me if you have a specific question, though I unfortunately haven't been around as much lately. I'll respond as soon as I get the message though. At any rate, it's no trouble at all to help you, I enjoy getting messages and after all, it's what an adopter's for, right? Peace, delldot talk  16:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing Crohn's disease
I'd say go for it - the usual crowd is peaceful enough (I've worked a bit with Samir, DavidRuben, Arcadian and JfW in the past). I agree that the article could use some attention to make it more accessible to non-medics. The regulars are not keeping a close eye on it I guess - that would explain the lack of response to your earlier posts. You can often reach other editors on a related project page (if one is lasted in the banners at the top of the talk page) or use the talk page of a regular to attract their attention if you need it. I see Samir has already indicated that you could work together regarding your input as (what I would call) patient expert.

Have you seen the To Do list below the banners near the top of the talk page? One of the items is a copyedit, which overlaps nicely with your plan.

I hope this helps a bit.

So you're still at home. I hope you got some sleep. Any signs of improvement? AvB &divide; talk  12:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, I think I will work on it. Yes I did see the to do list.  As for me, I am doing better but with a lot of meds.  I am seeing one doc in about 45 min. and then seeing my GI tomorrow.  My husband took excellent care of me yesterday.  I don't know what I would do without my husband and son taking such care of me.  I am going to try to work today with my son.  Don't worry, he'll take care of me and make sure I am ok to continue.  Hopefully tomorrow I will get a blast of Midrol to put out the flare quickly.  I'll let you know.  Right now I feel like a dead head with everything but I am trying to function.  Thanks and I'll update.  Crohnie Gal  Talk / Contribs  13:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 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 02:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please explain what happened?
[] This has been removed and put into archives with no resolution if I am reading it correctly. Yet on the Stephen Barrett article it has been put in using four references that I understood were not allowable on a biography since they attack Barrett. It has been reverted and reverted again. I didn't see any consenses to add it to the article so what is going on? I am totally confused now by all of this. Crohnie Gal Talk / Contribs  15:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your apology.
There is no need to apologize if you thought it was vandalism. I should have left a message on your talk page asking you about your edit instead of reverting you, so I apologize to you for my action. Don't worry about what you did. :) Acalamari 16:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't feel stupid, I've made loads of mistakes on Wikipedia, and my reversion was one, as I should have asked you. Here, have a WikiCookie. :) Acalamari 16:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

alphachimp 05:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just checking my signature change
Needed to change it because it was too long so...-- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 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 08:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

RfM Stephen Barrett
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 08:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC).