User talk:David J Wilson/archive p

Darwin
The next time that you're going to jump in like that, appear rude, and (to particularly irk me after returning for work) pretty much fuel comments to make things worse, dont. You could have handled that so much better, as Athaenara did in explaining the "two editors" aspect and pointing me in better directions. In my trying to get some fresh outside voices involved in an overly mired issue of point of view linguistic interpretations, you've basically made things worse. I'm not trying to come off as irate or anything, just irked and bowing to Murphy's Law that your misreading of my original post tossed errors into your comments that inadvertently link to me. At any rate, next time please do try to be a bit more tactful than to jump in and basically say "no, you can't give your optinion on the matter because this doesn't meet 'Third Opinion'" guidelines. As it stands I'm just going to wipe the Darwin wiki from my watchlist and my memory, because while I had simply been trying to get some outside mediation into this (check the archives for the small book this has already made) it now seems evident that any outsiders are simply going to lead to it being mucked up more. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry if my comments appeared rude, but I'm somewhat flabbergasted at the statement that they did. My comments were not intended as a criticism either of Logicus, Doc tropics or you. In fact, I think the idea of seeking outside help to resolve the dispute was very much the proper thing to do.  However, since Doc Tropics mentioned that he had left the request for a third opinion in place, I went to the third opinion page to read the precise wording of the request.  Not finding it there, I consulted at the page history to see what had happened to it.  Since it seemed quite possible that other readers of the thread might have gone looking for the request like I did, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me (and still does) to inform them that:
 * the request had been removed;
 * other requests for a third opinion would likely suffer the same fate for the reason stated; and
 * if they wanted outside help in resolving the dispute, an Rfc would appear to me to be the appropriate procedure to follow.
 * That was the sole purpose of my comments. I'm also sorry for my carelessness in misreading the request as having been filed by Logicus, but I don't see how that "inadvertently linked to you". Since you did in fact file the request, the link was already there (though not mentioned explicitly) in Doc Tropics's offered opinion.  I'm afraid I didn't see any harm in identifying you as the filer of the request (and still don't), but given your apparent irritation at being openly identified as such, I will keep that in mind next time anything similar happens.
 * Nor do I see how anything I wrote could be remotely interpreted as "no, you can't give your opinion on the matter because this doesn't meet 'Third Opinion' guidelines.", but for to make it quite explicit, no such implication was remotely intended either.
 * &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In view of the above misunderstanding I feel obliged to post a clarification to the Charles Darwin talk page. This may result in an increase in casual visits to my talk page by Wikipedia readers trying to satisfy their curiosity.  Since Human.v2.0 already appears to have been irritated by my identifying him as the lodger of a request for a third opinion I have thought it prudent to protect the above comments from unwelcome exposure by archiving them.  I have no objection to Human.v2.0's returning them to their previous location on my talk page if he wishes to do so, but I ask that no-one else do so without first obtaining both his permission and mine.
 * &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)