User talk:Doctorhoneydew

bazant at AE
My Bazant correction, which I thought would bring it into conformity with WP:usecommonsense and WP:berational was reverted by Oreo Priest without explanation. Could be bring this to a higher level of arbitration, or at least have a pov warning with the text?

I mean this:


 * Based on recent developments, I think mediation is necessary. I think certain editors have demonstrated a complete disinterest with 1) compromise and 2) even attempting to justify their positions on WP-grounds. So it's impossible to engage rationally.


 * Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see unambiguous bad faith in Arthur Rubin's attempt to co-opt the proposed compromise language and place it in a different section of article. (Was more ambiguous with earlier attempts by 2over0 and Oreo). I assume there must be some kind of reporting mechanism for that, but I'm still rusty. Suggestions?

Comment on the content, not the contributor
I refactored one of your comments over at Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in accordance with the Talk page guidelines. If you would like to remove my note stating the removal, please feel free to do so; do not, however, restore the original text or make any other off-topic insinuations. That page should be focused solely on discussion of improvements to the associated article.

I also notice that you have been around for six weeks without anybody from the welcoming committee dropping you a starter template yet. From your discussions, you seem to have found the policy pages no problem; welcomeh has a great many links and tips that you may also find of use. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback and guidance, 2/0. You're right, my comment was inappropriate. I usually take great pains to work within WP guidelines. Having said that, given your obvious knowledge of guidelines and etiquette, I'm stunned that you would derail an ongoing discussion like that. Especially one seeking compromise (for which I was taking great pains). It showed utter indifference to the spirit of respect and collaboration that WP requires. And it sparked an edit war. Particularly infuriating because of the large number of editors of that article who make zero effort at compromise. It would be great if you'd take a moment to add a constructive voice of compromise to that discussion (Bazant language). Doctorhoneydew (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Qualifying an accusation of bad faith with appears, as you did here and here, does not remove it from the domain of No personal attacks. The phrase an unambiguous bad faith attempt to undermine [discussion] in the second difference link is also problematic. Similarly, asking if another volunteer editor is intentionally undermining compromise is less than helpful. Please avoid hinting or insinuating or voicing your suspicions outside of formal or informal dispute resolution. If you are right, then forbearance will make the patterns of behavior more evident to outside observers; if you are wrong, then you avoid inciting ill will baselessly.
 * Minor disagreements in the presentation of that article aside, can you see how making statements like those above interferes with the collegial atmosphere that ideally might prevail at all talkpages?
 * Also, you use the term accurately above, but I would like to make sure that you have seen WP:Edit war. It includes some helpful advice for avoiding them. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I definitely agree with the spirit of your points, so I'll do my best to oblige in the future. But, if you don't mind, please help me understand how raising a qualified and well-explained concern about apparent bad faith constitutes personal attack? How is that different than "your info looks like original research" which is phrasing recommended in WP personal attack page. 2) Do you think it's good faith to scuttle a compromise discussion by lifting and misplacing proposed compromise language - while editors are mid-discussion? I don't see how you could, so it would be great if you'd send similar guidance to the editors who scuttled that attempt at compromise. Perhaps a message like, "if an editor is making a clear attempt to build compromise, please allow some time for the discussion to take place." Big thanks 2/0! Doctorhoneydew (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) The second one is subject to an objective reading of the source in question - you both read the source to investigate whether it explicitly makes the same points as proposed for the article, or whether more information is being read out of it than is actually there. If, all points having been cogently and politely stated, disagreement persists, we have No original research/Noticeboard where outside opinions may be requested. These uninvolved volunteers will review the source, consider the points made in the disagreement, and discuss their conclusions.
 * A statement that in your opinion another editor is acting in bad faith, on the other hand, may only be investigated by questioning the motivations of the editor in question. As mind reading is not TCP/IP compliant, this is unlikely to be objectively verified by an outside party. If an editor is here for some reason other than to build an encyclopedia and consistently edits against consensus, discussion about that editor should take place somewhere other than articletalk. Clearly and politely voicing your concerns (with difference links where appropriate) at the other user's talkpage should always be the first step. Posting to a relevant noticeboard (they are all linked at the top of OR/N, above) will solve most content disputes. Additionally, discussion of another editor and their motivations does not directly contribute to improvements to the article in the way that a discussion of sources does. This is covered by the Talk page guidelines.
 * (2) I did not see that edit as an attempt to scuttle discussion. Pretty much every action on Wikipedia is trivially easy to undo (though edit wars waste server space for GFDL reasons), and putting that information in the body while reserving the lead for a short summary seemed reasonable.
 * As a final point, WP:NPA is not circumventable by using qualifiers or couching an insult in impersonal language. By way of analogy, it would be just as offensive to state "Some people might think that that dress does little to emphasize your least offensive qualities," as to state "yo, you ugly." - 2/0 (cont.) 05:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said, 2/0. Good points. Thanks for taking the time. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A Friendly Attempt to Improve WP
Hi QfK. I notice you undid my edit without providing WP justification in your edit summary. So, I checked the discussion page. No explanation there either. You appear to have made no effort to address the concerns I've raised clearly in my edit summaries and the discussion page. Would you mind explaining to me how that shouldn't be taken as bad faith editing? If you're willing to answer here, I'll hold off from reporting it as bad faith editing. Thanks. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi QfK. Your (8/27) post at AE "Bazant Language" made about four or five claims of fact for which you provide no evidence. Also, several are easily shown to be false with evidence already in the main article (see my response on discussion page). Please consider backing up claims with evidence, and please avoid claims that are easily shown to be false with a quick review of current literature and the main article. Otherwise, they detract from discussion board. Thanks! Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)