User talk:Kevin143

The Outlaw Award

For being cool at all times, I hereby award with the “Cool Award.” Kevin143 (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd: The Movie
You tried to nominate this for deletion, but you only followed the third step of the afd process. You first need to insert the AFD notice on the page and then create the subpage for the AFD discussion before listing the item in the log. Please read the instructions at WP:AFD for more details. I've removed the item from the log, but if you would like to renominate it feel free. Cheers, Yomangani talk 13:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's it. Yomangani talk 14:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Voltaire (musician)
Hi, I don't know whether you are still an active editor, but ages ago, you made this comment. I would be interested if you could provide a source for Voltaire's atheism/agnosticism. Thanks. J Milburn 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Randy Pausch's ugly rumor
Thank you for having the initiative to delete the discussion, although my concern was that it could recur, so we should leave the record of the discussion up. That was my only reason for leaving it on the talk page, anyway. Nobody questioned the shoutdown. MMetro (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Generation Z has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Crazy Boris with a RED beard 23:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Generation Z
It would be really helpful if you wouldn't just revert edits without considering why they were done. This will inevitably lead to edit warring and will have a negative impact on any article. The reference to the New York Times can not be included because it is not a valid source for any statement in the article. It employs the term "Generation Z" to discuss a group of people who would use a camera, but it does not discuss anything about that group. This is a direct contradiction to Wikipedia's policy on neologisms which states that references should be made to sources about the term, not ones that simply use it. I invite you to read that guideline to learn more about this. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Awards
For future reference, one does not give one's self awards. The only awards that an editor may give themselves are the service awards. --Gimme danger (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Mitragyna speciosa. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please slow down
this kind of behavior discredits you. You don't know what you are saying when you write "I would like to take this to arbitration if necessary". Arbitration is our "supreme court" and do you see how escalating to the "supreme court" at this stage is ridiculous? (I know you don't know what you are saying - that is my point. My other point is that you did write it and if you want people to take you seriously here, what you write has to make sense and be clueful.)   Slow down and give people time to weigh in when there are content disputes. There is no deadline here. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. :) Thanks. Kevin143 (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And I don't need any arbitration right away. What I meant is that if the Wikimed policy treats peer reviewed secondary sources as sacrosant, even when they cite mainstream news instead of primary sources to make medical claims, there is a problem, as Wikipedia information then ends up being ultimately determined by a mainstream news story that is not subject to peer review. I suspect that this isn't the policy though, and that a secondary source can be selectively disallowed if found to be making claims from the news media and not from primary sources, but I'm uncertain of this. Thanks for helping with all of this! Kevin143 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * argh. If you follow MEDRS then health content does decidedly not get "determined by a mainstream news story."  argh. just argh.  And if you want to ignore me when I try to tell you how wildly inappropriate your mentions (again even again in this response) of arbitration are, then fine.  (you may want to read WP:DR and see how very, very far down the road arbcom is from anything that is happening now) If you are unwilling to learn then I will just let you hang yourself.   There is a lot to learn here and your intensity combined with your ignorance of how this place works are going to lead you into a very solid brick wall; you will leave here angry or get thrown out of here.  You can choose to learn or not. It is your choice.   Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry about that. I agree that arbitration is unnecessary. Thank you for doing an excellent summary of the relevant literature on respiratory depression. Kevin143 (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. thanks for being open to (my rather harsh) feedback. so about this.  The way to solve content disputes is not to repeat arguments... it isn't productive and it ends up with everybody (yourself included) being frustrated, and you don't get what you want anyway.  Here is what I am doing.. I looked at the sources and saw you have a point (not totally correct, but a point) and I did some sophisticated editing in the body (always make changes first to the body!) and am waiting to see if that is accepted by everybody.  Folks have let my edit stand so far so it has implicit consensus, but I want to get explicit statements of "yes it is OK" from both sides.  Once I have that (if I get that) I will propose a change to the lead - the lead summarizes the body, per WP:LEAD.   Going slow, making edits based on very strong sources,  and building consensus each step of the way, is how you change things.  Not just repeating arguments... almost nothing is ever "yes"/"no" - there are often good editing solutions that can solve disagreements.  Anyway, just trying to show you what I am doing, as I do it. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)