User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2012/February

DRN Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Osteopathic Medicine in the United States". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no thanks. If you want to play those games, fill your boots. I'll spend my time editing. LeadSongDog come howl!  05:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are no games here. It is an issue worth discussing. If you won't discuss it because you can't have it your own way, that's fine with me. Your choice, I will continue to make rational edits as well. Good day. DoctorK88 (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When you chose to use formal dispute resolution before attempting serious discussion you lost my interest. Good luck in other endeavours.LeadSongDog come howl!  17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, DRN is informal if we're being technical but aside from that, I did attempt serious discussion and you and the other editors were either unresponsive or ignored the pulp of my arguments/evidence. As I said earlier, I stand by my decision to seek outside help to resolve a conflict that felt like it was not going to go anywhere and that felt like an unusual dispute that might need clarification from those with more experience on wikipedia. Like I said, if that offends you, I am sorry to hear that, but I stand by what I did whether it is to your liking or not. Also, there is no need to get snippy on wikipedia. Some of your comments were rather abrupt and abrasive in tone. You can just say you do not want to participate in a discussion just like that without having an attitude about it. As you said, good luck in your other endeavors. DoctorK88 (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your response on my talk page. There's just one issue. I did not contact you re: a sockpuppet issue, or any other issue. I'm not sure what you are contacting me regarding. Let me know if I can be of any other assistance. Bryan Hopping T  03:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess this was about me. Thank you for your response. I am looking into the pages you suggested and will consider the matter seriously. Hoverfish Talk 15:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, I thought the doi is more than enough to simply get access, but you are right full citation is a lot better.--Stone (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Tuberculosis Treatment & PVN Acharya
I think it's important that an article on "chemical composition" of the TB cell wall be referenced, particulary such an early one (1970). I hope we can come to some agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaghuVAcharya (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Dynamic IP and XFF
I have replied to you at the XFF project. I realize it's been a long time, but it may still be relevant. Superm401 - Talk 02:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Lemon Bay High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gymnasium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited FepA, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Residue and Outer membrane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your posts at wt:V
I've ignored this behaviour for too long. Please restrain yourself. No sane person is going to waste their time reading dozens of scattered posts per day by one editor, so you are writing for yourself only. If your goal is simply to entertain yourself, there are far less disruptive places to do so than a core policy talkpage. If your goal is to actually improve the policy, some focus would help you do that, because there would be a chance that your comments would be read. At a minimum please cease the commentary on other editors, they are entirely destructive to collaboration. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * *i* am trying my best. If *you* can ignore the inanity at that page, and the disruption by a bunch of battle-hardened regulars at the page, best wishes. *i* am doing my best in good faith. Do *you* have an agenda at that page, *i* don't. A lot of insults fly about, insults are poison that disrupts a page. %I% have asked and asked editor not to comment on editors. Comment on contributions not on editors, and now you accuse me of destructive comments, trying to get them to observe the talk page guidelines, which they will not learn to do, that is what is the right thing to do.
 * You* do definitely have it wrong, but thank you anyway. *i* have not disrupted the page, *I* have been insulted and inconvenienced. Thank you for the reasonable tone of your post. That page, *I* didn't disrupt it. It's been a disgrace for a long time what is going on there. Are *you* straining at gnats and easily swallowing a camel? Thanks, for *your* advice, you may have it wrong. YMMV
 * Speaking of improving the page, all the current efforts of all editors have been collected (by me) and transferred to Verifiability/Workshop, if you are interested. No-one at WT:VER seems interested, they would rather fill the talk page up with discussions that go, and go, and go nowhere. You dig? NewbyG  ( talk) 16:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Great Minds Think Alike
Hey LSD:

Long time no see! Sorry about bumping heads on the edit conflict at giant cell carcinoma. I will be working on this article very hard for the next couple of days. If you want, sit back and let me have a crack at her, then you check back in like 48 hours and fix any idiocies you see. Wanna?

Alternatively, I will work on lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma of the lung and you can keep beating GCCL til she gives up. Your call - lemme know!

Your fan: Cliff (a/k/a &#34;Uploadvirus&#34;) (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, a fan? I'm more or less done with the cites, so this is a good time to pause. I note a lot of them are primary, which is understandable for a rare disease, but I'd urge caution in the way they're employed. I suppose MEDRS needs some special discussion around sourcing rare disease articles. Have at it! LeadSongDog come howl!  21:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Dog! I'm DEFINITELY a fan because (a) you do excellent work, (b) you clean up after me without me having to marry you, buy you a car, let you scream at me 24/7/365/for eternity etc., and (c) I've seen ya do lotsa medical and science stuff, not barfy topics like "Controversial Dress Hem-Stitching Styles in 14th Century Papua-NewGuinean Formal Wear" and junk like that! :-O
 * And all that is not to even MENTION that ya don't go around just willy-nilly inserting random hyphens and em-dashes and other unwanted punctuata in my blessed, holy lung cancer articles (which TICKS ME OFF SEVERELY - lol!)
 * Drop by and come see my MASTERPIECE of a stud-nasty giant cell lung carcinoma article in 48, when I've got her whipped, and make sure I don't leave anything imbecilic behind. Thanks much! Peace!
 * Gratefully:
 * Cliff (a/k/a &#34;Uploadvirus&#34;) (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: got into full-blown worship mode and forgot to address your issue RE: sources. Your points are well taken - my modus operandi is to use primary if I have to to get the thing written, because you're of course correct thats usually all thats available, and then after she is done, try to go back and replace when one is available. I will do my best to try to insure high quality over time. Either that, or Doc James is liable to kick my a$$ :-)
 * Cliff (a/k/a &#34;Uploadvirus&#34;) (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)