User talk:MPLX/2005-1

Reverted redirect
Reverted your redirect of Sildenafil, which is not a stub by any conceivable stretch of the imagination. I don't know what your ultimate agenda is, but you're going about it in entirely the wrong way, making such MAJOR changes unilaterally. --Calton 06:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi!
I was responding to the comments on one of the Talk pages concerning duplication of text. I am building one major article at Impotence. Hold on a moment until I am finished then take a look and if you don't like it you can add your bit to change the landscape. I don't engage in revert wars so you won't find me to be a problem. I like to write and edit and I saw a huge mess that no one had to date linked together. But if you don't like it you have my okay to do your own thing if you think that your way is better. On the other hand once you take a look at what I am doing once I have finished it (almost done), then you might want to help create one great article instead of leaving 4 to 5 stubs floating around. Let me know what you think, but in any event, its fine with me. MPLX/MH 06:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverted redirect
You're not duplicating text, you're cannibalizing one decent article and some stubs to pad out Impotence, with the effect of burying the information of Sildenafil at the bottom of Impotence. Yes, writing is harder than cutting-and-pasting, but you get better quality articles. And redirecting existing articles BEFORE you've "finished" is also a pretty bad idea. --Calton 06:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

 * Well that is your opinion and you are free to express it and you have. However, I believe that the 4 stub articles were either commercial propaganda, badly written in some instances or just stub entries which all belonged in one decent article about Impotence. Again, if you feel motivated to try to improve this article feel free to do so. I was adding what I believed to be a great improvement on a disjointed mess of one article and 4 stubs. However, I know that you have already engaged in reverting, but you won't find me joining in. I am working on other matters and I believe that I have made a decent contribution here. I look forward to reading your own improvements. MPLX/MH 06:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

 * I see that you have been very busy reverting everything with notes about show the necessity = obviously you have not been reading the Talk pages, have you, because you are accusing me of not doing something that I have already done! See: Talk:Vardenafil MPLX/MH 06:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverted redirect
Well that is your opinion and you are free to express it and you have.
 * And I am also free to fix bad editing decisions.

However, I believe that the 4 stub articles...
 * I repeat, Sildenafil is not a stub by any conceivable stretch of the imagination. If a person wanted to look up impotence, the person would look up Impotence, not Sildenafil; if I look up Sildenafil, it's because I want to know about Sildenafil.

were either commercial propaganda, badly written in some instances
 * Which is what editing and rewriting is for, if true.

or just stub entries which all belonged in one decent article about Impotence. Again, if you feel motivated to try to improve this article feel free to do so.
 * You first. Start by actually rewriting the Impotence article, actually expanding it with new content. If you can't improve an article except by cannibalizing cut-and-paste from other perfectly decent articles/stubs and brushing over the traces, then maybe you ought to try your hand at some other article.

I look forward to reading your own improvements.
 * I already have by reverting. But as for Impotence, feh. Not my interest, not my business, and utterly irrelevent to the reversions I made. Do what you want with Impotence, but don't screw up other articles to do so. Is that clear enough, or do I have to explain again? --Calton 07:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

 * Before accusing someone it is a good idea to read the Talk pages - because you might discover that you have jumped the gun yourself. No hard feelings, but see Talk:Vardenafil MPLX/MH 06:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverted redirect

 * I read the Talk pages and articles before I reverted, so I jumped no gun, your smarmy insinuations to the contrary. No hard feelings, but your rhetorical fallacies and passive-aggressive style are really annoying. --Calton 07:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

 * Look Carlton lay off the personal attacks! I see that others have complained to you before about this behavior. It is not Wikipedian. I was civil and friendly to you and you were the opposite to me. I note that you work in Japan. I find that interesting since I have several close Japanese connections, one of which reached into the royal family. Lay off the attitude and mean spirited stuff, life is too short and in Japan you must surely be getting the idea that a polite society is appreciated by everyone. Instead of accusing someone of ill intentions it is better to step back and see the whole picture. I wish you well, but please, no more unfriendly and mean spirited personal attacks. Thank you. MPLX/MH 07:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverted redirect
Pointing out where you were wrong is a personal attack? Answering your responses in detail is a personal attack? Responding to your annoying passive-aggressive insinuations (Well that is your opinion and you are free to express it, Before accusing someone it is a good idea to read the Talk pages - because you might discover that you have jumped the gun yourself) is a personal attack?

I have made no accusations of ill intention -- none -- and I resent your saying so. I am accusing you of bad editing and laziness, at the cost of one decent article and three decent stubs. Go ahead, whack away at Impotence, but enough with the cannibalization of other articles/stubs. And you'll discuss major changes -- like obliterating 4 articles -- if you're serious about actually making improvements.

I was civil and friendly to you... No, you were (and still are) dismissive, passive-aggressive, and unresponsive to the actual issues raised -- and, it looks like I could add, prone to peculiar non-sequitors, what with your ''I note that you work in Japan. I find that interesting since I have several close Japanese connections, one of which reached into the royal family.'' Name-dropping your six-degrees-of-separation with the Japanese Imperial Household means what, exactly?

Ditch the smarm, stop the mind-reading -- and learn to spell my name correctly -- and then I'll believe you about being civil and friendly. --Calton 08:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)