User talk:MTGOakenshield

Thanks for your support
Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 02:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
for your well-reasoned intervention. I agree with everything you say. I have been trying to detach myself from the discussion for a while now, but hope springs eternal that I can find one last argument that convinces him to give up. I have been thinking for a while that it would make sense to move the whole mess of a discussion to a separate "Special archive" talk page, but I would not be the right person to do it. On your advice, I will do my very best to leave the discussion alone. Thanks again,. DrLam 21:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Correct. I find it quite interesting that we are to bump into each other here. I also thank you for your input into the Dominion of Canada debate. Harryorp! 22:16, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, is that where you saw me! That page has been an unreadable annoyance on my watchlist for a while&mdash;unreadable because it's always the same back-and-forth, and annoying because I actually might want to participate in working on the rest of the article so I don't want to take it off my watchlist. The annoyance just got to a critical mass and I wasn't feeling complacent enough this time to just remove it and wash my hands of the mess. MGTOakenshield 22:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Reverts to consensus
MTGOakenshield,

In response to your warning that you placed on my User_talk:Comaze that I am working against consensus. If I exceeded the revert rule, it was only to fix the removal of 'dubious' and 'dispute' tags which I consider bordering on vandalism. Can you help me out here?.I have been swamped by naive editors who refused to cite reputable sources. And revert any attempt to clean up the document.

In fact in the last 2 days I have made two RfCs in order to resolve conflict and come to agreement on certain issues. Also, I added 'dubious' and 'dispute' to mark out disputed sections (these were removed by another editor). This document is far from perfect and needs alot of work to clean up the document. I have trained extensively in this subject Talk:Neuro-Linguistic Programming and have sort the opinions of other experts in the field and cite primary sources whenever available. I seem to be overwhelmed by naive editors (or sockpuppets)?.

I need assistance in dealing with the other editors who:
 * 1) Use the same silly arguments
 * 2) Fail to cite reputable sources
 * 3) Lack a regard for logic or facts
 * 4) Fail to use generally accepted primary sources for definitions of the subject

And I have circumstantial evidence to prove that editors who use sockpuppets to:
 * 1) make silly argument
 * 2) manufacture consensus

--Comaze 08:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)