User talk:Mdphd2012

Dealing with an Editor
I am getting "lawyered" by an editor, or two, in the Proton Therapy article. The editors are deconstructing the article so that it has little or no informative content. What is the best recourse and practice for dealing with this? --Mdphd2012 (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you can go to their talk pages, and ask why they are making those edits, and just AGF. You can read more on this: Dispute resolution. Message me if you need any more help.--Cubs197 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't come to my talk page to talk about article edits, I will delete the comments immediately. They belong on the article talk page.
 * I have seen no one "lawyering" you.- Sinneed  21:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * Instead of focusing on the editors (example: "Dealing with an Editor"), please consider focusing on the content.
 * Instead of focusing on discussion of various possible subjects (as here and here and, with a wee bit of personal nastiness that does not belong, here), focus discussion of the content.


 * I encourage you to join the discussion at the talk page proposing changes, and commenting on proposed changes.
 * I encourage heeding the warnings here on your talk page:
 * add wp:no original research to articles: content in Wikipedia should be based entirely on published content in generally wp:reliable sources
 * maintain a wp:neutral point of view
 * don't edit to prove a wp:POINT
 * make wp:no personal attacks
 * follow wp:consensus (and if you don't like the consensus, convince others to your point of view to change it)
 * edit in article talk pages and article pages, not wp:User pages
 * follow wp:talk page guidelines
 * honor wp:copyright and when quoting, wp:quote
 * when copying chunks of even public domain information, give the source, rather than claiming it (by silence) as your own work... as then it looks like wp:OR
 * instead of copying big chunks from the parent articles, please consider improving the information there, and linking to it

I think I understand that you want to make clear: That proton therapy is too expensive. That it is not actually, or not actually much, better than other radiation therapies. That child illnesses are being used as an excuse to advance technology. That these devices are being used to profiteer off illness. Perhaps those are great subjects for articles in WP, if so, I encourage you to write them if they interest you. But drowning the article about proton therapy in them is not the way. Perhaps, if you can find wp:reliable sources that explicitly say so, that content belongs (briefly) in the proton therapy article. I encourage you, if it interests you, to find the sources, and (please) propose the content, or even wp:be bold and add it.

You might consider a wp:RfC. I think that would be great. You have already been to wp:WQA but did not comment. Since there are already 3 editors working here (there were others but they seem to have left before the WQA drew me to the article), 3PO isn't really applicable. If you feel you are being mistreated, you might open an item at WQA.- Sinneed  21:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people&#32;as you did at talk:Proton therapy, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Stop now. - Sinneed  05:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Posting a copy of this template to my user talk page is not appropriate, and is disruptive. You have already been given multiple warnings by multiple editors.  This disruptive behaviour is not acceptable.-  Sinneed  23:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello, Mdphd2012. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Sinneed  02:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)