User talk:Nraden/archive 2

All old discussions archived.

6 ¥ worth of advice
Hi Neil,

If you're going to avoid ongoing conflicts with other editors, I highly, highly recommend re-reading WP:CIVIL, then taking it to the most absurd, ridiculous extreme. It's very easy to get caught up on edit wars and conflict on wikipedia, and the only really workable solution I've found is a lot of pride-swallowing (and writing for the enemy). It means putting up with a lot of uneven treatment from other editors, but it's about the only way to actually work on the page proper without getting blocked for violating the COI. Also, the note at the top of the page, COI is something that should be discussed if someone has an issue about it, possibly raising it with an admin or on the COI noticeboard. If someone's edit-warring over it, believe it or not a revert isn't going to help. If someone reverts one of your changes, the best option is to move to a talk page and ask why, then present your reasons for why and why not the respective versions should stay up. If your goal is to get your version to stay up for a couple minutes, then by all means revert. However, if you want a long-term, stable change to go up, you'll have to talk to other people about it and compromise. Reverting is just stupid, because everyone has an undo button. Consensus is the only long-term solution.

Believe it or not, having other editors besides you and I working on the page is a good thing - I make mistakes, I'm not perfect, and my knowledge of the MOS and other aspects that make wikipedia page credible is sketchy. Having multiple editors should result in a neutral, well-formatted page that is informative. WLU (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand, though I'm mystified how someone as truculent as that guy hasn't been tossed off WQA. I'm going to go work on the other pages for a while. I would appreciate it if you could look over the comments I made, though, so we can stabilize these two articles. Thanks. Neil Raden (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Which page, Wiley Protocl? I'll have a look when the time comes up.  You, by the way, should just leave Debv alone.  Irrespective of intentions, any comments either of you make to the other will end up in acrimony.  I've a similar situation with another editor, we ended up being forcibly kept apart.  Both of you can talk to me.  The comments you made on her talk page are interpretable as hostile, irrespective of your intention.  My advice, is don't bother tempting fate otherwise this'll probably happen again.  And realize that most editors do not like COI accounts.  And be very, very polite, always.  What looks like a RS and reasonable statement to you, is not to other editors.  Your contributions generally require 'working around' to get put into the page because of your substantial COI.  And irrespective, this whole mess could have been either avoided, or resolved in different ways.  And calling another editor truculent isn't good for you, or your relationship to wikipedia or any other editor.


 * But back to your original point, I'll try to have a look over the next couple days.  WLU (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I agree completely with what KeiferSkunk said in your archive. An excellent characterization of your interactions with Cheeser and Debv, and some excellent advice as well.  Calm down and don't tal to either one of them.  There's no point with Debv since you'll both get angry, and there's no point with Cheeser since you probably won't ever talk to him again.  WLU (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm calm. I meant both Wiley Protocol and T.S. Wiley. There is still some duplication between them, as well as inclusions that should be on both. You were right to create Wiley Protocol separate from T.S. Wiley, but there is still not a clean separation. Also, the Suzanne Somers thing has to go, she was never a spokesperson and now the Discover magazine article provides a reliable source. I also feel that too much ink is given to the controvery and negative comments at the expense of a good explanation of what it is. You can't include comments that so-and-so says she's uncredentialed but leave out her credentials. All I ask is some balance. Neil Raden (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's an extra ¥2 of advice. Don't post anything on Cheeser's talk page.  Ever.  It's just inviting a conflict.  Once you've had a negative experience with another editor, it's very hard for both of you to leave it behind and move forward with editing.  This holds for me just as much as you or anyone else involved.  I'd extend this to Debv as well - unless you're at risk of getting blocked or banned due to the posting (as in, admins are seriously discussing a community ban, and have alerted you to this on your talk page) just stay away from both talk pages.  Take it or leave it, I think it's a good idea.
 * I'll take a look at both pages at some point in the near future (remind me next week if I haven't). I think the spokesperson thing has to be dealt with according so sources, if Sommers has declaimed any relation then my gut says include both the original association and the denial, but I'll have to check the specifics.  If you could provide a link to the Discover article so I can read it, I'd prefer that to working blind.  I'm a big enough fan of Discover that I may try to dig up a paper copy somewhere, but a weblink is much more convenient for me and readers.  Again, we're limited to verifiability, not truth, so if the controversy is more verifiable than the guts of the protocol and its efficacy, unfortunately that's what we have to work with.  The best way to deal with this is to dig up the most reliable, independent sources you can find for everthing and put them on the talk page.  WLU (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Somers: Next to last question in the interview. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/dec/forever-young. You're right, I think it's best to note that she highlighted Wiley in "Ageless" and was clear that it was her personal choice, but that she is not a spokesperson for Wiley. Neil Raden (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also have to agree with WLU's advice above. There is no point communicating with Cheeser. I will not respond to him anymore either. But take a look at the advice he is getting on his talk page, for perspective. I don't take any of his prose seriously anymore because I have noticed a pattern that he ignores factual information that challenges his preconceived ideas about subject matters which I believe he does not understand. His shrill attacks invite others to sick him onto editors, I believe. So I'd say don't sweat it. We're not the only ones who are on to him, according to his contributions. Best regards, --Achim (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheeser1 who? :-) Neil Raden (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Look how calm he is. :-) --Achim (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, what you are doing is, at minimum, in poor taste. If you really dislike said editor, nurture a black hatred deep in your hearts and exchange e-mails.  Don't put your stalking on public record.  Only ¥1 this time.  Soon I'll have to move into pesos, perhaps rubles.  WLU (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't completely agree with you on this. We're not talking about the way someone dresses, or if they spit when they talk. Others are chiming in with their distaste for the way this individual handles himself on Wikipedia. He opened it up himself when he said "Nobody" agrees with me. They are just weighing in. I happen to appreciate it. Neil Raden (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just the same, you should keep this to a minimum. You're dangerously close to violating WP:NPA and User talk page policies by continuing to discuss this issue in the way you're doing here.  If you feel further action needs to be taken against Cheeser1, take it up on WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U.  Continuing the way you are here is only going to inflame the situation further and get both you and Cheeser1 in trouble.  Everybody knows at this point that you two strongly dislike each other. That's fine!  Leave it alone and get back to constructive editing, okay? &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And when one disagrees with the anonymous editors whom you can't e-mail (I've tried that before), it's stalking. But when Cheeser can't help but have the last word and keeps at you, as he has been criticised for on his own talk page, that's proper Witiquette? So disagreeing with certain people whilst agreeing with others is frowned upon, admonished and subject to tagging, labelling, mediation and arbitration at the hands of more anonymous powers-that-be? Is that how it all works then? I just don't buy into it. And for anyone else, this is my personal message to Neil Raden. --Achim (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As you like, but generally it doesn't do much good aside from inculcating more acrimony. If Cheeser ever ends up getting a RFC or RFA, then you can comment there.  But what do I know, I'm just another editor who loves giving advice I don't have to follow : )
 * Incidentally, it's not really your personal message to Raden (that's why editors enable e-mail addresses). Everything on wikipedia is public, saved, retrievable, and viewable.  Forever.  The only way I've ever found to disengage from a situation like this, is to disengage.  Lots of people love to have the last word (for instance, what the hell am I doing here?), but if you want the acrimony to de-escalate, the best, possibly only way, is to stop discussing.  I'm not saying anyone is right or alternatively blameless, but the best way to respond incivility is with a profoundly ridiculous amount of civility.  I mean stupid amounts.  Apologies that may not be due, extra effort to ignore jabs and slights, completely ignoring anything even slightly critical or even condescending.   Try it for a week, and see if your editing gets easier.  And to prove I'm not trying to get the last word, I'm going to just leave it now.  Well, I'll try...
 * Incidentally Neil, thanks for the Discovery article, I'll try to get to it soonish. Very helpful, appreciated. WLU (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, not to have the last word or anything, but I like your style. I couldn't imagine having a battle with you. I am also not doing battle with Cheeser. Been there, done that. He can write all he wants. I have indicated that I would not respond to him anymore and I won't. I have simply lent some moral support to others who, like me, were on the receiving end of his behaviour. So perhaps next time someone sicks him onto an editor, his target can have some support. Perhaps his point of view is not the only thing that matters on here. You've had good stuff to say and so has Neil Raden and G Nixon and others. I don't believe that some are more equal than others. OK, I'll let you have the last word now and chances are I won't mind what you write in the first place. You have class. --Achim (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are grossly violating WP:AGF, and even WP:NPA. Get a clue. I was responding to WQAs, appropriately. You got upset when I told you to obey WP:CIVIL. Running around watching my contribs, searching for people who are also retaliating against WQA respondents (or me in particular) is not a good way to spend your time. If you think I am "targeting" people, perhaps you should reread the preamble to the WP:WQA. If you want to actually address this issue, report it to the ANI. Continually wiki-stalking me, harassing me, or trying to rally or support others who are retaliating against WQA respondents is completely inappropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)