User talk:Ratel/Archives/2007/October

pubmed citation
hi, i believe that you should be a little less rude, especially since i've added 3 pubmed style citations and you had them removed retaining only one relating to the bacteria issue. I've readded the last 2 citations and will cease to add personal websites until I get a better source. Thanks. --Idleguy 10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Piers Akerman
I do believe you have now reverted four times within about eight hours. Are you aware of WP:3RR?  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. The changes I'm reverting are different. I am well aware of 3RR.  Skopp   08:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They do not have to be the same reverts each time.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually there are 3 reversions and two insertions of new edits.  Skopp   08:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been blocked for 3RR. Please take the time to read Wikipedia's policies as well as acknowledge the reasons in which you were blocked for. -- DarkFalls talk 08:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocking me for reverting to an edit that neutrally cites the Hansard of the Federal Parliament of Australia is absolutely absurd! You should support my edit rather than narrowly interpret 3RR. When WP starts to exclude what people say in the parliaments of the world's governments, then we may as well all go home.  Skopp   08:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

External link at Prostatitis
Hi, heads up to discussion thread Talk:Prostatitis. Link, whilst excellent illustrations, does have some potential issues that might be best clarified on talk page (I'm initially more concerned re relevance vs I think Reasonablelogicalman's concern for purpose of that website).

As for points you kindly raised on my talk page, I have sympathy for your points, but take care with phrasing used :-)
 * re "consensus stacking" by what you claim is Reasonablelogicalman on an external site, certainly WP:MEAT is strongly discouraged. I would observe that that forum thread was set up in July, and other than myself being the 24th person to view, I do not see it has had any real effect (i.e. we have not had 23 new-users or anon descend upon the page over the subsequent 3 months). Also that thread is perhaps one of the better ex-wikipedia meats that I have seen, in as much as it has very strong warnings about not spamming links and need to follow wikipedia's rules, else risk being banned. That said, I agree it seeks to try and get the forum linked to (inappropriate and clumsy attempt at Meatpuppetry), as well as to improve the article (latter of course commendable).
 * Stupid me, thanks for spotting an obvious error - the 24th July 2007 is date that user joined geocites, the thread date is 28 October 2007 - doh :-( David Ruben Talk 04:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * re "only contribution to WP is to add his links to the encyclopedia — a bannable offence" - two issues here:
 * re "his links" and therefore issues of WP:Conflict of interest. That is not in itself immediately "a bannable offence", although strongly frowned upon, and probably unwise (better would be to suggest ones own link on an article's talk page and let some other editor decide whether to insert or not). If you see this occuring, perhaps consider adding notice to their user talkpage of  ?
 * re "only contribution to WP is to add" - repeatedly adding a link will involve issues of WP:Spamming, and indeed repeatedly doing so might result in an eventual ban.
 * The difficulty I have as another editor looking at this (aside from not being a urologist with specialist training and detailled knowledge on the topic) is that both of you have previously accused the other of promoting certain external links. If you feel that another editor is breaching wikipedia guidelines & policy, it is helpful to have a clear list of revelant problem edits. You are free to add to their user talkpage standardised pre-agreed userpage WP:WARNING templates; eg for spamming sequentially use, , , and finally - together with a link to the edit history in question. This both makes it clear to the other editor which policies they should review, and also clear to them & other editors (ie at the end of the line an admin) that a progression of standard (pre-agreed and polite) warnings have been given. (in any dispute one must ensure that one can be seen as "whiter than white" and be both more civil and more adherent to both the letter and the intention of any wikiguidelines)
 * re "made another inflammatory edit", erm I think you need to take a breath and remain WP:CALM :-) as it does no good in a dispute if you are seen to get angry (it dimninishes what may be your very valid points). I would have phrased that differently, perhaps as "made a further deletionist edit" (ie swap an emotional adjective for a neutral descriptive one).
 * re "to promote himself via wikipedia" - whilst I agree that had previously tried to add a particular external link, I don't see that removal of another external link in itself can promote anything. I think you were trying to imply that removal of your link might have been a vindictive action in retalliation for your past removal of his link. Whether you personal believe that or not, to express this view or indeed to imply it would be a breach of WP:Assume good faith.

Whilst I fully accept you concern to improve the article, you need to take care that the tone of your comments does not detract from the content (example if several misguided editors were to add cited, but out of date, information to an article which one repeately reverts, one could oneself be blocked under WP:3RR even though scientifically correct, ie not WP:SPOV). So in any dispute, it is vital irrespective of however wrong the other editor might be, to ensure ones own emotions do not rise (this is only an encyclopedia and ones own state of calm good health must come first). I think most editors as they get more experienced, learn to get less emotionally attached and be more aloof, even if getting more committed to wikipedia. In edit disputes therefore remain calm, pause before reverting (a day's break between edits cools an edit war more effectively that anything else - rememember there is no WP:DEADLINE as WP:The world will not end tomorrow :-) Some editors choose to follow WP:1RR, whereby will revert just once and then will start talk page discussion or seek opinion of other editors from approariate wikiproject.

For now I have created a discussion thread at Talk:Prostatitis on this external link and raised a heads-up at WT:CLINMED. I'll keep a look in on what various editors might suggest over the next few days :-) David Ruben Talk 01:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)