User talk:Shot info

It's weird
that some editors think that Wikipeida is not about an encyclopedia ,

And some editors need more and more WP:TROUT applied:.

Several applications are obviously required... 

I&#39;clast harassment

 * Given that others have made the accusations, I'm going to stay out of I'clast's attempt at a cover for Ilena's ArbCom until such time they (whoever "they" are) go through the appropriate channels (which I have pointed out to Levine and Ilena above). I don't see that there are any issues on my part per se however I am happy to deal with you as a neutral editor should Ilena and/or the others decide to actually substantiate their claims.  Until they do that, as I have pointed out previously, "I for one will not bother with a rebuttal."  Shot info 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This COI issue with you is only part of a larger picture that involves *many* hostile environment problems for "minorities" in the QW related articles.


 * Shot, I am quite serious about the COI part with you and, besides a number of recognizable hints, have more or less let it alone for most of 6 weeks, especially after your earlier message to me, after I earlier dropped another hint,...nipping at my ankles...(Arthur's, NCAHF talk), do you have a special interest here?--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007.


 * I give all kinds of people *lots* of chances to rehabilitate their editing, make their points, and get things off their chest, even having reasoned with demonstrable, bannable trolls rather than just pounding them with embarrassing documentation and policies. (I have been lucky, one troll finally embarrassed himself enough to abandon that particular account, and me.)


 * I encourage you to discuss this matter forthrightly.--I&#39;clast 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'klast, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why you are performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations.  If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through (as noted above).  I note that you still haven't elected to do this, but brings it up as a smokescreen to defend your POV warriors who you have defended in the past.  Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal.  Shot info 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The primary value is to help clear the air here and in the future.


 * The other value of forthright is for you, it should be less painful and less crippling. I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks and I do think COI would be unpleasant, for you. Many people would like my "cooperation". Well, I want theirs. I am sick of suffering in partial silence as a minority when I am being messed with, either COI or trolls, because of a slanted field and I have some capabilities. Now if that means trampling every kind of COI, troll or less literate, that probably means I will be one of the survivors.  Even at the brink of a pitched confrontation, I am quite capable of achieving collaboration, I recognize merit. Some very pro-QW editors who know me well, could attest to that. I prefer to miss the confrontation part.  In many ways I have tried to recognize your merits.  If I thought you had little merit, I would have skipped some dialogue, grace period & hints and just let you have exactly what you are asking for.


 * I am not blowing smoke, I've been forebearing. There is far more organizational astroturfing and "skeptical" trolling going on all over altmed related topics than is generally recognized (I sometimes know who is who), some that genuinely scare me. I simply am not in a position to trust so many counterparts enough to deal promptly with these problems when I would like (I sometimes have to wait 6+ months to clear up other problems first). Your COI issue is one that I expect to have acknowledgement of, now, even if others' issues have to be redressed later. Ultimately this is all part of clearing the air, one serialized step at a time. In fairness for the current RfArb, it needs to be done now. You-all want *more* help dealing with POV warring? Sure, when the field is a little more level and demining is not needed first.


 * "Baseless"? Do you feel lucky?--I&#39;clast 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

 * Egads - I voted. Some familiar people there, anybody'd think that nothing has happened in WP land for a decade...which is probably the truth Shot info (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)