Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/24.0.133.234

Discussion belongs here
Per RfC/U instructions: "All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. [...] Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page." Funcrunch (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Attempts by certifier Ca2james
15:27, February 25, 2014. Jahi McMath case: Attempted to explain to IP that IP was giving undue weight to IP's minority views on brain death.


 * And I still have the opinion that adding extra clarifying words, such-as applied to the McMath case, that she was declared "legally dead and/or due-to "permanent or irreversible brain-death"fromUniform Determination of Death Act, is the preferred way to go there. I don't see how this is a "minority view"?--

03:35, March 1, 2014. Jahi McMath case: Asked to find a way to work with IP user in a non-combative way, in order to improve the article.
 * I have thanked you for your corrections and help and specifically where you warned me about OR on my IP talk page. Sorry if answering questions mainly about what I meant by edits or requests for edits on the article talk page is disruptive, and you are correct that was not my purpose. Sorry if I did not directly respond to your offer there.
 * Finding a way to work together, well I have backed-off of the article text, and as there are other editors with other opinions who have been doing a good job of working with the article and working together on the TP, I have hesitated to add to what they are posting. Mainly since my opinion of what I was trying to help the article do is all-over that TP already (and then trying to clarify what i meant, yes it is/was confusing but I have taken steps to pull-back from the article). I still have a lot of sources and references in my history, and I would like to be able to add them to the article talk page or the article if they seem to advance the article to a better quality, so I would appreciate any suggestions that you have per/how i can do that in a non-disruptive way?

19:02 March 7, 2014. Brain death: Explained that reliable sources were needed, and explained for a second time that WP:EXT was violated by linking to a blog page.


 * Am I allowed to respond here? I responded to you there that I thought that I had complied with WP:EXT and with an example where WP says that news companies who post articles that they call "blogs" particularly a science-type which was exactly the case there it was titled "science and medicine"-(blog)-are an acceptable reference. Also, this incident helped the article by revealing that the external links were kind-of crappy, see-"how can we work together above"24.0.133.234 (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please keep your responses in the Response section provided for you. Funcrunch (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

OK then-Here is my response to User:Ca2james.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

' Also I think that it should be noted that a section was added to the bottom of the page,Reminder to use the talk page for discussion'' AFTER I posted this lengthy reply to User:Ca2james. I appreciate the direction, but adding more "rules" retroactively is bad form and maybe my response should have remained with a note that the new section has been added? '''24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That section and the rule existed when the page was created and wasn't added retroactively. Ca2james (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad there, I read that wrong and obviously didn't see it the 1st time around. TY for correcting and TY for seeing my response here.24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)