Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:44, 14 December 2007

Archives
Archive 0 Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Starting fresh

Winter is here. Time to archive. -- Levine2112 00:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning box

FYI, it's not very good form to leave boilerplate warning messages on seasoned users' talk pages. Your message to ScienceApologist struck me as very incendiary, whereas a personalized message emphasizing your thoughts on the subject would have been more readily received. I haven't spoken to SA about this, but I felt it was important to let you know my thoughts. I would encourage you to remove the warning box and replace it with a more personal message. Antelan 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I placed one of TheDoctorIsIn's page as well. I will personalize the message more. Do you think given the warring that was going on, the issuance of a warning (in some form) was justified? -- Levine2112 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether justified or not, in my experience "warning" messages come off as officious, and are never productive. By placing the blame squarely on someone else, you ensure that they will react defensively. I use warnings sometimes, but it is usually only for vandalism. When possible, I find it works best to use language that emphasizes the joint nature of the conflict. Instead of saying, "You are edit warring," one might say, "How can we stop warring against one another," or something like that. It doesn't always work, but if you're willing to hear an answer, this approach usually at the very least prevents people from getting more angry. Antelan 00:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of my current phrasing on each of their talk pages? -- Levine2112 00:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The beginning looks conciliatory; the end, less so. How about this: another thing that I find useful is to be specific. If there is one specific thing he did to make you upset, name that specific thing so he understands why exactly you are messaging him. That will let him respond to the issue that matters to you. On the other hand, if your message's purpose is to vent your frustration, he probably already knows that you're frustrated, and he probably feels the same about you. In such a case, no message is necessary unless you can find a workable suggestion towards resolving the conflict. Rarely, in a disagreement, does someone see their opponent as blameless. Antelan 00:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't frustrated. I was merely trying the most civil route which I know to end their edit war. The specific thing which "upset" me was that they were edit warring. The article is in such a delicate state having just become unlocked. Looking back at the edit history, what grieves me most is that the edit warring began by Ronz the moment the article was unlocked. I wouldn't bother to warn him because any time I place even the most neutral message on his talk page, he writes it off as harassment and deletes it. Anyhow, if there is a way to phrase the personalized warning in such a way that it incorporates that it was specifically their edit warring which was upsetting and still doesn't become non-conciliatory, I am open to suggestions. -- Levine2112 00:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the way I see things, you are only warning the people with whom you disagree. Since you were also a participant in the "edit war," I don't see how you could achieve your goal of warning them about edit warring, since you would have to warn yourself, too, to seem sincere. It is easy to accuse others of warring, and much more difficult to recognize your own role in that warring. We all war on these articles, I think, but are loathe to admit it. Regarding leaving messages, the only approach that I could see working is to recognize that there is a problem, admit to them that you are part of the problem, and then try to find a resolution to the problem together. Short of that, I don't see any other personal message being particularly constructive. Thanks for letting me give you my thoughts. Antelan 01:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, I encourage you to look closer at the situation. I was definitely not involved in the edit war in the slightest. If you disagree, please provide me with diffs. Second, I was not only warning the people with whom I disagree (unless you mean that I disagree with "edit warring" - then yes, I disagree with both ScienceApologist and DoctorIsIn for edit warring). They were on opposite sides and hence, an edit war. If I had to chose sides, content-wise I was/am on DoctorIsIn's side; regardless, edit warring applies across the board regardless of your POV on the actual content and that is why I issued equal warnings to both of them. Again, please look at the situation closer and respond back to me if you disagree with my assessment here. I do appreciate the advice about warning templates. -- Levine2112 01:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, when I wrote that last message I thought you had warned Ronz instead of TheDoctor. Regarding diffs, this is where you ask SA to abide by your view of the consensus, an act of explicitly taking sides (totally fine, but makes it implausible that he'll think you're trying to just be helpful when you warn him about edit warring). This is where you insert the line about Quackwatch not being peer-reviewed, a demonstration of your involvement in the edit war. My point is not that you are wrong and he is right, or that you have wronged him, or that he has wronged you. It is simply that when you are involved in an issue, the best private messages are conciliatory and future-looking; sometimes, it's best to leave none at all. Antelan 01:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I need you to be more clear. You are telling me that I was a participant in the edit war but the diff which you provided was from last month before the article was locked and our dis

If that's how you see things, I'm not going to spin my wheels trying to convince you otherwise. Best regards, Antelan 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Your comment that you "see no reason why we shouldn't go back to just including Quackwatch's lack of peer review in the "Mission" section of our article as it is in Quackwatch's own Mission Statement where they tell us that their articles are not peer reviewed. Something to chew on folks. I was really hoping that we had a consensus and finally some peace yesterday. " can easily be interpreted as a threat to disruptively edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"can easily be interpreted as a threat" - Only if you are assuming bad faith. Please reconsider. -- Levine2112 19:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Levine2112 is a disruptive editor You may wish to defend yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)