User talk:Scray

New messages at the bottom, please.
If you leave messages here, please expect a response from me over here.
If I've left a message on your talkpage, and I'm slow to respond to a reply made there, please let me know by giving me a nudge here.
If you use the E-MAIL THIS USER feature to contact me and I don't know you, please make sure you indicate your Wikipedia user name in the message otherwise I may not reply.

JFW welcoming me to Wikipedia

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Morgellons". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randy

Hi Scray... regarding this, have you not read this essay? Yes WP:AGF and don't WP:BITE but when an editor starts out like that, I don't see the point in making it harder to do our jobs. Zad68 00:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point (I had read the essay, and WP:CGTW), but I won't let cynicism own me completely. The feedback is appreciated. -- Scray (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I trust you'll be involved at the article Talk page when the new editor brings inappropriate sources, insists WP:MEDRS allows primary sources, doesn't see what the big deal is about secondary sources, misunderstands/misapplies WP:DUEWEIGHT, and is egged on by the other editor there? Probably a few weeks worth of work, and I'm already way behind schedule on the article I'm trying to bring to GA right now. Yeah, every day I see more and more truth in CGTW, unfortunately. Zad68 00:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already accepted the feedback. Take your burdens somewhere else. -- Scray (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're still watching here, I see the process played out in the proper way. Glad to see that, and thanks for defending the wiki. -- Scray (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, tensions have been running high around here generally in the past few weeks, something in the water I guess... Zad68 03:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply a fact

I've said this to you before, but edits like this make me think that you're not trying to build concensus. Casting aspersions on other editors' capacity to understand the article will not help. Please stop that. -- Scray (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not casting aspersions on another editor's capacity to understand the published study: rather I said directly that the editor in question did not understand the published study. That is simply a fact. I also chastised the editor for his facetious remarks (namely: "teapot in space") when he should have been taking the subject seriously and earnestly.

All in all, my response was appropriate for someone who was (a) wrong, and propagating the falsehood on the discussion page, and (b) facetious. It is your above remark which I think was inappropriate and uncalled for. Drgao (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In fact, it looks like it was me that was wrong (at least partly) regarding properly comprehending the published study in question, rather than editor 137.111.13.200. Drgao (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite impressed with your admission here and on the article's Talk page - that's neither easy nor usual, because people have a hard time admitting such errors. This is also why I am loath to take an overly dogmatic/dramatic stance on a topic - it's too easy to fall when you're off-balance. I hope that we're approaching some sort of detente now, it's been a distraction from important work. -- Scray (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mazda B-Series

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mazda B-Series. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Scray. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote Medical International (2nd nomination).
Message added 03:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

discussion move

That is one way to terminate a discussion. I have better things to do. dolfrog (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was misplaced, and I moved it. If I had not done that, other options would have been deletion or hatting. That's the wrong place to discuss one editor's style. -- Scray (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was only using that as an example of a general problem. Due to my lack of advocacy skills I will have to finish this now dolfrog (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A general problem with that user? Even if that's true, it belongs on that user's talk page, though you're welcome to notify WP:MED members of the discussion (just keep the notice neutral). I don't really understand the last part of what you said. -- Scray (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last part is about me, and due to my auditory processing disorder, which is a life long disability, I am able to highlight issues, but not always best able to express myself using both the spoken word, and the written word, especially in an live debate or discussion, I need time to process what others are saying to fill in my own information processing gaps, this extra time can vary from minutes, to hours, to days, to months, to years etc. Which why I do not participate in copy editing, but only added and improve citations on Wikipedia. Sometimes I can wrongly assume that others understand all that i have said or have written and not realise that i have may have missed something out out chosen a wrong word to express what i want to say. Sorry for rambling on dolfrog (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still alive!

I don't know if you're a fan of the game, but your comment here immediately made me think of this Zad68 20:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I had not seen/heard that before. Now I've got to get a different tune stuck in my head or I'll go nuts. But, those credits are incredibly clever. Might have to play that game - have meant to since it was released. -- Scray (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely worth playing. Might still be on sale on Steam. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Observable universe

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Observable universe. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Final Cut Pro

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Final Cut Pro. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Hi. I had made the addition to the Aphthous stomatitis post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canker_sore) about the use of lysine. I appreciate your editing of the article. Could use some more clarification from you. Read the WP:MEDDATE. Your identification that source material citations should be no less than 5 years old seems problematic. This would invalidate several other cited references in the article that provide no secondary citation at older than 20o8. Plus none of the current items in the table I had added to provide any citation reference. Could you please assist in how the content I am trying to add to improve this article could be added without creating an issue that would require your prompt removal? As you are clearly far more experienced in understanding how to make correct additions to medical articles...could you offer some guidance to a newbie on how to introduce my content without jeopardizing the accuracy of wikipedia? Am trying to be professional by providing sourcing. If attempting to provide reliable sourcing for this content is impossible given wikipedia policy, what other option is available to include this content without going against wiki policy? Would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.108.220 (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment at Talk:Aphthous_stomatitis#Lysine, which is where we should discuss content of the article. -- Scray (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

100% BLP?

Hi Scray, I saw this removal... I do agree that one bit of it was questionable per BLP but the rest of it wasn't, and also someone else had replied to it, making reference to the non-problematic part. Would you consider instead replacing the text and redacting just the questionable part? Zad68 23:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - the BLP was ugly but I should've left the rest - fixed. Thanks for being so considerate. -- Scray (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started on Lyme

So we're starting to crack open the content at Lyme, which is great. How'd you like to do this? We can continue with the "look over the shoulder" approach we have been taking. Or we can each take a section and double-check each others' work after the completion of a significant round of changes. The first approach (what we've been doing) would work well if you think you're less likely to initiate new work on a section yourself. The second would be better if you are interested in starting with your own 'blank slate' and like composing chunks of new content. I'm happy with either, I think your adjustments/fixes are helpful. Just let me know how you'd like to continue. Zad68 16:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese man o' war

I reverted your reversion on the Portuguese man o' war. The previous user corrected a sentence and you removed his correction with a comment that it "didn't add value" or some such thing. The line is clearly incorrect in the context without his correction. 65.192.236.140 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]