User talk:Ca2james/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

LB misinterpretation

This is not the first time Lightbreather has tried to have the last word and then quickly archived - a nasty habit. For the record, you were correct in your interpretation. - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

if there is one place where an editor can be forgiven for having the last word, it ought to be their own talk page, though I do appreciate the courtesy of a ping since you're talking about me... again. A nasty habit. (I can count on one hand the number of times I've had the last word and archived a discussion - again, on my talk page. Some people say "F*** off" and delete. Some people just delete. Some do what I do.) How many pages have you shown up on to comment about me? Would you appreciate it if I did the same to you? Because I could start making that part of my WP routine, as you've apparently done with me. Lightbreather (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, Sitush and Lightbreather, I get that you two don't get along, but your constant sniping at each other is getting tiresome.

Sitush, although I appreciate knowing that Lightbreather has responded to other posts and then archived them right away, it's better if you stop posting about her actions. All it does is stir up trouble and give her ammo against you.

Lightbreather, Sitush did have a point: your response didn't address anything that I said so it did look like you were trying to have the last word and shut down the discussion. But it's your Talk page, as you say, and I didn't care enough about the subject to post again. Ca2james (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL image

With regard to your statement "Showing a private seller's inventory might possibly be suitable but I'm not convinced of that, because again such an image doesn't represent the loophole itself.", GSL is about unlicensed private sales/transfers. Something like this [1] should be acceptable. The point is to improve the article. If some people still find the images not to be NPOV, then we will just have to send them to WP:NPOVN again. Darknipples (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 in spaceflight

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 in spaceflight. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)

Hello, I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film was set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including props, dialogue, and a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City") to establish setting.

Response so far in the RfC has been mixed. Comments welcome! Xanthis (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:A Fine Frenzy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:A Fine Frenzy. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:AdmiralAlex

Hi, though this is not in exactly the same vein as the longevity-related user pages that were put up for Mfd this appears sufficiently similar to deserve examination. So far I have had no input for any other users so would appreciate your input. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Damat Ibrahim Pasha

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Damat Ibrahim Pasha. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Landmark Worldwide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Landmark Worldwide. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Commentary on ANI Initiated by JYTDog

Hi Ca2james,

I see that you commented on the ANI complaint against me that was filed by JYTDog. Thanks for submitting your opinion. I'd ask that you take the time to look through the actual source material rather than JYTDog's complaint because of cause he will have a biased view and most of his examples were taken out of context. Based on your short commentary, it looked as though you referenced JYTDog's materials but maybe I am mistaken. Here are just a few examples of where I felt his complaint was very off base and I'd appreciate it if you would update your opinion if you even partially agree.

• He referenced edit warring on several occasions but the reality is I have never actually edit warred despite his accusations. A few occasions I have have reverted another editor's change but never have I reverted anything close to more than 3x in 24 hours (as defined by wiki policy). Formerly98 I know has definitely violated this policy and been reprimanded and I think the same is the case for JYTDog but I am not sure on the latter.
• He criticized me because I was subject to a sockpuppet investigation along with around a dozen other editors. This was entirely baseless and was closed without any consequences to myself or others. Although I had nothing to do with it, this would obviously create the impression I am a disruptive editor even if it was entirely untrue.
• Many of his complaints were mistakes I made back in 2011 and 2012 when I was unfamiliar with wikipedia procedures and policies. Unfortunately, I was not assisted by any helpful editors in the early so I had to figure things out by myself over time, but these were mistakes of a frustrated newbie that didn't know up from down.
• There are plenty of other problems with his accusations and he has been the aggressor in many skirmishes with other editors along with Formerly98. I just ask that you look at things holistically and update your impression once you get a chance to do so.

Thanks Doors22 (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Doors22, and thanks for your message. I did look at your contributions and the article Talk pages before commenting because I believe in doing my own research. While neither Jytdog nor Formerly 98 have behaved perfectly, IMHO the bulk of the disruptive behaviour came from you. You have my sympathies: dealing with side effects is the worst part of taking medication, and getting unknown side effects recognized is difficult. And I also sympathize with editors who come up against MEDRS as I know it's frustrating to meet those requirements. However, your editing behaviour and personal attacks have gone too far. Editing in another topic area and becoming more experienced on Wikipedia can only benefit both you and the encyclopaedia in the long run. Ca2james (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Let me ask you this question. Two days ago Formerly98 was very aggressive about added the source of a small unrestricted gift from a high-quality meta study which certainly complies MEDRS standards. Literally, the next day he is arguing on Glaxo Smith Kline's article using logic that is completely contrary to he day before. How would you deal with this kind of situation? He writes:

• "Why would we add the information that the trial was GSK funded except to raise questions about the reliability of its conclusions. Wouldn't that be second guessing the MEDRS compliant sources that took the fact that the trial was GSK funded in forming their conclusions?" -- Diff Source

Let me ask you how it is possible to reach a compromise with an editor that is completely uncompromising. While it may look like a personal attack when I say he is acting deceptively, I don't see how you could interpret his edits any other way. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Doors22 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Doors22! Reaching a compromise with another editor starts with communication, the assumption of good faith, and the assumption that a compromise is possible. Trying to interpret the edits myself is the road to conflict; just because I think I know what someone is saying doesn't mean that I'm right so the first step is to clarify what was said. I don't know why Formerly 98 appears to argue the same issue two different ways, so I would have posted something like this: Over at GSK you said to keep the funding mention out of the article and here you're saying to include it. I'm confused; I don't see how these are different situations. Could you please explain your reasoning? Thanks! If I was dissatisfied with the answer, I would have posted over at WT:MED asking for additional views on the subject.

Under no circumstances is it ok to personally attack that editor or to edit-war because those behaviours are against WP policies - and they indicate an unwillingness to compromise. Ca2james (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WP: Edit summaries

Thought I would just drop you a line to note that I have edited the Help:Edit summary essay to indicate comments should be raised on the Editor's Talk page, rather than the Article's Talk page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary is an information page, not a WP:Essay. And I reverted DrChrissy, as seen here. As editors who watch my talk page know, it annoys me when editors bring an article dispute they have regarding me to my talk page instead of to the article talk page. Those matters belong on the article talk pages, so that those watching those talk pages or otherwise visiting them will know about the matters and clearly see that they can weigh in on them. It is also best to document article disputes at the talk pages of the articles so that editors can refer to what matters have been disputed without searching the edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As I have indicated elsewhere, it does not really bother me strongly where I take a dispute, but at the moment, I can be attacked either way if I raise the issue at the article Talk page or the Editor's Talk page. Surely this situation should not exist. It needs clarification.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The text should simply state "talk page," like it currently does. It is the editor's decision to address another editor at the user talk page or at the article talk page. In some cases, I go straight to the editor's talk page, but that is usually if I think or know that the editor is an inexperienced Wikipedian and that I can reach the editor quicker/better that way. Otherwise, WP:Pinging the editor at the article talk page if I think or know that the article is not on the editor's WP:Watchlist suffices. Flyer22 (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have tended to do the same as you Flyer22, but when I recently raised the issue of the behaviour of an editor on an article's talk page, I was told in no uncertain terms that such discussion should not be there, but on the "offending" user's talk page. If I remember correctly, I was even threatened with being labelled disruptive if I continued to do this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, article Talk pages are for content discussions whereas discussions regarding editor behaviour go on that editor's Talk page. So, for example, if an editor is at 3RR or is writing uncivil edit summaries or has made an uncivil comment, other editors would bring up those issues on that editor's Talk page and not the article Talk page. Zad68 recently brought up this issue on DrChrissy's Talk page; perhaps he can clarify for you why discussions of editor conduct are properly raised on editor, not article, Talk pages.

That said - DrChrissy, editing long-standing Help pages, policies, guidelines, or even essays can result in your edits being reverted because those pages are the result of long-running consensus. Since your change have been reverted, the appropriate thing to do now is to raise this discussion on that Help Talk page and try to develop consensus for your proposed change. Ca2james (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking of editor misconduct. But if an editor is editing inappropriately at an article (for example, making edits that violate WP:Neutral), yes, that should usually be discussed at the article's talk page. And that's usually the case, unless the editor also needs to be warned at his or her talk page. I've been editing Wikipedia for several years, Ca2james. Rest assured that I know what are the best talk page protocols. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And for an example of what I mean, see this recent discussion; that editor misapplying the WP:Neutral policy at that article is absolutely a discussion for that article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see. It wasn't clear to me that you were specifically not referring to editor behaviour, which is why it seemed like you were unfamiliar with WP:TPG. I see it may also have been unclear that DrChrissy was specifically talking only about editor behaviour. So now that we're all talking about the same thing - which is where to comment on editor behaviour, not article content - do you see a way that the Help page could be improved to differentiate between the two? Ca2james (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oldest people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oldest people. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tensor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tensor. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

RSN

Just a friendly reminder to preview your edits before breaking important noticeboards. :-) Good comments, btw. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops! My apologies, and thank you for fixing those issues DrFleischman. I had previewed but I obviously didn't look closely enough. I'll be more careful in the future. Ca2james (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lego Elves

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lego Elves. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements

Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hugo Barra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hugo Barra. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Death of Freddie Gray

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Freddie Gray. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paranormal activity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paranormal activity. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Aviation lists

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Aviation lists. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Visual Collaborative

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Visual Collaborative. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DS/alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Atsme^📞📧 16:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

For your explanation, and for being kind. Atsme^📞📧 20:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, Atsme. I do try to be helpful although sometimes it turns out that my actions are not perceived to be as helpful as they were intended to be. I assume you were thanking me for this edit? If so, I find it odd that you'd thank me for that edit and then say, about the same edit, that I "interfer[ed] with [your] one on one TP [discussion] ... on the TP of Doc James" [2]. Ca2james (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roxy Theatre (Edmonton) has been accepted

Roxy Theatre (Edmonton), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Herbert Hope Risley

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Herbert Hope Risley. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Your reverts of the templates

By reverting the templates, you knowingly publicized RL info about me after I explained the information should have been deleted by OS admins, but the one post apparently slipped through. I have contacted OS and explained what is happening. I advise you to revert your edits. Atsme^📞📧 16:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I have included precisely zero information in that template from outside Wikipedia; all of the information there comes from your own contributions on Wikipedia. Using information you posted in your own contribution history to note that you have a COI is allowed, and that template belongs on that page because you do have a COI due to your position with Earthwave. I hope that when you contacted OS, you said that there was an open COIN discussion related to your disclosures. Ca2james (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Information that was supposed to be deleted. The COI hasn't even been established, and was in fact challenged by an admin. [3] I'll just sit back and wait. Atsme^📞📧 22:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If the admin you previously contacted in an effort to get DS applied to other editors on Kombucha had actually challenged the COI, he'd have done it at COIN after being pointed there in the discussion you linked to. It's telling that this admin didn't comment on the COIN discussion. Your COI has in fact been confirmed by experiencededitors and is not in dispute.

Even if everything had been redacted, the fact that you have a COI with respect to Earthwave would still be true. It's not like redacting it just makes it go away; it just becomes harder to prove without OUTING the editor. But whether or not a COI can be proven, an editor with a COI still has a COI shouldn't be editing areas that are related to that COI. Having a COI really is no big deal and not worth all of this drama.

It would be a lot easier to collaborate with you if you handled disagreements differently. Right now, when you disagree with someone, you post long walls of text accusing the other editors of ill-will, harassment, hounding, and personal attacks; of making unwarranted/unsubstantiated statements; of being wrong; and denying that they have any point at all. That's not collaboration, it's a battle where you have to be right. It's exhausting and frustrating to deal with this approach - especially, like with this COI, when there's no need for it. I urge you to rethink your approach to conflict and disagreements. Ca2james (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring at Gabor B. Racz

I don't know if you have received the DS notice for Biographies, but you are edit warring and subject to DS if you keep it up. I responded to your screw-ups on the article page. Atsme^📞📧 02:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, you are reverting removal of WP:COPYVIO material. If you want it included, reword it. The article isn't going to suffer with it out and keeping it in is wrong. Ca2james (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In the future, before accusing someone of copyvio, please understand what constitutes a copyright violation. I provided helpful links on the article's TP which also includes info about "fair use". You can also use User:CorenSearchBot/manual#Unprocessed_requests but please learn how to read the results before using that tool. Another useful tool is here [4]. All of these things were checked in the original GA review. I agreed with the need for MEDRS sources regarding the medical claims - fixed that issue - but this other drama is unwarranted and is only creating more work for very busy editors. Have you been through a mentoring program, yet? Atsme^📞📧 17:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not finding results with one bot doesn't mean there wasn't a COPYVIO. It appeara that you do not understand copyright or fair use. In neither case can text be used without attribution, which is what has happened. Here is the relevant text from the policy:

copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues.

The sources you have added for medical claims do not conform to MEDRS and removing the medcn tags was unwarranted. Ca2james (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

They do conform. They conform equally to what you guys used at Kombucha. MEDRS is malleable and primary research is acceptable. Sorry it conforms. Atsme^📞📧 20:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS is not malleable: it says to use the best available sources, and it describes how to find them. Sometimes there's a lot of top-quality sources, and sometimes, as is the case of kombucha, there isn't. What's a best quality study for kombucha will therefore necessarily be poorer than a best quality study for, say, GMO foods, but using those poorer kombucha studies still falls under MEDRS.

Primary research is sometimes acceptable but should be used sparingly, and using review articles is preferred. Review articles are available for the Racz article and those should be used instead, especially for conclusions about efficacy.

In the Racz article, you're using sports and back medicine websites and news articles as references for medical claims. Those are definitely not MEDRS-compliant. Ca2james (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope - [5] They're malleable. Atsme^📞📧 21:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. Saying they're malleable to support poorly-researched areas is different than just saying they're malleable. The former is specific while the latter implies that there's no rhyme or reason to using the guideline. Either way, the guideline is not malleable enough to prefer primary sources or to allow websites and news articles to be used to support medical content, both of which you're doing at Racz. Ca2james (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I got you a better source - a book - and deleted the other one. Ok? You could have done that, too. Why are you being an armchair critic? You could help. Atsme^📞📧 21:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to make edits but you kept reverting me. I was looking for sources but that takes time and I'm not fast at it. I put the tags in so that other editors could look for sources too. Ca2james (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Atsme^📞📧 22:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Abuse of COIN arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich! When I'm back to eating solid food (I'm sick right now), I'll enjoy it. I hope that you're able to get those restrictions lifted because then it will be easier for me and others to support your next RfA. Good luck! Ca2james (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Are you open to collaborating with me to improve the following article: Peter_Wilmshurst? Atsme^📞📧 22:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure! I'm unfamiliar with him so I'll need to do some research, but I'd be happy to work with you to improve the article. Just one thing: if we disagree on something, can we both agree to try to see where the other is coming from and to work to find some way forward? Ca2james (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I would have been agreeable and was actually looking forward to such a collaboration but your behavior on Kombucha has given me a change of heart. Can't say I didn't try. And please spare me the BS about over and over and over because it works both ways. I wouldn't have to repeat myself if others would simply WP:HEAR. Atsme^📞📧 14:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed the statements you made at Kombucha several times but you continue dismiss my explanations as if I'd said nothing; instead of refuting mine or others' responses, you keep repeating your statrements (which is pretty much the definition of WP:IDHT). I asked above that we agree to try to see each other's viewpoints when we disagree, and since it appears that you're unwilling to do that, I'm not open to working with you on Peter Wilmshurst. Good luck with the article. Ca2james (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of forestry journals

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of forestry journals. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)