User talk:CarrieVS/Archive 1

Archive 1

In response to your feedback

Glad your happy! See: WP:USERPAGES for what people use user pages for (and what is not welcome).

Ariconte (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 

Thanks. :) CarrieVS (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, CarrieVS. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Scopecreep (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your excellent work on reverting vandalism! Scopecreep (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! CarrieVS (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi CarrieVS! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by: Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!

WikiWomen - We need you!

Hi CarrieVS! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by: Visiting our website for resources, events, and more Meet other women and share your story in our profile space Participate at and "like" our Facebook group Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience! Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sailor Free

Dear CarrieVS, we are trying to understand the addiction you made on Sailor Free page... You picked up among dozen of reviews about this band, in almost 20 years, a bad one, that reports personal taste and comments and that is not giving any further information, and of that you have extracted the worst part of it. Why this should give more encyclopedic appeal to the article? I admit not to be an expert of wikipedia terms, but I understood his principles. I think your addiction is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TideArts (talk • contribs) 11:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. I did not make any addition, and my edit had nothing to do with any reviews, bad or otherwise. The only change I made to Sailor Free was to fix two links to disambiguation pages to point to the article that best fitted what I understood to be the intended meaning. It was done in good faith - of course, if I was mistaken, I would ask that you correct it, as you seem to be familiar with the subject and I am not. CarrieVS (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Re Plasmodium biology

Hi. You are correct in stating that there is a second page concerning Plasmodium biology. This was created by a 'cut and paste' proceedure by another editor. That editor has since agreed that this C&P job really wasn't a great idea as so much of the material in the article is interdependent. Spitting this article is tricky because of this interdependence. If anyone feels brave enough (doubts++) to set up a new page and do this properly I don't foresee too many objections to this. Hope that helps :) DrMicro (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't feel like trying it. I don't know anything about the subject - just came across one page while disambiguating links, and then found myself fixing the exact same link a dozen pages on. It just seemed like it might have gotten forgotten about halfway through the split, because nothing seemed to have been done or said about it for a while. But if the people who are involved with that article and the discussion about the split know what's where I guess whatever needs to be done with it will be. I'll leave you to it! Thanks for replying. CarrieVS (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

:) Thank you for repairing the links. Its a tedious job but someone has to do it. The editor who created the split has been trying to split long pages for some time. He has been robustly taken to task on multiple occasions over insensitive splitting of articles. Most of the long articles have been created by a number of editors who are familiar with the subject matter and are aware of the problems with these eg slow loading of the page. The problem is that form several of these topics it can be difficult to split the article up. It can be done: the history of Ancient Egypt is a case in point that has been fairly well done. The down side is that to learn much about the topic requires dozens of clicks to different pages.

On a different topic entirely. Instead of just fixing links etc - a necessary but thankless task - might I suggest you have a go at creating a page or two. There are plenty of topics in mathematics and other areas that need work. While for many it can be a bit of a daunting task at first it does get easier with practice. DrMicro (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

:D Clearly not a thankless task, as you just thanked me. And there's a leaderboard and competitions and stuff. And I like doing it. I hope to do some more in the way of content creation at some point, but it'll have to wait a bit: I have a dissertation to write, a job to try and find for next year, and a book to try and publish, besides an awful lot of less important projects. But thanks for the encouragement. CarrieVS (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:Reverting Vandalism

Sorry about that. :( Nezzy ^{(Talk)｜(Editor contributions)} 19:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I forgot about that myself the other day. CarrieVS (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello CarrieVS

First time, I'm not English so I write this language with a lot of errors.

Second, I'm from Catalonia (NOT SPAIN) and I would like to do a recognizement for this country. I think 95% of people out of Catalunya don't know what it is and I think it's a bit pathetic. For this reason I would like to put the flag of the liberty in the page.

Thanks for your attention!

--Oriol20 (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Spain or Catalonia, though I am aware that many Catalonians do not consider it to be part of Spain and are working for independence. I do not expect that you will be able to get consensus for all of your changes to that article - particularly changing "Autonomous community of Spain", but you are welcome to try. Here's what I suggest:

• Have a look at these pages: WP:verifiability, WP:consensus, and WP:Neutral point of view. These describe Wikipedia's policies about what can be put in articles. You might also want to look at WP:don't be a fanatic, as this issue is obviously close to your heart. If you don't understand any of the language, leave a message here and I will try and help, although your English seems pretty good.
• Start a discussion on talk:Catalonia. There is an old discussion already there about whether to call Catalonia a country, which I suggest you look at first. Your changes are likely to be reverted again if you make them again without discussing it. Other editors will also be able to help you write things in Wikipedia's style.
• Find sources for what you want to say. This can be frustrating, but information in Wikpedia articles has to be verifiable, not necessarily true.

CarrieVS (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

About that...

Admonition accepted; I agree I approached the situation in a less than ideal manner and will try to do better. For the record, you know why I brought in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute? Things like this and this. I don't really enjoy being called an anti-Semitic vandal. It was still off-topic, but not totally gratuitous. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I know, it can be really, really hard to keep cool when you're being abused. And I did see all the unfounded accusations of Anti-Semitism, and I really do sympathise (though I still don't see what Israel-Palestine was meant to do besides inflame it further). I've taken Phorion to task (about what I know he said, and also mentioned the stuff by the IPs, repeating my question of are they him) and if he responds with anything other than apologies I will consider taking things further. His conduct is not acceptable, and the only reason I trouted you too was because you are such an experienced editor. CarrieVS (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'll just stop editing that page for a while; it's not worth the aggravation.

Yes, I assume Snichifor, Serbannichifor, Phorion and Newconsonance are one and the same. Indeed, the last has informed me he is Nichifor, "notified by a number of friends in the USA and Romania that the page about my late wife LIANA ALEXANDRA has been repeatedly modified". - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that the first two and the last are almost certainly the same. One thing that doesn't strike true about Phorion also being the same person is Phorion's apparent attitude to Romanian nationality - using it as an apparent slur, and also the affronted-sounding insistence on his talk page that 'I'm not Romanian'. And the tone of Newconsonance's comment to you (so far as I could judge through Google translate, which I admit is not terribly far) seemed quite civil and certainly less infuriated that Phorion.

Not that that proves a lack of a connection, but I'm not sure if there's enough (though I'm not saying I think it's not, I don't know either way; I don't have any experience in this kind of thing) reason to not assume good faith.

I'm tempted to start dealing with Newconsonance as a new, good-faith editor - at least until he does something obviously wrong under this identity that couldn't be explained by his not knowing policy, or it becomes more certain that he is a sockpuppet of Phorion. Maybe put a friendly note on his talk page mentioning WP:COI and WP:OWN.

Any thoughts? CarrieVS (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, you're probably right and it's likely we're dealing with two people here. One is Nichifor himself, with at least three registered accounts. The other is someone else: Phorion and the IPs I was arguing with back in December.

Yes, Nichifor's message to me was polite, I'll grant that. So if you'd like to explain to him that he can go ahead and make whatever improvements we wants, within standard parameters (WP:COI, WP:OWN, WP:V, WP:RS, and so forth), that would be nice. As to myself, I said I didn't feel like further involvement in this affair just now, and I intend to stick to that for the time being. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll do that then, and I'll stop bothering you about it. CarrieVS (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Serban Nichifor - copyvio. There's a scan from a print version of the Grove article in question linked here.--Newconsonance (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Relevant quotes

Obvious plagiarism on Liana Alexandra: 1.) Original Text (from Grove): "Alexandra, Liana (Moraru) (b Bucharest, 27 May 1947). Romanian composer. She studied composition at the Bucharest Academy of Music (1965–71) with Tudor Ciortea and Tiberiu Olah. She took up a career in university education, teaching orchestration, musical form and composition. She is a prolific composer, in her element with orchestral and chamber music, employing repetitive and evolving techniques, with melodic lines which suggest lyricism and meditation. Her instrumentation uses a palette of delicate, pastel colours. Her confident handling of minimalist techniques is shown in chamber works such as Colaje (‘Collages’, 1977) and Incantatii II, no.2 (‘The Enchanted’). Certain works combine mathematical thought with the spontaneity of Byzantine song and Romanian folk music. Virtuosity is an important feature of her concertos, including those for clarinet (1974), viola and flute (1980) and piano four hands (1993)." 2.) Biruitorul's plagiarism (Nota Bene, without the quotes!): Born in Bucharest to a Jewish family,[1][2] she studied composition at the city's Music Academy from 1965 to 1971 under Tudor Ciortea and Tiberiu Olah. She then became a university professor, giving courses on orchestration, musical form and composition. Her wide output of compositions focused on orchestral and chamber music. According to musicologist Octavian Cosma, her works employ "repetitive and evolving techniques, with melodic lines which suggest lyricism and meditation", and her instrumentation features "a palette of delicate, pastel colours". In chamber pieces such as Colaje ("Collages", 1977) and Incantaţii II ("Incantations II"), she displays minimalist style. In other works, she combines mathematical thought with spontaneous characteristics of Byzantine song and Romanian folk music. Her concertos tend to display virtuosity, including those for clarinet (1974), viola and flute (1980) and piano four hands (1993). Quod Erat Demonstrandum!--Newconsonance Obvious plagiarism on Serban Nichifor(I/II): 1.) Original Text (from Grove): "Nichifor, Şerban (b Bucharest, 25 Aug 1954). Romanian composer. After studying the cello with Serafim Antropov at the Bucharest Academy, graduating in 1972, he took private composition lessons with Stroe and Walter Mihai Kleper. Nichifor continued his composition studies in Darmstadt and Breukelen with Ton de Leeuw (1978, 1980) and in Munich with Celibidache. Musical secretary of the George Enescu Philharmonic, he has also taught in the chamber music class at the Bucharest Academy, where he took the doctorate in music (1995) and in theology (1996)." 2.) Biruitorul's plagiarism (Nota Bene, without the quotes!): Born in Bucharest, Nichifor studied cello at the city's Music Academy, finishing in 1972. Following private composition lessons with Aurel Stroe and Walter Mihai Kleper, he continued studying privately in Darmstadt and Breukelen with Ton de Leeuw in 1978 and 1980, and with Sergiu Celibidache in Munich. He has served as musical secretary of the George Enescu Philharmonic Orchestra and has taught chamber music at his alma mater, which awarded him doctorates in music (1995) and theology (1996). Obvious plagiarism on Serban Nichifor(II/II): 1.) Original Text (from Grove): "He has experimented with new techniques of sound organization and structure, notably in his opera Domnişoara Cristina, which includes tape recordings. His eclectic compositonal language extends to jazz elements in his Third and Fourth Symphonies. In his compositions after 1990 he has developed a simplified style employing themes reminiscent of Byzantine chant." 2.) Biruitorul's plagiarism (Nota Bene, without the quotes!): His work features experimentation in new techniques of organizing and structuring sound. For instance, his opera Domnişoara Cristina includes tape recordings. His diverse repertoire includes elements of jazz in his Third and Fourth Symphonies. Since 1990, his work is simpler in style, with themes recalling Byzantine chant. Quod Erat Demonstrandum!--Newconsonance (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I ask the Wikipedia community to solve the case

From this moment I will not interfere. I ask the Wikipedia community to solve the case. I have every confidence in the democratic spirit and fairness of the Wikipedia community.--Phorion (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Note

Hello there CarrieVS. Just wanted to let you know that I removed a post of yours from User talk:Ryanspir. It was good technical advice, but given the difficulties with that editor I think it's best if he stays away from altering other editors' comments until he's a bit more clued up on when its appropriate. Hope that's ok with you. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw, and I agree. It was ill-advised of me to post it, though it was with good intention. Thanks. CarrieVS (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it was a friendly thing to do. I think you may as well close the DRN thread; in reality this isn't a proper dispute, just one editor trying to overturn a consensus established by several others and using DRN to further his crusade. Closing the thread will throw a damp towel on it a bit. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

My impression is he's embroiled in so many disputes that he's frantically defending on all sides, and I think he basically means to be constructive. I'm not saying he's not brought it on himself, but it can't be terribly fun for him. My thinking was that someone not involved telling him how to do things instead of cease-and-desist notices might convince him that we're not all against him - just against certain behaviour.

I'm almost tempted to say he could do with some clue-inducing percussive maintenance. (Don't worry, I'm not going to do it; you should see what happened last time I trouted someone.) CarrieVS (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly I would enjoy seeing what happened the last time you trouted someone. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

this CarrieVS (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Medical uses of silver Dispute resolution

Quackwatch

Can I still reply to the points mentioned in the comments to the dispute resolution? How do I do that? Do I open a new section there? Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just edit the 'Discussion' section as if it was a section on a talk page. No need for new sections. CarrieVS (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Carrie, it must be par for the course to get thanks from those involved in a DRN that closes 'their way' and hate mail from those didn't have it close as hoped, but anyway I wanted to say thanks for your involvement. You really cut to the chase and didn't let any shenanigans get by, which is exactly what DRN participants hope for. Cheers... Zad68 20:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's cheered me up a lot - this was gonna be my first 'resolved', and to have the person I'd taken so much trouble to try and help to gain a clue or two instead of watching him get more and more frustrated and disruptive until he was blocked, get blocked anyway, when it looked like he was so close to finally learning to come to a compromise, was just a little disheartening. I'm glad I could help, even if it didn't come to anything. CarrieVS (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm.... talk to Amadscientist about what kind of skin-toughening regimen he must put himself through, 'cause if you want to do the job you're doing, you'll need it! I assume it involves applying alcohol preparations and daily scrubbing with pumice or something. I'm not so sure how close you actually were to getting through, but it's nice of you to assume good faith that it would have been possible... Once Transporterman explained the outcomes to disputes to me, and there are four: agreement, people give up, arbitration or blocks. I think more of them end with blocks (due to socking, incivility or general disruption) than you might think. Zad68 21:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

and, by the way, your help in getting to the point where we are now was indeed valuable, don't think you were not effective. Zad68 21:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't been embroiled in the various disputes he'd gotten into for long, which I guess means I didn't know as much about it as the rest of you, but also means I wasn't seeing him through the blood-tinted glasses of increasing (and reasonable) frustration, and what he looked like to me was a basically good-faith editor with a lot more enthusiasm than clue, and not even a clue that he didn't have a clue. And while he may have brought it all on himself, he was in so many upsets - and one or two bits of bad luck that weren't his fault - that he was defending frantically on all fronts and probably felt like everyone was against him. So I figured I'd tell him what he could do, and try and guide him through doing it, so he'd get a bit of a break from (justified, don't get me wrong) cease-and-desist notices. I felt sorry for him, and I'm sad that he did something so foolish just when it seemed (to me, though I admit I'm not always great at detecting these things) like he was responding a little. CarrieVS (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see how you came to that position. Participants at DRN are often on their best behavior to try to get you on their side. A view of the participants at DRN can change with more experience doing content development work, and really having to rub elbows with other editors who have a distinctly different view of how the article should look from what makes sense to you. Working with someone who has a different view but who is a genuine good-faith editor is fine. Good editors are both starting with the sources and then letting the sources lead them to the article content. This feels very different from having to deal with an editor motivated to make an article say something in particular no matter what, and who don't really care whether it's within policy or guideline or even common sense - they'll throw out a page of links to sources and wikilinks to every Wikipedia WP:RULES-page in the book in the hope that something sticks. These editors try to do it backwards - they start with how they want the article to read and work backwards from there. Zad68 22:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

...anyway, enough pontificating. Thanks again for your assistance! Zad68 22:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I might say I don't necessarily agree with some of the points mentioned here about me :). Furthermore, every editor (or at least most) are evolving. So I hope I'll evolve past the above mentioned perceptions. Ryanspir (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

The blocking must have been a mistake. I don't do such things. Kindly reopen the dispute.

Discussion of the dispute that wound up here instead of the DRN

Some observations: 1) When I edited (removed) the entry I believed that I have a consensus to do so. Because I have said: My quote 1) Right from the opening comments we have got a consensus that the particular article mentioned won't be used because it's too old. - "So the question isn't whether Quackwatch is a reliable source, but whether this particular Quackwatch article is a reliable source." - Two editors out of three has conceded in their opening comments that this article in question isn't reliable one. Adding me, that is 3 against 1. 2) So we won't consider that article anymore, but instead concentrate on the Lyme article which was proposed to be used instead. And your reply was: "Ok, great start. So, what do you think about the Lyme article: if better sources can't be found, would you agree to use it? CarrieVS (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)" It looked to me as you have accepted that there is a consensus not to use the outdated article and we have decided to move the discussion regarding the second article. That is the reason I have removed it from the article. I did it in a good faith. 2) It's only in the USA that CS is a conventional medicine in relation to external application. In other parts of the world all uses of cs are alternative med, and in Ghana it is approved by FDA as a homeopathic treatment, including ingestion. 3) In this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FBarrett_v._Rosenthal discussion which was provided by Zad it's actually a commentary on a decision that Quackwatch CANNOT be used in the disputed article. Then they have merely provided a commendatory that they didn't ban quackwatch from being used in other wikipedia articles because the arbitration was asked to decide if Quackwatch can be used in relation only to that disputed article. 4)" Finally, I really wish Ryan would stop conflating important content ideas (external vs. ingested) and mischaracterizing the statements of the other DRN participants (I didn't 'concede' anything) or the status of any consensus. Zad68 14:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)". Zad has clearly said "is suboptimal per WP:MEDRS". It's a direct quote. I didn't change or add anything out of his statement, and neither took it out of context. He has conceded to the point that the reference is outdated, and he has offered an alternative. 5) Entry of Mastcell with which I agree I'm not sure why we need to say "according to Quackwatch". It's an easily verifiable matter of common scientific knowledge, not an opinion held largely or solely by Quackwatch. The U.S. National Institutes of Health says that "scientific evidence does not support the use of colloidal silver to treat any disease." Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center states that "no human clinical data support the use of oral colloidal silver." The FDA writes that it is "not aware of any substantial scientific evidence that supports the use of OTC colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts". I'm concerned that we're misleading the reader if we attribute this view to Quackwatch, when in fact Quackwatch is merely describing the modern scientific consensus about colloidal silver. MastCell Talk 18:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC) There was an earlier agreement that if better sources can be found, they shall be used instead of quackwatch and not as an addition. "if better sources can't be found, would you agree to use it? CarrieVS (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)" In addition to quoting you, all the people who have participated in arbitration and RSN discussion regarding quackwatch, even the ones who weren't against it being used has commented that it should not be used if there is a better source to say the same. There is a strong consensus about this point. I think U.S. National Institutes of Health is an ideal source per wp:medrs while quackwatch is considered to be a poor source per wp:medrs at the best. With these, I'm proposing that quackwatch will not be used on this article. Ryanspir (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Ok Ryan, here's what I think. First, I'm very glad to see it was a misunderstanding. I was really disappointed to think that you had done something like that. But I am going to say that I think you have quite a bit to learn about being part of Wikipedia. Particularly about consensus - and especially that consensus doesn't have to be unanimous, which means that if you are the only person who disagrees with something and you have presented your arguments and failed to change anyone's minds, you then have to accept that the consensus view is the one that will be acted upon. Second, I think you have read more into some comments than was intended. I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but if something's not said clearly, it might be best to ask for clarification instead of acting based on an interpretation. This is particularly true when trying to resolve a dispute: if someone asks what you think of a compromise solution, it's not safe to assume that everyone else has already agreed to it and if you also agree you can put into action. You should give your opinion and wait until everyone has explicitly said that they are happy with the solution. Now, back to the topic of Medical uses of silver. There wasn't an agreement earlier that other sources would be used instead. And I will take my share of the blame for that misunderstanding, because I didn't fully understand the issue - my apologies. There is a consensus that the fact that Quackwatch says that is important and relevant, so it is not just being used as a source for the statement that no studies have shown that use of silver to be effective, it is telling readers what Quackwatch, a notable website, says. That is a different issue from whether it is a reliable source for the statement. But if you have other, better sources for the statement about effectiveness, then we can use them as well, if everyone else agrees. If they are reliable sources that support what you want to cite, then I don't think there will be a problem - but don't assume, ask and wait for answers. If the other uses of colloidal silver are considered alternative in some countries, and you have reliable sources to back that up, then I don't see a problem with adding it. But please reach a consensus on that with the other editors. I am going to ask you to hang fire on those two points for a short while, because it's easier to resolve things if we concentrate on one thing at a time. As you may have seen, before you got blocked, we were discussing whether or not to replace the older Quackwatch article with the newer one, and everyone else had said that they would agree to that. Please don't make the edit yet, but can you give your answer as well (on the DRN thread please, not here). Remember that you have already given your arguments for removing Quackwatch altogether, and consensus hasn't changed. So Quackwatch is going to stay in the article. The three options are: cite the old article, cite the newer article, or cite both articles. CarrieVS (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC) notable source? Can you please count how many editors called it notable or a reliable source? And how many called it speculative and of very low quality? Can you please read the arbitration case in full and see why it was decided that quackwatch cannot be used? Can you please reread the opening comments in which they agreed that if a better source available quackwatch shall not be used? I have adjusted my position because mastcell proposed a better source. Kindy try to convince the other editors too for a compromise if possible to use mastcell's source instead of quackwatch. Ryanspir (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Hi Carrie, to be clear, Ryan's statement "it was decided that quackwatch cannot be used" is factually untrue. Zad68 18:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Here's the situation. I am going to remain neutral in this dispute, so I won't try to convince anyone of anything apart from to remind people of policy. But I will help you put your points across and make sure they are given due - and no more - consideration. It was not decided that Quackwatch could not be used in general. It was decided that it could be used where it is appropriate. As I said above, if you want to cite another source as well, you are welcome - after we have reached agreement on the current issue - to put that to the other editors and try to reach a consensus, with a clear statement of which source you want to use and what content you want to cite with it. But the reason that the others rejected Mastcell's suggestion is because they aren't just using Quackwatch to cite the fact that there are no studies showing that... but there is a consensus that Quackwatch's opinion is useful and appropriate information. My suggestion - which has not yet been put to the other editors, and might not be agreed upon when it is - is that we cite one or both of the Quackwatch articles, as sources for what Quackwatch has to say, and the other source, if it is agreed to be reliable, as an (additional) source for the statement about the lack of studies showing effectiveness. What is your view on that? CarrieVS (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC) In my opinion, this is an accurate status and good suggestions for path forward, although I'm wondering why we're doing all this on your Talk page and not in the publicly-watched DRN case. Zad68 19:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC) We're doing it here because my first reply to Ryan's comment was off topic in places, so I replied here, and then we started going over old ground, and I haven't yet gotten around to saying let's move back'. I'll say it now: Let's move this back to the DRN thread. I don't think there's any need to copy this whole thing to there, but I will put a comment mentioning this discussion and linking here. No more replies here, please, the DRN is the more appropriate place. CarrieVS (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) can or cannot? Can zad please quote the resolution? Perhaps i have misread? I mean the original case please. Ryanspir (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC) This is your claim to support, as you were the one who stated "it was decided that quackwatch cannot be used". I looked through the ARBCOM case and the amendment and did not find support for your statement in the final dispositions of either archive. Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to you to support your own case, it is not up to others to do that work for you. If you cannot find support for your statement, you can withdraw it. Zad68 18:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Zad is right about that. There is consensus on this article that it can be used, so it is up to you to show that it can't. I suggest that if you are still sure about that, you read the both arbitration discussion and the reliable sources noticeboard one again, carefully. If you find that they support your view, tell us exactly where on the pages it says so - maybe quote us a bit, but make sure that it isn't taken out of context. If one or more commenters expressed the opinion that Quackwatch shouldn't be used during the discussion, that won't count. You would need the final agreement that was reached to support your claim. If it was concluded that Quackwatch shouldn't be used in a particular article, that also won't count. You would need it to be concluded that it shouldn't be used in any article to support your claim. CarrieVS (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC) amendment In the amendment it was written, that the original arbcom decision is not a total ban on quackwatch, meaning that the original decision banned its use within the article in question. That link is already in the dispute thread as you have provided it. Perhaps i have misread? Ryanspir (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC) (this is going to be the last reply on this page. To respond to this or anything else, do so on the DRN thread.) There's your answer. It was ruled that it couldn't be used on one article. So on other articles it can be used if consensus deems it appropriate. CarrieVS (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Any further discussion of the disputed content should take place on the DRN thread. Thank you. CarrieVS (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's continue

I'm ok now, thanks for giving the time. So I see the things like that: Since I agree with mastcell, if you will be able to persuade any one of the three opposing editors to accept the compromise introduced by mastcell we have a consensus. Otherwise it's failed. I hope you would try to make your first dispute resolution to be solved, if possible.

p.s. And thank you that you seconded my opinion regarding arbcom case brought by zad. That was exactly what I said, that the resolution was that quackwatch won't be used on that article, then it was explained that arbcom won't ban quackwatch, not because it's trustworthy or reliable in any degree, or not; but because its not the arbcom mandate to do so. (And that means that indeed theoretically it can be used as you rightly stated.) However, zad disputed what I have said for some reason and it's strange that he provided this arbcom case to support his argument because the particular decision was actually against quackwatch to be used. :) Something that zad continues to dispute for some reason.

Ryanspir (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As you've probably noticed, the DRN thread has been archived due to being left for too long, but I don't mind continuing to discuss it here.

With regard to the arbcom case, I'm not certain what you are trying to say. The decision of the arbcom case was not against Quackwatch in general, only against Quackwatch being used in that article. As far as I can see, it neither supports nor opposes Quackwatch in general, so I think we can agree that it is not relevant to this case and so we needn't say any more about it.

Regarding Mastcell's suggestion, both he and myself had not fully understood the reasons for citing Quackwatch. As Zad explained in reply to Mastcell's comment, the other editors are in agreement that Quackwatch's opinion on the subject is useful and relevant information, and they wish to keep the "Quackwatch says..." line in not just as in-text attribution for the information but as something relevant in itself. It certainly seems to me that Quackwatch is a perfectly good source for what Quackwatch says, so here's what I suggest:

• We include Quackwatch's opinion, sourced to Quackwatch. (We will need to agree finally which - or both - of the two articles to cite and what wording to use, but can we talk about that after we've come to an agreement about including it at all.)
• We also use one or more of Mastcell's sources as a citation for the fact that there is no evidence for taking colloidal silver by mouth. (Again, we would need to decide which source(s) and what wording to use, but again, can we discuss that after agreeing in principle. I think it's much easier to work things out by addressing one point at a time.)

What do you think about that? CarrieVS (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

dearchiving

As Lukeno94 suggested on his talk page, one of the admins who hangs around drn should be asked to do that. Would you like i do that? I just feel its better if you do that since you are managing our discussion. Ryanspir (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have already told you my reasons for not wanting to de-archive it. My opinion is unchanged. If you are still adamant that you want it reopened, go to WT:DRN and ask. If an admin or another volunteer thinks that there's any merit in de-archiving it, they can do so. CarrieVS (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Archived without closing

"It looks like Cinema of Andhra Pradesh and Mail Online got archived without being officially closed. Does something need to be done to fix that somehow? Dreamyshade (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the system is set up that way. Cases stay open for 14 days after they're filed, but then get archived if there is no action in the case for 24 hours. The idea is that if cases are here longer than that and aren't continuously progressing then they ought to move on to another venue. I will say, however, that Steven Zhang's original vision for this noticeboard (feel free to correct me, Steve, if I'm wrong) was that this was going to be more of a clearinghouse to send DR cases to other venues except for lightweight disputes which could be quickly and easily resolved here. It has arguably morphed into something quite different from that. Having said that, however, I'm fine with the way it works now, though I wonder if we might shouldn't provide a little more notice of the way it is going to work. Tip: if you're working on a case and want to extend it's lifetime, change the date in the hidden DoNotArchiveUntil line, but don't do it unless you're making steady progress and don't extend it too far. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

" Ryanspir (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Cancer section

Have you checked the cancer section on doc james talk? Do you consider the university which is conducting it as reliable? Ryanspir (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't, I don't know, and I don't care. I'm happy to spend a little longer helping you try and come to an agreement about the Quackwatch issue, but that is all I am going to have to do with the Medical uses of silver. CarrieVS (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

little longer

well, if you would like to help me, please consider taking look at it. Its located in uk, i think its university of leeds if i'm not mistaken. Ryanspir (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the University of Leeds is a perfectly respectable university. However I know no more about it than the average member of the public, and I have no inclination to do any research on the matter.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I am willing to continue for a little longer to discuss the matter that we were discussing in the DRN, if you want (if you decide to let the matter rest, I would be very happy with that). Other than that I have no interest whatsoever in the article Medical uses of silver. CarrieVS (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

here it is

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120202094700.htm and the referenced article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C2DT12399A). Lets continue a bit. So here is my reasoning, that this research is aimed at oral ingestion of cs for cancer treatment and its improbably unlikely that a respectable univ would investigate for this purpose a quack substance. The positive initial results second that. Ryanspir (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Is your point that it's not quackery, therefore we shouldn't give Quackwatch's opinion about it?

If so, I am very pleased that you're addressing the point, but I disagree and I think the other editors will as well. The reason being, it was explicitly noted in the RSN discussion about Quackwatch that the site's scope goes beyond what is typically understood by the term 'quackery' (i.e. charlatanism and fraud) and includes things which are not necessarily being fraudulently promoted but for which there is no evidence. Which includes the ingestion of colloidal silver.

Up to this point, there has been no evidence for its supposed benefits, and I do not think this new research is yet sufficient to change that.

• Firstly, I don't know enough about the subject to say much:
  • I don't know whether or not Science Daily is considered reliable.
  • I can only see the abstract of the paper, and I don't know enough to understand it.
  • Neither article nor abstract actually mentions colloidal silver, and I don't know enough to work out whether what they're talking about is CS or not. Nor can I find any mention of ingesting anything.
• Secondly, what I do know does not suggest that this is enough to change the position that there's no evidence of benefit.
  • As far as I can see from the article, their research is in the earliest stages, and it looks like all it is so far is looking at cells in a Petri dish. I do know enough to say that that is not nearly enough to say that there is any evidence that ingesting the stuff will do you any good whatsoever.
  • The research is only about cancer, and CS is being promoted for all kinds of things, so even if this research was enough to say there is evidence of benefit to treat cancer, there would still be no evidence for the rest.

It may change in the future, but for now, ingesting CS is being promoted as a treatment for all kinds of illnesses and as a general health supplement, with no evidence for any benefit, and this falls under Quackwatch's scope. CarrieVS (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

(aside: Ryan, in future can we keep it in the section that's already here? Also, you don't need a new subheading every. single. time.)

Sorry, in my cp i can only add section. I see though that you didn't put same pressure on the other editors towards a compromise as you did on me. It seems you were intimidated by their numbers and their way of addressing, like that of desotho. That resulted in you being discouraged. Thats exactly what they are doing to the other editors as well. So i propose that they will change the outdated reference per consensus earlier to the one offered by zad and i'll challenge it in a new drn. Ryanspir (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I assure you, I was not intimidated in the slightest. Nor does it seem to me that anyone else is being intimidated. The reason I have pressed you to either alter your request or come up with a new argument is because there has been and is a consensus against your opinion. Although consensus can change, and you have the right to challenge it, repeatedly making the same argument which has already been rejected and refusing to accept the consensus decision is stonewalling, which is considered disruptive and is not allowed. If you want to challenge consensus again, you have to offer either a different suggestion or a new argument.

I don't think there's any need for a new DRN. There was agreement from the others about keeping Quackwatch but switching to the newer article at one point, so if you are happy with that compromise as well I suggest that you go back to the article talk page and suggest making the edit. The wording that was suggested, and which met with approval, was "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness." (Given the past record of edit-warring and the time that's passed since this suggestion was last mentioned, I would advise going to the talk page instead of making the change immediately, but I don't foresee any objections.) CarrieVS (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

About cancer research. The term colloidal silver has nothing to do with the molecule configuration or the structure. It means silver dispersed in another medium. The journal article suggests that they have read the whole publication and written it in layperson terms, so in fact its even better for understanding. Its highly unlikely in my opinion that they will spend tax payers money in research of random substances for cancer treatment. More so to research what according to quackwatch is explicitly considered as not effective for any condition. I also think that quackwatch position was formed based on old research as indicates their datestamp on the main article about cs. I think their para about cs in lyme section was also made at that time and the page was updated later on with unrelated to cs info. Ryanspir (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're trying to give me a crash course in colloidal silver, I appreciate it, but you're probably fighting a losing battle. But I don't think it matters: I listed the things I didn't know so as not to give any false impressions, but I did understand enough to know that what they have got so far is absolutely not evidence that ingesting colloidal silver has any benefits for treating cancer, and even less evidence that it has benefit for of the other things it is promoted for.

I'm sure they had a reason to research this, but that does not add up to any evidence that it works. The whole reason to do research is because you don't know something.

Let me put forward a suggestion to deal with the date of the Quackwatch articles (it has not been suggested to the other editors yet, and I have no guarantee that they will agree).

Do you think it would be acceptable to say that Quackwatch has said that there is no evidence...? Not necessarily in that wording, but in the past tense. And we can also use a more up to date source, such as one of the ones suggested by Mastcell, to cite the fact that there is still no evidence. CarrieVS (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The world colloidal is defined in the relevant article on the wikipedia. I'm not giving you a crash course, I'm explaining that because you have mentioned you are not sure about it.

The cancer research by a respectable UK univ doesn't provide an evidence yet that it's useful for cancer or other conditions. Therefore I didn't propose this source to be used for this. However, I imply that this research shows that cs is not a quack medicine. You have mentioned that quackwatch doesn't necessarily deals with fraud or scam substances, however ordinary readers wouldn't know that. All they see is that: "Quackwatch says" and the opinion that cs is a quack medicine (AND FRAUD) is forming in their minds. That is the reason the other editors decided to include it. I see such inclusion is wrong both on technical grounds (as first article is outdated, and the scope of the 2nd is related explicitly to Lyme disease, and the inclusion of "any other conditions" is misplaced.

I think a respectable univ makes a good preliminary research before starting a research. They are highly unlikely to fail by wrongly selecting a quack substance. To consider such scenario would constitute in really undermining them or misunderstanding of the process of making a research, especially for such a serious condition as cancer. The positive preliminary results shows us that cs is effective for cancer in-vitro and the fact that they are doing such a research gives as understanding that its highly expected that it will be effective in-vivo too. So at this time in my opinion the article shouldn't say that cs is either effective or a quack medicine. We shall portrait cs as a substance under extensive research, with some researchers considering it as a new vector in antimicrobial treatment. Ryanspir (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have addressed the point and brought up some new arguments. I can't say I'm hopeful that the others will accept them, but it is progress.

This, then, is as far as we go on user talk pages. You need to put the new argument to the other editors next.

After hearing what the others at the DRN have had to say about your request for de-archiving, and given that we have made some progress, I've said that I won't reject reopening the case, if others agree (my response in full). So we should wait until we hear more about that, and then, if you still want to carry on, depending on what the other volunteers say, either take this back to the DRN, or to the article talk page. CarrieVS (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, though please avoid personalizing it. Posting that some editors are fed with other editor(s) makes it look unnecessary personal. In fact as a volunteer that tries to solve a dispute it may be a wise thing to call the editors who are not assuming good faith to AGF. Ryanspir (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI I have commented on the relevance of the Leeds in vitro study to Quackwatch's characterization of ingested colloidal silver here. Zad68 14:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not in-vitro study, you are totally mistaken. This is the study for ingestion of cs in order to treat cancer. I have replied on the talk page. Ryanspir (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The press release directly from Leeds says "lab tests". Agree we should continue this content discussion at article talk page. Zad68 15:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that we have agreed at least on something. Even if it's just in relation to a place where we shall discuss. Ryanspir (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

CarrieVS, what is your opinion please? Will we continue the dispute resolution or will we just implement the change of the outdated article with the one with the newer date stamp in Lyme's desease article per consensus? Ryanspir (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

See my latest comment on WT:DRN. CarrieVS (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Per conclusion of the RSN I have two questions:

1) Who should make the actual edit of the article to reflect the consensus?

On a completely side note, do you remember that in the beginning of the RSN i have introduced many articles about nanosilver and later we didn't consider them because they didn't specifically mention "cs"? An editor has just provided this research on my talk page: http://journals1.scholarsportal.info/details-sfx.xqy?uri=/09277765/v88i0001/505_apniascd.xml which says: "Excellent colloidal stability and antimicrobial activity are important parameters for silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) in a range of biomedical applications." Ryanspir (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder

I don't object or anything. But what was the point of it? The whole sentence (and probably the whole article, but I won't go there) is choc-a-bloc with links to dab pages. In fact your piping of Classical to Classical architecture kind of ruins the system. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC).

If it was meant to be to the dab page, please change it back. I didn't look at what the rest of the links went to, I was just going through the list of pages that link to Classical. I tend to be quite bold when disambiguating in userspace, where I figure that if the user in question is still active, they will see the change and change it again if necessary, and if not, probably no-one cares. And in most cases, I think, dablinks are accidental even in userspace. Apologies. CarrieVS (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh.. hmm. Well, the whole page is just an obsolete joke, and the links aren't exactly meant to be useful, any more than the rest of it, so I suppose I will change it back. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 13:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC).

sick

i'm currently sick, will continue the discussion once ok. Ryanspir (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Get well soon. CarrieVS (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN on PS/2 connector

Just a quick nudge - R. said he'd accept the CN tag, and I said I'd take that - should the discussion be closed? Jeh (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, probably should. I was just giving it a little while in case any more objections came up. But thanks for the reminder. CarrieVS (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: can only add section

That's ok. Just letting you know that I'll continue to move the comments to the existing section, and I'll also delete the headings except where it seems helpful to have one - my TOC was getting pretty long! CarrieVS (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Your demeanor on DRN is cool and collected.You maintain a level head and seem to be able to cut straight to the point. Your posts always add value to the discussions, keep it up! Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 02:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :) CarrieVS (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinion piece

You appear to have misunderstood the term "opinion piece" (US English "think piece").

If John Smith writes an article for a newspaper expressing his opinions about something - that is an "opinion piece". This is true whether John Smith is an full-time employee of the newspaper or a guest columnist. The Financial Times, for example, often has such articles in its centre pages written by politicians; last Christmas they had one written by Pope Benedict XVI, whose job was described as the "Bishop of Rome".

If John Smith (or Pope Benedict XVI) writes the same article expressing the opinions of his employer, that is also an "opinion piece".

If John Smith writes a news article reporting on the opinions expressed by named politicians, religious figures and businessmen this is a news report, not an opinion piece. A key difference is that John Smith is reporting on what other people say, not on what he thinks. Interviews are not opinion pieces.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was more that I misunderstood the article. You are absolutely right, and thank you for explaining. I've corrected myself in the discussion. CarrieVS (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Help

Carrie, User:Darkness Shines has put me on some kind of notice board that apparently gives him some power to do this. I can't believe this. I want to know why my name is suddenly on this list and whether he is abusing his power because I reported him in Arbitration. I don't understand this, and please keep him away from me. This is intimidation. Crtew (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

[[1]]

I made some edits at the war crimes tribunal page today -- just copy editing -- to look for some connections between journalists and that article, and DS seems to be active there. The reason I came to you is because I can't find out who is monitoring this list. I don't see any kind of transparency. I didn't even know this kind of thing existed in Wikipedia. This is awful. I'm not making any more edits in Wikipedia until this kind of intimidation stops. Crtew (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This exact thing happened to me a few weeks ago - after displaying remarkable aggression towards me over an article we were both editing, he went ahead and reported me. You'll notice that on the noticeboard, the last seven editors were put there by Darkness Shines. I don't really know my way around Wikipedia well enough to raise this with higher powers, but DS's conduct with other editors infringing on 'his turf' is terrible. Applesandapples (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

When you say you reported him in Arbitration, are you referring to the DRN filing?

I have almost no experience of Arbitration, but as far as I can work out, the list is simply a list of editors who have received a warning like the one DS left on your talk page. I presume it is monitored by the Arbitration Committee.

I'm not sure he was justified in doing that, but as far as I can work out, no 'power' is needed to give such a warning is beyond ordinary editing privileges (he ought to have used an additional parameter on the warning template that would have removed the line about an uninvolved administrator, since he isn't one, but I'm sure that was an honest mistake).

I don't think you need be too concerned about being on this list. If you don't behave badly on India-Pakistan articles, nothing will come of it, and if you do find yourself facing any sanctions and you feel that it's unjustified, you will be able to explain; you may as well treat the warning as a helpful notice that extra caution is required on these articles. But if you are bothered about it, there is almost certainly a talk or project page somewhere that you can post your concerns on, but as yet I haven't found one that seems appropriate.

As far as DS's behaviour goes, I am not impressed with what I have seen. I won't say more than that right now.

I will say, though, that in your case, Crtew, you both handled the disagreement over the BLP issue pretty poorly. And quite possibly he did imagine you'd followed him to the second article. It's easy enough, when you're already angry with someone, to read all kinds of things into their behaviour even when it's perfectly innocent.

Based on what I've seen of Darkness Shines' behaviour, possibly some action such as a Request for comment on user conduct may be called for. I don't have time to find out any more tonight, so for now I will simply encourage you to be as calm and polite as possible if you have any more contact with him, and try not to let any situation escalate: two wrongs make twice as wrong between the two of you. CarrieVS (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote a list of my complaints about this template and about DS's misrepresentation of himself as an administrator to the Arbitration Committee's list. I had every right to edit International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) (and not one of my edits was about substance but copyediting a horribly written page) and I had the right explore the connections between David Bergman (journalist) and this content. The wikilink is clear inside Bergman's article. DS's charge that I was a stalker is simply a snap WP:BadFaith judgment that is over the top. I overlap with editors all the time who also edit in journalism and human rights and I never once have thought that someone was stalking me. But DS is in a whole other mindset as far as editing in Wikipedia goes than I am. I had no idea about this subculture of pages where every edit is an edit war and that these kind of templates could be slapped on my page on a whim by anyone. No wonder I couldn't communicate or reason with him. I'm not going to do anymore editing ICT-(B), I think this template and notice board are Wikipedia-sanctioned forms of intimidation, and all I want for DS to do is to leave me alone. Please tell him to stop as I have tried to several times. I'm avoiding any pages inside Wikipedia with this kind of subculture (now that I've seen a listing), which is probably not the best if editors with good intentions are being driven away and the extreme mindsets are allowed to take over and keep fighting it out. But that is the way Wikipedia and the Arbitration Committee has set it up.

I truly regret that you think that I didn't handle the situation well, but for me the original point was a non-contentious one and this is the cornerstone of the BLP policy as it is written (All I'm saying is that "contentious" is a key word in the document). That's clearly spelled out. But I admit, I do not see issues as black and white and and I am comfortable working with nuances and ambiguity, which is probably was not the best approach when dealing with an editor who is in a hyper-alert mindset, which these subcultures within Wikipedia allow to fester and proliferate. Crtew (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that makes me a little upset with your judgment is that you write on his talk page: "you have all the right arguments" after he violates WP:BadFaith and WP:Civility. I really think that's far off the mark and it just encourages more bad behavior. Other than that, I think you've done a good job. The basic problem here was a clash of mindsets and two cultures of editing colliding. Crtew (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood. That was this meaning of argument. I was simply cautioning him to make sure he puts all the right parameters in when he uses a template.

As I have always understood it, the cornerstone of the BLP policy is that not adding unsourced/poorly BLP information is vital, and higher standards are held than elsewhere. Ideally everything would be sourced to a high standard. 'Contentious' is a subjective definition, and with BLP we need to always err on the side of caution. And even if DS was being over-zealous in enforcing that policy, I understand that your wish was not to keep the original sourcing at all, but to keep the information with better sources. Which could have been found just as well with the information temporarily removed - if you wanted other editors' input, it could have been copied to the talk page - as with it in. Instead you edit-warred. That is not good handling of a disagreement. But that is enough about the David Bergman dispute.

If you want another editor to leave you alone, the best thing to do is not to rush to their talk page to make repeated impassioned complaints. You have posted two comments in a row on his talk page, with no reply from him in between; how can you expect him to leave you alone if you do not leave him alone? I'm also not entirely sure that messaging every person DS has ever warned with an affronted call to arms was the best thing to do about your concerns over ArbCom. Explaining the issues calmly on an appropriate talk page or at WP:help desk might be a better way forward.

I think you may be being a little unfair to ArbCom. I think Darkness Shines may have misused the template (in your case at least; I haven't yet looked closely at the others) but any warning template could be misused - including being used in good faith but mistakenly. I will try and find out more about this and see if I can help at all, but I won't have time until the evening. CarrieVS (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

I thank you for clarifying this issue. But you also should understand that not only does he have to be an administrator but also an uninvolved one. He is neither in my perspective. Thanks again, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither the template:Uw-sanctions nor Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions say any such thing. It is simply that the default setting of the template is to have the uninvolved administrator line and anyone who is not an uninvolved administrator should use an additional parameter to hide it. CarrieVS (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am not reading it the way you are, but I see

I hope this helps. I believe that one has to be uninvolved to eliminate the WP:COI. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but he has not imposed any sanctions. He has only used the warning template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarrieVS (talk • contribs)

I fully agree with Mr T that User:Darkness Shines has a WP:COI in applying the template because he tags people on pages where he himself is active as an editor and that goes against a fundamental principle of Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter what the policy about those templates say, because COI is the higher principle within Wikipedia. It's so basic that it was on the points raised in introductions about Wikipedia. Crtew (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, I am not talking about the template in general. Don't wish to stir things up here. I am humbly talking about the contravention he has committed by warning us as an uninvolved admin. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but what I meant was just to clarify that he simply made a mistake with using the template. It has been explained to him and I am sure he will take more care in future. CarrieVS (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As I have said on Crtew's page, I do not want to say any more, and I am going to ask for help. CarrieVS (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, I never misconstrued you not even for a second. Also, you might want to explain to him that "warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend his/her ways" (See this). Did he do any of that?? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What's most important here is that we have learned what our rights are and we are removing ourselves from this invalid list. This in itself is a powerful statement against the practice and the intimidation. Unfortunately, it only affects the few of us in the small subcircle. All of those people in other areas of Wikipedia with this kind of a board are still in chains. Crtew (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Do not revert my edit until you know what you're talking about. Crtew (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe I do know what I am talking about. Please do not revert my edit. It will only make it harder for anyone trying to understand this problem and resolve it. CarrieVS (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see my latest comment on your talk page. I was not aware that you were in contact with ArbCom. CarrieVS (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Now there's a coordinated editing attack on material that has already been settled in our arbitration on David Bergman (journalist) which seems spearheaded by DS. Is this a set up? This is aggressive editing. I stopped once I realized he had coordinated this with his buddy on his talk page. These people are in a different world. Crtew (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am now ready to begin a report on DS at a higher level. Of all of the editors I've met he should not have special editing powers. Please advise me what to do beyond the Dispute Resolution. Moreover, other editors who contacted me today told me they have had similar experiences. Crtew (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would think that WP:RFC/U is probably the place. However my own knowledge of that forum is slight - I'm only involved with the DRN. Make sure you read the guidance page and the list of minimum requirements carefully. Then, if you think the requirements are met and that an RfC is called for, follow the steps set out on the guidance page.

And one minor point; you've mentioned Arbitration a couple of times when I think you meant dispute resolution or the DRN. They are quite different things, so make sure you use the right term when explaining the situation. CarrieVS (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello CarrieVS. I am a bit concerned about potentially-involved editors leaving Discretionary sanction notices that do not clearly specify the reason for leaving the warning. That is, the description of the bad behavior is not given either in the ARBIPA log or on the user's talk page. If Darkness Shines continues to leave notices, I suggest that a discussion at WP:Arbitration enforcement might be appropriate. There is a longer-term issue about the rather sharp language of the uw-sanctions template, but I think we can let Arbcom work that out when their schedule permits. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with this. I am quite honestly out of my depth, and my knowledge of the many different forums and noticeboards is pretty much restricted to the DRN. Crtew came to me for help so I've done my best, but I am uneasy about giving further advice. I have just now said on Crtew's talk page that, as an administrator is now involved, I would prefer to leave it up to him (that is, you) to take the lead, and I'm not really an involved party, so I'm inclined to back off from the situation - I'll of course be happy to give input if it's asked for or seems appropriate. Is that ok? CarrieVS (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Requests for closure

Hi CarrieVS. I took your suggestion[2] and posted a request at requests for closure. While the request for closure is pending, would you please consider returning the two articles to their unmerged state? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In short, no.

It could look like edit-warring - perhaps even meatpuppetry on your part. When there's been edit-warring already over something, I don't think it's an especially good idea for anyone to change it - even to revert to the older version - until there's been a final decision. And it's particularly not a good idea for an involved editor to ask someone else to do so: it could leave you open to accusations of meatpuppetry, which could get us both blocked.

Be patient; if the closing editor decides there is no consensus for a merge, then the unmerged pages will be restored, no harm done, and if they decide there is, then undoing it would have been a waste of time. Meanwhile, you've suggested temporarily unmerging on the talk page: if the other editors involved agree with the reason for doing so, then they will say so. If they don't, I'd Undoing the merge would be restarting the edit war. CarrieVS (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove my incorrect posts. With apologies. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for pointing it out. Apologies for the confusion; you know how it is when it looks obvious to you because you know what you meant. CarrieVS (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Carrie for your patience with me, especially I'd read that Kww was you on my talkpage! --Richhoncho (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. CarrieVS (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your great work in resolving conflicts through Dispute resolution Notice Board Naveed (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Silver - 2 notes

Hi Carrie, two notes: First, from a technical standpoint, I do not think this "dummy edit" will have the intended effect of preventing EarwigBot from archiving the case. Archive bots generally look for the newest date in a section (something that looks like 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)) to see if it's stale enough for archiving, they don't look at the actual timestamp of when the edit is made. The general trick to prevent a bot from archiving a section is to use {{subst:DNAU}}. Second, it appears Alexbrn (talk · contribs) is on Wikibreak. As you already noted, he was in agreement with myself and Doc, and now with Ryan's !vote, I think we have unanimous agreement and we can close as successful? Feel free to merge this with your existing Silver section here on your talk page. Cheers... Zad68 18:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I knew that about archive bots. I feel stupid. But it didn't archive it anyway - I thought it was after 24 hours. It's closed now. CarrieVS (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Per conclusion of the RSN I have a question:

Who should make the actual edit of the article to reflect the consensus?

On a *completely* side note, do you remember that in the beginning of the RSN i have introduced many articles about nanosilver and later we didn't consider them because they didn't specifically mention "cs"? An editor has just provided this research on my talk page: http://journals1.scholarsportal.info/details-sfx.xqy?uri=/09277765/v88i0001/505_apniascd.xml which says: "Excellent colloidal stability and antimicrobial activity are important parameters for silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) in a range of biomedical applications." Ryanspir (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can make the edit. The others apparently don't mind whether it's made or not, so they're probably leaving it to you.

As for that other research, I know nothing about the subject (and to be perfectly frank, I don't especially care), so you would be better talking to the other people who edit in that area. Take care that you really are bringing up something new and not going over the ground from the concluded DRN case again, listen to what everyone has to say and be sure to address their points rather than repeating the arguments you already made, and be aware of the possibilty of no-one agreeing with you, and you should be fine. Now that the case is concluded I don't expect to have any more to do with that article. CarrieVS (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks

well, thank you for taking time to handle this case. I was also wondering who and why deleted parts of my last comment before it was archived. Ryanspir (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome.

As far as I can see nobody deleted any of it. I collapsed the second paragraph because it was supposed to be agree/disagree statements only, with maybe a brief comment, but it was still there. CarrieVS (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1