| Revision as of 12:59, 15 April 2008 editRoadcreature (talk | contribs)4,347 edits →Melody Amber chess tournament← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:04, 15 April 2008 edit undoFram (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors247,265 edits →Melody Amber chess tournament: You can't make such claims without diffs and then ask to "assume good faith", that is dodging the issue.Next edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| :::Could you post diffs to any lies and personal attacks (apart from the one where you incorrectly accused GijsvdL of lying)? Please refrain from making baseless accusations. ] (]) 12:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC) | :::Could you post diffs to any lies and personal attacks (apart from the one where you incorrectly accused GijsvdL of lying)? Please refrain from making baseless accusations. ] (]) 12:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I do not make baseless accusations. Please assume good faith. ] (]) 12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC) | ::::I do not make baseless accusations. Please assume good faith. ] (]) 12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Please post diffs for your accusations. I have refuted those I am aware of (on the 3RR board); if your above post was based on others, it may not be baseless, but then you should include diffs to support it. If the above was based on the claims of you being blocked on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, and having an ArbCom appointed mentor there, then these are not PA's and lies but simple facts (they may still be ad hominem remarks, but that is something different), and your accusations are baseless. It's up to you to back up your claims or withdraw them, and "assuming good faith" is just dodging the issue. ] (]) 13:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:04, 15 April 2008
 Archives |
| This user is on Wiki-break. |
| Prof. Anton Komaroff (2007): "None of the participants in creating the 1988 CFS case definition and name ever expressed any concern that it might TRIVIALISE the illness. We were insensitive to that possibility and WE WERE WRONG." |
| Prof. Malcolm Hooper (2007): "The simplest test for M.E. is just to say to the patient ‘stand over there for ten minutes’." |
Self-promotion
I know I said that this should be taken to WP:COIN or WP:RSN... However: I think it would be a good idea to take Black Kite's advice here, and stop inserting PA removed Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC) references that don't add to the readers' understanding. Best, --Bfigura 23:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the guidelines. It does not matter who wrote the publications, only whether they are relevant. Assume good faith, and do not make unfounded accusations. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- And that would be true if the sources in question were being cited by the article. (Ie, using a CITE template, or some such). But since they weren't, it's not clear that the sources are (or were) needed. And given that you're the author, Black Kite is right: there's really no need for the books to be listed, especially as you're the author. --Bfigura 00:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please, there is no 'especially' here, stop with these cheap shots. They are relevant because they contain more information on the topic, information that the reader may want to know. In addition, they are verification that the tournaments have in fact taken place and that the winners are as listed. If you really felt that they were not relevant, surely you would remove all of them. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Reverted as per WP:COS, since you had no answer. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please, there is no 'especially' here, stop with these cheap shots. They are relevant because they contain more information on the topic, information that the reader may want to know. In addition, they are verification that the tournaments have in fact taken place and that the winners are as listed. If you really felt that they were not relevant, surely you would remove all of them. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- And that would be true if the sources in question were being cited by the article. (Ie, using a CITE template, or some such). But since they weren't, it's not clear that the sources are (or were) needed. And given that you're the author, Black Kite is right: there's really no need for the books to be listed, especially as you're the author. --Bfigura 00:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Melody Amber chess tournament
I've decided to try something different today: I won't block you if both of you (User:GijsvdL) just stop editing chess articles and use discussion to work out your disagreements. Both of you are not allowed to edit a chess article (Except to remove blatantly obvious vandalism/libel) until some progress is made between you. If you wish, I can help mediate the discussion. Scarian 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd like you to initiate mediation, since I fear that otherwise this thing will spread rapidly. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please avoid posting to the 3RR noticeboard unless your post is directly related to 3RR. Many people have the noticeboard on their watchlist. You can continue discussion elsewhere, e.g. user talk pages. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I am merely responding to lies and PA's. I'd appreciate it if you remove all irrelevant comments, to the point where none of these defamatory statements remains. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Could you post diffs to any lies and personal attacks (apart from the one where you incorrectly accused GijsvdL of lying)? Please refrain from making baseless accusations. Fram (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do not make baseless accusations. Please assume good faith. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please post diffs for your accusations. I have refuted those I am aware of (on the 3RR board); if your above post was based on others, it may not be baseless, but then you should include diffs to support it. If the above was based on the claims of you being blocked on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, and having an ArbCom appointed mentor there, then these are not PA's and lies but simple facts (they may still be ad hominem remarks, but that is something different), and your accusations are baseless. It's up to you to back up your claims or withdraw them, and "assuming good faith" is just dodging the issue. Fram (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do not make baseless accusations. Please assume good faith. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please avoid posting to the 3RR noticeboard unless your post is directly related to 3RR. Many people have the noticeboard on their watchlist. You can continue discussion elsewhere, e.g. user talk pages. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)