User talk:Telcia

February 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Rapunzel676. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you a level 2 warning for personal attacks as you removed the first warning and then continued to character assasinate me. Below I have given sent you a welcome template to help you familarise yourself with wikipedia rules and guidelines. I am not the author of these templates so please direct any criticism to authors of the welcome tool or twinkle warning tool rather than I. It is unfair that I have to spend my time on wikipedia dealing with character assassinations which are unprovoked, with no talk on actual content.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Multiple thoughtless, stupid, ill-considered, overly emotional and childish comments removed by the author.] Rapunzel676 (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reconsidered my initial response(s), deleted them and referred the matter to arbitration. Thank you. Rapunzel676 (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to my previous post: I inadvertently requested arbitration (or mediation, I'm tired and can't remember which), but cancelled my request and instead asked another editor for assistance in resolving this dispute. Rapunzel676 (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute in my eyes is you sent me an abusive message for no reason to my talk page, calling me obsessive and criticising my editing and other hostile descriptive words, totally unprovoked and I had never spoken to you before in my life. I sent you a level 1 warning about personal attacks. A discussion developed, I requested that you simply deal with me civily and asked you what content you have a problem with, you refused to discuss content and deleted the message and continued to personally attack me. My warnings about wikipedia's policy against personal attacks and request for you to remain civil was in your eyes a personal attack which I cannot yet understand. I have not said one bad word to you and I have done nothing wrong. The only dispute that I can see is that I have warned you about personal attacks and requested that you treat me civily; your response is to keep deleting my attempts to stop you character assasinating me. I do not understand why you have brought an administrator into this, all that needs to be done is for you to say sorry for being abusive towards me and agree to be civil with me. I have no ill will towards you, I just do not want to log onto wikipedia and receive unprovoked abuse. Thanks. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I find the whole situation and incident bizarre.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding warnings

"The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page. Editors are granted considerable latitude over editing their own userspace pages (including talk pages), and blanking one's own user talk page is specifically not prohibited. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve." Rapunzel676 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above quote was taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism Rapunzel676 (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment

Rapunzel676 has asked me to look into this matter. Having reviewed the history it appears this is a small incident which is blowing up out of proportion. There has been slightly inappropriate conduct on both sides.

Rapunzel676 made this post. It was a provocative statement not in the collegiate spirit of co-operation and collaboration that is Wikipedia's aim. If the intention was to open a discussion on including different views on benzodiazepines into related articles, then it was poorly worded. An example of a more neutral approach might be: "I note that you are interested in benzodiazepine related articles, and that these article contain the results of studies from xxxx, but not from YYYY. What do you think of the YYYY studies? Should we include them to ensure some balance in the articles."

Literaturegeek was understandably put out by such a provocative tone. However, Literaturegeek's response to template Rapunzel676's talkpage with a warning escalated the matter rather than cooled it down. Wikipedia:No personal attacks works both ways. Aim always to deal with the content rather than the tone, and as far as possible ignore irritable comments. If disturbed or upset by a comment, take a moment or two to calm down before responding. And even then look carefully at what you have written before pressing send. Sometimes if annoyed it can help to type out what you really want to say, then delete it and write a calmer, neutral comment that stops the incident getting out of hand and sets a positive example. An example of a more neutral response might be: "Thank you for your interest in benzodiazepine related articles. Which studies do you feel we should be looking at?"

I think both of you have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and should now set aside your personal feelings for the sake of the project as a whole. It would be wonderful if one or other or both of you were able to apologise for their inappropriate conduct, but the more pertinent thing is to stop this dispute now. Wikipedia is a big learning curve, and people are allowed to make many mistakes. What the community likes is that people who make mistakes learn from them. I hope you two have. SilkTork *^YES! 08:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view is I was civil and cool headed. There is no content dispute, I asked them about content,[1] but this user simply deleted the message.[2] All this user did was character assassinate me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that sending a level 1 warning escalated things, infact I think after the 2nd warning and my civil and cool headed discussion with the editor made them rethink their abusive and hostile approach towards me and made them seek out dispute resolution via yourself. ~~To resolve this dispute, this editor simply agrees to stop being abusive to me.~~ If they want to discuss content with me that is fine by me. Then we can all shake hands and move on.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Wikipedia has a strict policy on civility. Being a typical male I quickly forget arguments and do not hold grudges for very long and I am quite happy to shake hands and become friends. To be fair I have in the past especially when I was new to wikipedia broken rules and policies and made mistakes so I am not trying to say I am better than you. So one question, will you agree to be civil to me Rapunzel676? Can we be friends now and forget about this?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, thank you for bringing a cool head to this dispute. I was upset by the content of the article in question and I responded emotionally rather than rationally, and I do regret the ill will and harsh words that have resulted. Despite what's happened here, it's never been my intention to hurt or defame anyone or to damage the integrity of the site with my own petty grievances. I've been employed as a writer and editor and I will try to take the same thoughtful, measured approach here as I have (and do) in my work. I am willing to let bygones be bygones and put this matter to rest. Thank you again for your help, and for reminding me that creating and maintaining quality content is more important than satisfying the demands of my ego. As far as I'm concerned, this matter is closed. Rapunzel676 (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment, because the editor has acknowledged their wrong doing and expressed regret.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow although I disagreed with one of your points SilkTork, a lot of what you said is very sensible, especially the suggestion of when in a dispute, delete your message and come back and type it again with a cooler head.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed

Both parties have agreed to move forward without hostility. It is possible to sometimes start off on the wrong foot, and still be able to form a positive working relationship, even friendship. You two are probably more alike than you think. You are both interested in the same topic, and you are both inclined to be a little hot headed. I think you are also both prepared to forget the past and move on. I will keep you both on my watchlist for a little while to see how you get on, though I have a feeling you both have something to offer the other, and it would be good if you would discuss together the issue of including different views on benzodiazepines as I feel that would strengthen the related articles. SilkTork *^YES! 12:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I still do not know what view of benzos Rapunzel676 has. Thank you for your input and for bringing this dispute to an end SilkTork. Gives a friendly **wave** to Rapunzel676, is it a wave of goodbye or hello? Time shall tell! :) Regardless peace and well wishes to all. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that our views on the subject are fundamentally at odds with one another. If and when I have the time and the emotional wherewithal to do so, I will address the topic in an appropriate manner and in the proper location. As such, and in the interest of maintaining the integrity of the community, I respectfully request that Literaturegeek refrain from making further posts on this topic on this page. In that same spirit of community, I will make this my final comment on the entire matter. Thank you again, SilkTork, for stepping in and resolving this dispute. Your assistance is sincerely appreciated. Rapunzel676 (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

It sure is a shame this mess from six years ago is STILL SHOWING UP on my talk page despite multiple attempts to archive it. Maybe if Wiki were a little more user-friendly and didn't require me to insert a bunch of code, I could manage it. Note to the Foundation: This discourages new editors. We're not all code monkeys. Telcia (talk)

Day-care sex-abuse hysteria

Hi Telcia. If you're still doing Wikipedia from time to time, would you mind answering this question? Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts to contact me were noted. I believe I made my position clear on the Talk page. You have a clear and odious agenda. I do not wish to have further communication with you on the subject. Telcia (talk)