User talk:RayosMcQueen

Welcome!

Hello, RayosMcQueen, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions to Food irradiation. I hope you enjoy it here and decide to stay. Here is some information that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here, and being a Wikipedian. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Additionally, the sandbox is available if you wish to test your editing skills.

All in all, good luck, have fun, and be bold! SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

I think this comment went a bit far. I share your frustration at the current anti-science bias of the article, but we should work together with others on this. I find MonstretM's contributions have been broadly constructive, and provoking him/her will not help move things forward. - MrArt 13:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point and must admit that I was tempted into this note by the constant personal attacks by MonstretM against many people who disagree with him. I will edit my comment per your suggestion and thank you for your feedback. RayosMcQueen 14:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Effects of Irradiated Sucrose on the Chromosomes of Human Lymphocytes in Vitro. Margery, Shawa and Hayes.pdf

Thanks for uploading Image:Effects of Irradiated Sucrose on the Chromosomes of Human Lymphocytes in Vitro. Margery, Shawa and Hayes.pdf. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

On Adding Discussion of Disputed Studies Back Into Food Irradiation Mediation

I see that you are in the process of copying the discussion of each disputed study back into the mediation page. You are free to do this, however I wanted to explain my logic for removing it a little more clearly. Basically, the participants in this debate have become polarized. We are not all working together to achieve our goal, that of an article which fairly represents both the mainstream and minority opinions. This is what I, as mediator, feel to be the major problem at the present time, not the wording itself. Putting the (sometimes rather uncivil) discussion back in runs the risk of entangling everyone in old arguments; likewise, noting the original version of the text simply brings a disputed wording back into the discussion, rather than letting everyone involved start again from the raw material -- and the disputed text is short enough that starting over really loses very little. Again, I am sorry if you feel your previous cotributions are being ignored, and I will not contest your changes, but I thought that I should explain my reasoning here, from a mediator point of view. --Jonathan Stray 13:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops... I see that was actually Arveed. Sorry. --Jonathan Stray 13:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind comments on my mediation attempt. While I see that there were things that I could have done better, I don't believe I was completely idiotic about it, and it's nice to know that someone else agrees.

I did want to know what these "distorted expectations on either side" you refer to might be. I am genuinely interested because I want to know where this went wrong.

Other than that, I watch the status of the article with interest, and yes, I'd be foolish enough to attempt it all again! --Jonathan Stray 02:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food Irradiation

I removed your arbitration request because I think you should take another crack at it from a different perpective. ArbCom will not decide article content, so your requested remedies (except for article probation) are beyond their reach. They will look at editor behavior that has been (for example) rude, uncivil and disruptive. If there was edit-warring on the article, and one particular editor obstructed the good faith efforts of others to reach a settlement, that could be actionable. If one particular editor constantly makes nitpicky objections and constantly shifts the focus of debate when called on a particular area, that might be actionable. (See the essay on disruptive editing.) Wanting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox is definitely actionable.

I suggest you work on a new request that focuses on specific behaviors, and include diffs showing that behavior. For example

Food irradiation is generally considered safe by the FDA, WHO and other organizations, but some people have doubts. Efforts to report fairly on both the general scientific view and the doubts have been disrupted by User:Thatcher131 who is pushing an agenda that irradiation is unsafe. For example, he:

States that wikipedia must educate people about the dangers of irradiation [link] [link] [link] [link]

Revert warred against the consensus of multiple other editors [link] [link] [link]

Misrepresented contents of scientific studies [link] [link] [link] (links to the talk page)

Made personal attacks [link] [link]

Showed bad faith in mediation, and obstructed the mediation by tendentious editing [link] [link] [link]

Ignores consensus of other editors [link] [link]

Something along those lines that focuses on disruptive editor behavior rather than the content. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 19:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a major improvement. Good luck. Thatcher131 10:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the rules and tools during arbitration. I have made my first entry to the arbitration pages; I will continue to provide factual text-drafts and other proposals and comments. Dieter E 08:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

next steps - Food irradiation

I requested the page be unprotected and they obliged. If edit warring starts again we'll see what happens. I'm sure if you edit in a NPOV way it won't come to that again.

I'm slightly disappointed by ArbCom's rejection of the case, given the lengths we went to during mediation to try to reach agreement. - MrArt 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RAD and more

Thank you for organizing my contributions in a more appropriate way as separate articles. HOWEVER, you have eliminated the references I had provided, about Ulman introducing the Radura-logo at the Geneva conference, and about the original proposal for the RAD-terminology by a group of scientists.

Please supplement accordingly.

And who would be able to replace the present image of the RADURA by the CODEX version with the filled leaves? Dieter E 17:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have seen that the several RADURA-pieces moved by yourself from the general article on food irradiation have received a nut-shell mark. Remedy needed.

Please note in this context, that I have submitted to Food Control a comprehensive article on these topics, which is in the final editing procedure. As soon as published this would be the most appropriate reference for a revision of those nutshell-pieces. Dieter E (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Food Irradiation - current

I've been a bit busy lately, but I'll have a look at the page when I get a chance, hopefully within a day or two. - MrArt 13:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RAD- explanations

Could you please move any entry as radura, radurization, radicidation, radappertization into a single WIKI-entry, but maintain the present individual linkts from the irradiation pages. This would allow to have a more concise explanation and all the necessary references in a single place. At present the distributed elements from my original single contribution appear very dissolved and without logical connection. I would like to contribute through further editing to a comprehensive article on those mostly historical aspects. Dieter E 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Operation Endgame.pdf

Thanks for uploading Image:Operation Endgame.pdf. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)