Talk archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

I'm not sure that my advice will be all that helpful to you. But since you asked... I'm hadn't really thought of Tyrenius as a mediator but I suppose that you could describe his actions as amounting to that. His initial actions were really just to tidy up the discussion that Ottawaman had started. The format is pretty much the same but Tyrenius was asking for some sort of finality. I suppose you could say that he was "self-appointed" but I had really thought that he just was making a suggestion about structure and that the other editors could say "no" but had been happy enough with his format.

As for the comments, I personally found them extremely unhelpful. Firstly, they claimed that we were not working well together which I think is not the case at all. There are a lot of issues but it is good to discuss them and I think we were making good progress. There are always readers who would question an article, Ottawaman simply had the courage to speak up. Good for him. I disagree but I think debate is often lacking here. Secondly, suggesting bad work was pretty much inviting a comment of "I'm working well but the other side won't AGF" or "are paid organizers", etc. (why do organizers always accused of being paid anyway?). And finally I thought that the delayed edit war idea was, well, not a good one. That said, I had always thought that it was bad form to remove a comment if it wasn't truly offensive or threatening, etc. I certainly wouldn't myself. On the other hand, I'm not really familiar with the relevant policies, guidelines and conventions . And I suppose that it is the administrator's burden to know them. If Tyrenius moved the comment rather than deleting it, I can see his point.

Obviously a balance has to be found between allowing open dialogue and restricting disruptive comments (I mean disruptive to the flow of that particular dialogue, not WP in general). I really don't know where WP finds that balance in this type of circumstance. --JGGardiner 17:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse JGGardiner's observations, and would like to say that there is currently a high standard of work being carried out by the editors. The comment left, "Sheesh, I thought I had problems where I'm editing !", is frankly insulting and an attack on them, which serves no constructive purpose. That you are so keen on keeping this amazes me. I would also suggest that your time could be spent a lot more constructively than going around asking editors if there is a problem, when there isn't one. If there were, I am sure the editors I am working with are quite capable of telling me themselves. I am essentially acting as a clerk to co-ordinate the discussion from an outside stance, which has left them free to concentrate on the particular aspects they wish to examine. If you want to help, then join in this discussion, adding research where appropriate. Tyrenius 18:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sunray.

You showed support for Amazon rainforest at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help.

Maurreen 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sunray. Sorry to pull out, but I decided I need to try to take a break to catch up on some things I have been neglecting. I'll see you later. Maurreen 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]