User talk:Lsi john: Difference between revisions

I will respond where the conversation started.. If I posted on your talk page, I will be watching your page for responses. If you post here first, I will respond here.

John, would you be willing to look at this situation, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red, and give your opinion or advice? I am concerned that the editor in question has NPOV issues, but I am also concerned that this RFC should not turn into a witch hunt. Jehochman ^Hablar 01:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heh. what a mess. yo quiero taco bell. Peace.Lsi john 02:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• John, I really appreciate that you provided your assessment on the RfC. It really bolsters my respect for WP. I replied to your COI question on the RfC page.

As you might imagine, just responding to the comments on the Juice Plus talk page and the RfC has eaten up a lot of valuable time that could have been spent contributing elsewhere. I have forayed out a few times in search of areas where I could contribute meaningfully, and have edited a few of those articles. Do you have any suggestions for how to find other articles that are in need of work? I will be happy to contribute outside of the Juice Plus area more regularly and I greatly apreciate your suggestions. Thanks. Rhode Island Red 16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several ways to find articles. It really depends on what your interests are. You can edit a random article. You can pick a category and select an article from that.. etc etc. Peace.Lsi john 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to thank you for taking the time to study this situation closely. It is not an easy task to get up to speed on the long and winding history and I just wanted to let you know that I greatly appreciate your involvement and constructive comments. Rhode Island Red 21:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are welcome. And I was serious with my recommendation that you take a break from that article. It appears to be getting personal for you, which is understandable, given that you are only 'invested' in one article.

While, I think that the other editors are fortunate that nobody decided to turn the RfC around on them, that does not release you from your responsibility to keep your head on your shoulders.

If I can be of any help in finding another article (or two or three) for you to 'migrate to', let me know. Peace.Lsi john 21:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 17:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does 'evidence' provided on the request page need to be moved to the evidence page? Peace.Lsi john 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea. I'm not sure whether the arbitrators consider the statements with the same level of detail that they go over the evidence on the evidence page with. Hope that helps. Picaroon (Talk) 18:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all the wonderful, lovely birdie-barnstars you've gifted me, I must repay you somehow... so I've decided to give you a hug for each of them! Let's get started... hug number one your way! More to follow, Johnny! :) Love, Phaedriel - 21:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]