User talk:Older and ... well older

Hi Celestra

This is about the Inclusion of evidence about Corticosteroids for treating dengue shock syndrome which I have requested and you queried about where in the article it should be placed. It should be placed in the section marked Management in the Dengue page. The Best would be after the second paragraph.

Best Soumyadeep (talk)

Hey there, I wanted to let you know that I submitted the edit you requested for the origin of transgender. Thank you for your assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehipassiko (talk • contribs) 17:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Economics and politics are directly related. I posted a well referenced section on economics in Gun Politics and you, dliigencedude and Grahamboat decided that you didn't like the sources, like the UN treaty on the black market manufacturing and sales of firearms (which addresses political firearm issues in the States), and deleted the section. Why would I have anything to do with a group of people who censor the reality of the relationship between economics and politics because of their own ideology? Wikipedia has a crap reputation for accuracy because of ideological censorship and the deliberate insertion of false material based on ideology. Go ahead, censor all you want. Eliminate anyone whose material invades your little fantasy ideology. Why would I ever even bother to contribute again? Censor me, I would rather be censored than live in a fantasy. Impey Barbicane ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impey Barbicane (talk • contribs) 22:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please review my proposals for revisions to the lede (lead?) for the Second Amendment article and comment on them on the talk page. Or, if you prefer, respond to me on my talk page if you think we should discuss it further prior to your comment. Thanks!GreekParadise (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please help with the Second Amendment. We are at an impasse. Grahamboat and North8000 seem to reject the NYT, the Library of Congress, and the Congressional Research Service as reliable sources for the proposition that I've never seen contradicted -- that from 1942-2000, the federal judiciary took the "collective view," rather than the individual view. I know you respect the reliability of these sources. Before we seek mediation, I'm hoping you can lend some common sense here.GreekParadise (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

refactoring your messages

FWIW, I'm very proud of my record of civility, it goes with the job I do here. But sometimes people who lash out are going to get my blunt end in return. I'm thick skinned - it also goes with the job, but I'm just more concerned that you are hopefully more friendly to newbies and younger users. Maybe there's also a cultural dichotomy, but I've been on both sides of the pond and around most of the rest of the English speaking world. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not feel that I "lashed out", but in the spirit of accepting criticism gracefully, thanks for pointing out how it seemed to you. I _was_ offended by your reformatting, which is why WP:TPOC advises against it, and I was disappointed by your concept of "help" for the new editor, so I made an extra effort to be polite in my comments. I have read them dozens of times since your initial reply and I still don't see how they might appear "caustic", but I accept that they seemed that way to you. I will also accept what you say about your civility and thick skin, and I will simply assume I caught you on a bad day. Regards, Celestra (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Depends on who exactly had a bad day. FWIW, when I see such obvious, unintentional, innocuous minor editing errors on non-article pages, I just tacitly make the correction and get on with my work. Generally, commenting on them - especially to editors whom you are well aware are reasonably conscientious about their work - generates more heat than light as you have seen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess that depends on the editor. I accept that you simply made a mistake and did not intend to violate TPOC or cause offense. Since you did not intend to do that and are conscientious, it is unlikely you will do that in the future, so the original purpose of the thread is fulfilled. The rest _is_ generating more heat than light and we should agree to drop it. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

With the huge number of edits I make, rare, minor errors are always possible - even with my admin tools. But the error rate is extremely low for 7 years and 60,000+ edits. WP:DTR provides a useful insight and can also apply to custom messages. As the majority of your edits appears to come from patrolling Recent Changes and/or edit requests, and as you appear to be well informed over our policies and guidelines, may I suggest you try your hand at something more challenging and consider lending a hand at WP:AfC and WP:NPP where we have some serious backlogs to contend with? Thank you and have a nice day. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

“Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment.” (Rita Mae Brown)

“We do not learn from experience...we learn from reflecting on experience.” (John Dewey)

Thanks for the suggestions - I might try those if I have some free time. Regards, Celestra (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia naming article proposal / sub chapter on juridical aspects of naming Macedonia in the UN

For Macedonia naming article, the best way is to add a new section there relating to legal aspects of naming Macedonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.55.176 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)