User talk:MarydaleEd

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).== Sources ==

Thanks for updating Prurigo simplex. I dropped by to say that you might be interested in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost, and to say that, for better or worse, that expensive medical school textbook is considered a proper type of source for medical content, whereas a website like Osmosis.org is not.

Also, if you haven't looked into Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, which gives experienced editors access to many paywalled sources, including some highly rated medical journals, I recommend it wholeheartedly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tone deafness

If you were serious about your original comments on Doug's page, I would like to let you know that they come off as seriously tone deaf and offensive. Perhaps you don't see them that way, but reading your user page and talk page comments tells me you may need some practice with your communication skills. I hope this doesn't offend you. If you want to talk about it further, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your post here is accepted in the spirit in which I believe you sent it. I see how others view what I said, but Doug and I have a history. He pretty much knew how I felt about sparring with him on Wikipedia. However, what was missed was that I was drawing a difference between how people can go to battle, so to speak, on Wikipedia, but put it in proper perspective in the face of real life. How it came off to others is not my concern. It was a post on Doug's page for Doug. My only concern would be if he didn't understand it and I caused him grief. That is the last thing I would want to do. I have communicated with him privately since and hope the issue has been put to rest between him and me. It truly hurt my heart when I read of his illness. I do not feel there is any problem, as you suggested, with my communication skills. I speak clearly, directly and most of all, in truth. As a journalist and editor, I have achieved much in my life's work that has been based solely on my ability to communicate. Of course, one is always learning with every day if one wants to obtain authentic self-actualization, so do not think your words fell on deaf ears. They did not. You were kind in your approach and I respect that. It is not possible to offend me when differences are discussed respectfully. I hope to get the opportunity to collaborate with you on Wikipedia. I would enjoy that. All the best and thank you for your post. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MarydaleEd, I must second Viriditas on the tone-deafness of your comments on Doug's page. To spell it out: a public message of the form "you are a bully, yet I am sorry for your illness" seems designed more to serve the sender's self-regard ("Look, how magnanimous I am!") rather than express sincere condolences, for which Floquenbeam's edited version would have sufficed. I take your word that this was not your intention. So I hope you will pay attention to the feedback you have received about your on-wiki communication skills. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, I can see how one could draw the conclusion that I was being magnanimous in that regard, so I accept that challenge. My point was that despite how we feel about those who take us "to battle," so to speak on Wikipedia, even in the strongest sense, that all of that pales in the face of real life and the real people behind these names we see. I wasn't being magnanimous. I could not have been more sincere in my concern for his life. But I detest the idea of sugarcoating a person regardless of outside influences. I am not tone deaf. I am honest, so be honest with me. He can be very difficult and has not been a picnic for a lot of editors here. But, again, that is just Wikipedia. In real life, I am guessing there are many people who love him. I'm guessing children who adore him and in real life he is facing the hardest of challenges. That breaks my heart. But, life is complicated. People are complicated. We are complex human beings who have the capacity for great things and for things that are not great. Let's not insult him by suggesting he is a one-dimensional person who now bears only one identity - that of terminal cancer. He is sick, but he is a tough cookie on Wikipedia who can spar with the best of them and hold his own, even at the expense of others sometimes, and yes, sometimes come off as a bully. My point is only that one of those things is a worthy endeavor, and one of those things is the only thing that really matters. As a human being, he encompasses both. I do appreciate your words. All the best. MarydaleEd

Civility in edit summaries

Please be more civil and respectful in your edit summaries, particularly at United States men's national soccer team. While the article does have issues, it is best to discuss them on the talk page and gain consensus instead of outright deleting entire paragraphs. For the record, in American English the team is not treated as a singular unit and per WP:ENGVAR, this must be followed. Sounder Bruce 01:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. or Ms. Bruce, I am civil and respectful in my edit summaries. I am also firm. I use edit summaries to explain my edits and also to teach other editors the rules of proper encyclopedia writing. That is a skill I sell, but I provide it free of charge here. You would do well to learn by my edit summaries. Look, I realize I might sound a bit sure of myself and that can upset some people. I am sorry for that. Truly. However, the good Lord has seen fit to give me only one talent – only one thing I know I can do better than most. It is not much, but it is writing and editing. However, I do like collaborating. Wikipedia does not tell us we have to go to Talk to edit paragraphs. It tells us to edit boldly. If you have a question about my edits, just come here and ask me. I will be happy to discuss. I am not perfect. I could be wrong in something. So, if you have a question, just come and ask. We can work through it. However, I will never apologize for my editing. I know what I am doing. I make articles better. If there is an unsourced paragraph that I removed that you feel strongly about, find a source for the content. Just so you will know, I never remove unsourced content that I have not first tried to source on my own. All the best. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD does not apply to all articles equally; there are contentious topics in various fields where such changes need to be discussed or broken up into chunks for review due to their high visibility. I am working on restoring the copyedits introduced today that were constructive and helpful while also shoring up the sourcing. For future reference, removal of uncited material is a last resort measure; it is more productive to add a {{citation needed}} tag that another editor may be able to resolve. While the article history may keep this information on ice, on articles with hundreds of monthly edits like the U.S. team's, they quickly get buried and may be extremely tedious to recover. Sounder Bruce 02:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tedious, yes, but if they are important, is it not worth the effort? I make every effort at sourcing before I remove content. I spend hours searching for verification of content before I remove it, because I know there was an editor who wrote that content who was doing his or her best. Your attention has been grabbed and I am confident you will improve the article. I think this horse is dead so time to move on. All the best. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Bruce has over 30 pieces of featured content on Wikipedia. He knows what he's doing as well. –Fredddie ™ 02:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have more than 40 years of experience in professional editing, many of it on newspapers that are "of record," encyclopedias and many non-fiction books that have appeared on the New York Times Best Seller list, so I, too, know what I am doing. Now that we have established that we are all good at our jobs here, let us move on to make Wikipedia better. All the best. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SounderBruce: this exchange between us has haunted me since our first encounter. I have been surprised to find that each time it creeps uninvited into my mind, it leaves me disturbed. After much deliberation, I have come to the realization that you were right. I could approach my edit summaries in a different tone. When I am wrong, I say so. I truly do try to fully explain my changes and I try to instruct editors so they might know some of the rules of writing as they move along. I want to thank you for drawing my attention to this. I will endeavor to improve. Best wishes to you and I hope to have another chance to work with you again. I'm going to put this on your Talk page to ensure you do not miss it. I don't want our previous exchanges to be your last memory of me. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]