User talk:Jgcoleman/Archive 1

A note about the Housatonic River page conversation

Please stop your WP:UNCIVIL behavior against me at this talk page section or i shall bring it to a behavioral noticeboard. It is not ok to profile an editor, to cast aspersions, to project motivations, or to judge an editor in any way except by their actions. The content on the article is good and well-sourced now. It has been improved by our back and forth despite the contention, but your casting me in a bad light in an uncivil way continues. Please focus on content and not on editors, especially not in the way you have just done. It is going too far. This is my last warning. SageRad (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@SageRad: The article remains incorrect because of your interpretation which I reasonably deem flawed. I have stated valid reasons why I believe your blanket statement is flawed and why "acceptable risk", in this context, most likely indicates "insignificant risk". This insignificant risk is inflated by being summarily referred to as a "health risk", which implies positive affirmation of significant risk. That's not uncivil -a point of disagreement, sure- but hardly uncivil. However, I do not have time to continue going back and forth with you and it's very tough to be civil with you. Like I said, you win... let it be and edit as you see fit. I will take the page off my watchlist and you can have free reign with Housatonic River. Write whatever you want.

We can have this discussion on content of the article at the article's talk page. You can do whatever you want as long as you abide by the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. I am not here to "win" and i'm not in battle here. I'm not distorting the reality to push any point of view. SageRad (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Jgcoleman, is everything alright? I still had your talk page on my watchlist and i see you have some sort of "autoblock". Anyway our words here were from a while ago, when we were tussling over whether it's ok to say in an article that a river was polluted to the point where it presents a health risk to eat the fish and the ducks from the river into which GE had dumped PCBs. I've been around the area, generally around a few miles of the river, and i have been hearing more stories from people whose relatives worked for GE, and how they'd dump the PCBs into the river, knowingly, as a policy, asking workers to take barrels of it and drive them around. Anyway, it's some sad and sordid things i've been hearing in the last few days.

I didn't mean any harm by my words above, and i am sorry for they sound harsh now, but we were in an important discussion and i guess i felt you were placing yourself above me in some way with the judgement about the content wording, but now i feel alright and sorry for disturbance it may have caused. Anyway, i can see that you care about this part of the Earth that we may share, and if there is anything i can do to help you, please let me know or even email me if you're unable to post here. SageRad (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: Thanks for getting in touch. It seems that I was simply autoblocked from making edits from this particular networked machine due to copyright violations by a user on my network's shared IP address (a user who I am not familiar with). So, I'm fairly certain the autoblock will be lifted as it did not stem from any of my actions. I can still edit from other machines that aren't on this network. I do very much appreciate your concern, though... may we both continue improving upon Wikipedia's encyclopedic knowledgebase! Jgcoleman (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Good to hear, Jgcoleman. Thanks for your note and i hope it's resolved posthaste. SageRad (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)