Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:20, 9 May 2007

Sorry, got no time yet to put something in here. But feel free to leave questions or comments.

Hi there!

Please feel free to discuss all kinds of things here, as long as the Talk page of an article is not the better choice. Misou

wb

-} Lsi john 04:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Tku! Misou 04:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Who be dancin? Lsi john 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We be dancin! Misou 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Woo hoo! people are the funniest animals. I've been around responsible people for so long, I had forgotten what it was like to work with people who don't know what Personal Responsibility is and don't realize that they are responsible for everything that happens as a result of their choices. ;)

Its interesting to watch some here that have to be righteous. Maybe that should be an axiom for wiki: Its more about being right than getting along and writing a good article.

Its good to see you back. Lsi john 17:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

nicely put. Lsi john 18:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

tku Misou 18:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

yep. I saw it too. He clearly went to a Landmark course, thats obvious. Lsi john 06:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Violations of WP:POINT

• Please do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point, WP:POINT, as you did here: DIFF This is highly inappropriate. Sarcasm is not conducive to constructive dialogue. Thanks. Smee 05:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

3O:I see no violation of WP:POINT in this citation. In my opinion the warning can be removed. Lsi john 06:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sarcastic comments to make a point which disrupt constructive discussion. Smee 06:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

• Sarcastic / Sarcasm are never mentioned in WP:POINT. My opinion stands. Lsi john 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is "a disruption of the project to make a point", and thus a violation of WP:POINT. Smee 06:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee, no intent to be mean about your heavy work on this template business. Misou 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA warning

Assuming that the expression "smiling snakes" means every editor who had a different viewpoint than the person/people editing from "that proxy", I consider it a personal attack and ask you to use a more moderate language. While I can't speak for others, I can reveal to you that I didn't open the Champagne bottle after learning of the sock-block. I just took notice of it and went on with my work. --Tilman 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is very nice of you. Why the h... then do you feel affected by "smiling snakes"? Don't need to be you. Could be those stabbing my back during the last week. Could be those wasting my time on talk pages during the last week with "smiling snake babble". How'd you now? It's more a class of people y'know. Misou 05:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself and other editors to be human beings. Calling humans "smiling snakes" denies them any humanity. --Tilman 06:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Personally I think smiling snakes are cute.. However, would you be so kind as to post an NPA on Anynobody's page on my behalf, as he wrongly accused me of being a SOCK. I'd have to say that pretty much denied me of more than humanity, it denied me of life itself and my very existence! And per your definition, it was NPA NPA NPA.. go warn him. You know you want to. Lsi john 06:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Tilman, WP:AGF would suggest that you assume it was not a personal attack. Furthermore, you were not even mentioned in the comment. Issuing spurious and frivolous NPA warnings is disruptive and distracting. Stop taking things so personally. It's not always about you and its not always an attack. Lsi john 19:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't meant against me, then Misou will certainly clarify this. But even if it was against other people, it is still a personal attack. --Tilman 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Making such an assumption and posting an NPA warning is not a good example of WP:AGF. If it were personal, I'm sure that you (or someone) would have been mentioned directly. Misou should not be required (or even requested) to explain or clarify what he didn't mean in something he wrote to another user. You should assume good faith and stop creating conflict where none exists. Lsi john 19:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

One does not have to be the target of an insult to warn a user of a WP:NPA violation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

EVula, thank you for pointing out that perspective. I did read it as if Tilman was complaining on his own behalf. You are correct that it could also be interpreted more broadly. Lsi john 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And a personal attack would be an attack on against an individual, yes? If not, I would think that the charge should be more in line with WP:CIVIL. Mr Tilman seemed to indicate that he took it personally and thus that he was filing the WP:NPA on his own behalf.

I suppose we're off into semantics now. My reply was based on Mr Tilman clearly stating that he made assumptions (in bad faith) that the comments were a personal attack. I believe that WP:AGF is fairly clear, that when in doubt, assume the best not the worst and that was my point. Lsi john 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF is often, erroneously, interpreted as "stick your head in the sand and always assume good faith no matter what the evidence actually suggests". Given Misou's history of warnings for civility infractions (including a week-long block by yours truly), it requires no stretch of the imagination that his intent behind the statement was less than wholesome. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said on your page, I will not defend uncivilized comments. I also believe it is too easy to create a history of warnings where serious violations didn't actually exist.

I believe that Misou takes Tilman's edits too personally. I believe that Misou responds verbally from emotion, rather than mentally. I believe that Misou gets a bit overly colorful in some of his responses. And, I also have seen Mr Tilman repeatedly insert irrelevant and prejudicial anti-CoS information into articles. I believe that Mr Tilman has acknowledged his disdain for CoS and appears to me that he is making it a personal mission to make sure that negative views of Scientology are well documented on wikipedia.

EVula, if I were to post 10 NPA warnings on your page, would that make you a WPA abuser? Of course not. If I were to get 10 other editors to each post 1 NPA warning on your page, would that make you a WPA abuser? Of course not.

Misou is not innocent, and neither is Mr Tilman.

They should both stick to writing articles and stop poking the nest. Lsi john 20:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is ok, Daddy! Misou 05:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)