| Revision as of 09:01, 19 December 2005 editAction potential (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers9,090 edits Personal attack← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:12, 19 December 2005 edit undoCamridge (talk | contribs)642 edits Comaze, you have been ignored, and you will be reportedNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| Thanks for the pointer Terryeo. I think there is probably a better way of writing it in. I will have another look. Regards ] 02:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC) | Thanks for the pointer Terryeo. I think there is probably a better way of writing it in. I will have another look. Regards ] 02:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Personal attack == | |||
| Your recent edit has a personal attack in it directly at me, . Saying that someone has an "anti-POV" agenda is a personal remark and is considered an offensive on wikipedia. If you have a complaint, then make it directly to arbitration. --] 09:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:12, 19 December 2005
Template:User:Encyclopedist/Welcome! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Personal attack
I consider this remark to be a personal attck, "Comaze, your denial borders on delusion". see diffs. --Comaze 10:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the ENGRAM article
You have modified the article and introduced the word "pseudoscientific" at the entry point where Dianetic's use of the word Engram is posted. May I graciously point out that an idea must first be introduced before its controvery is spelled out because unless that form is followed the whole article is opinion. Opinion is all right, controversy is all right but until an idea is spelled out or defined, a person can not understand the various sides of controversy. So, in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia I point this out, have a good one :) Terryeo 20:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer Terryeo. I think there is probably a better way of writing it in. I will have another look. Regards Camridge 02:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)