Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:15, 13 February 2006

Template:User:Encyclopedist/Welcome! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:07, 28 November 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)

Unsolicited advice

I'm not involved in the NLP disputes or interested in getting involved. I do see a lot of strife on that page and I hope that it calms down on its own. I just wanted to comment on something you wrote:

"Comaze, your definition of personal attack does not comply with that of the rational thinking world. Your accusations of personal attack are simply due to your desire to accuse and slur. Camridge 09:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)"

This actually does constitute a personal attack. It's subtle because it is indirect, but it is still entirely composed of comments on a contributor, not on content, and the meaning of those comments is negative. Those two criteria (negativity and the contributor being the subject of the statement) are all that is required for something to constitute a personal attack. It's a rigourous standard, but by following it a lot of needless conflict can be avoided and Misplaced Pages is made healthier for the effort. (Note that I'm not siding with Comaze—that user just happens to be the subject of the comment.)

I'm not standing in judgement here, I just want to inform. I also don't mean to single you out of the crowd on that Talk page—your comment just caught my eye as it was right at the bottom of the page and I try to spread good editing habits to whoever I can. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. (Also, if any of this comment has felt like an attack, do let me know what details about it makes it feel that way so I can avoid those mistakes in the future.) Thanks for listening, and good luck at NLP!  — Saxifrage | ☎ 10:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Saxifrage. I disagree. Comaze's extreme anti-NPOV behaviour must be hilighted. I have done so under his extreme provocation, and I have made my comments very mild under the circumstances. I will continue to stay mild even during his fanatical sociopathic accusations. Camridge 05:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing in my comment about my opinion of Comaze, so there is nothing for you to disagree with on that account. If you're disagreeing about what is and isn't a violation of policy, then you're simply mistaken. It really has nothing to do with what other users are doing—in the end, only you are responsible for your behaviour. In any case, I have clearly pointed out how your comment violates Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks policy regardless of how "mild" you have tried to make that violation, and behaving appropriately is now up to you. Don't let your attempts to deal with someone you think is a problem user make you into a problem user yourself.

As an aside, if you really feel that Comaze's behaviour must be highlighted then I would suggest using the Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes policy, which is there for exactly that purpose.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 06:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean Saxifrage. We are in agreement. Our goal is to create a brief clear article without Comaze's intense harrassment. Comaze will not stop his sociopathic harrassment, and my relatively mild comments (certainly in comparison with most NLP zealots), bring me nowhere near blocking, or banning myself. I would prefer not to have to delete Comaze's sociopathic smear campaign every day. I have been bringing the NLP article closer to brief clarity, and I will continue to do so. Camridge 06:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Saxifrage. None of these objections by Comaze are warrented:

Comaze is bent on provoking attacks, and my responses were accurate descriptions of his fanatical slur campaign. I attack his persistently bad faith, uncooperative, antagonistic, fact deleting, rabble rousing actions, not his person. BTW I do appreciate your advice Saxifrage. Camridge 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

As you are engaged in making personal attacks in relationship to Neuro-linguistic programming you are considered a party to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming. You may place evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop. Fred Bauder 16:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If I made any personal attacks, they were very mild considering Comaze's intense antagonism. I have provided an explanation on the arb page. If you could kick Comaze hard in the balls for Christmas, I would be extremely grateful. Camridge 05:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks - camridge

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Camridge wrote: "jVirus. You are pulling my leg. Take a look at Comaze's history, then take a look at the most unrealistically fanatical Hubbardarian zealot on the Scientology article. SNAP! Camridge 08:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)"

outside view (warnings)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks.

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page and/or replacing it with offensive content. Blanking your talk page will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks.

Swatjester 10:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester, I have been contributing constructively to wikipedia for months. I have also been subject to NLP dickheads consistently posting warnings to block on this talkpage. YOU have just posted a message on this talkpage that betrays your COMPLETE FUCKING IGNORANCE of the situation. I have rescued facts from being deleted by mindless knowledge depleting NLP cultists for weeks on end. YOU stating that I am damaging the hard work of others is UTTER SHITE! Your posting such drivel is a whole world worse than me calling you an ignorant blabbermouthed shit. The line of discourse that YOU are creating is COMPLETELY BLOODY STUPID. I will delete it all. Camridge 04:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Camridge I've got to know!

Hey I have go to know! You are either DaveRight or Headly. Tell!!! ..maybe flavius. jVirus 19:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is borderline trolling. If you suspect sockpuppetry, please make your request at WP:RFCU. Be prepared to offer diffs and reasons why you suspect sockpuppetry. KillerChihuahua 20:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Not my intent. jVirus 20:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

GODS NOB! This is the limit! IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW NEUTRAL YOUR STATEMENTS ARE OR HOW WELL SUPPORTED YOUR FACTS ARE. IF YOU EDIT ON THE WIKIPEDIA NLP ARTICLE WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO CENSOR SCIENTIFIC FACTS, OR WITHOUT ADDING DELUSIONAL PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC MUD TO THE ARTICLE, YOU WILL BE ACCUSED BY SOMEBODY OF BEING A SOCKPUPPET. ALL NON-PROMOTIONAL EDITORS HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF BEING SOCKPUPPETS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camridge (talk • contribs)

Who are you talking to? Your comment is 1st level. jVirus 11:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming case. Raul654 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Misplaced Pages is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you. You said, "Stabilize Comaze and the rest of the NLP delusional:)" Please remove this remark and all similar remarks directed at my user. --Comaze 14:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC) more:

Comaze! Drawing attention to your extreme bias is not a personal attack. Neither is:

• Pointing out your long history of actual censorship
• Pointing out your vested interests in the promotion of NLP
• Pointing our your fanatical and zealously NLPpromotional advocacy
• Pointing out your months of propaganda and whitewash for the promotion of NLP vested interests
• Pointing out your persistent whitewashing of your own misdeeds
• Pointing out the similarity between your vexatious actions and that of Scientologists

Sure I should refrain from personal insult. But who us your user?

I will never again say "Stabilize Comaze and the rest of the NLP delusional:)"

I will also never write:

STABILIZE COMAZE AND THE REST OF THE NLP DELUSIONAL

STABILIZE COMAZE AND THE REST OF THE NLP DELUSIONAL

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

STABILIZE COMAZE AND THE REST OF THE NLP DELUSIONAL

STABILIZE COMAZE AND THE REST OF THE NLP DELUSIONAL

STABILIZE COMAZE AND THE REST OF THE NLP DELUSIONAL

STABILIZE COMAZE AND THE REST OF THE NLP DELUSIONAL

STABILIZE COMAZE AND THE REST OF THE NLP DELUSIONAL

STABILIZE COMAZE AND THE REST OF THE NLP DELUSIONAL

STABILIZE COMAZE AND THE REST OF THE NLP DELUSIONAL

STABILIZE COMAZE AND THE REST OF THE NLP DELUSIONAL

on the NLP discussion page. Camridge 07:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

article demands

Hey Camridge would you be willing to put your demands here with everyone elses under a sub for your name. then we can keep track and finally resolve this stuff? jVirus 09:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK Swatjester. I will put together a template to combat Comaze's intense antagonism, because as we are all willingly accept, you and other mediators will do very little about it. The reply is intended to be used by all neutrally minded editors every time Comaze makes petty or unwarranted, or even legitimate (if any) nagging objections to editors pointing out Comaze's misdeeds.

Actually, Camridge, some of the below things are correctly not personal attacks (it's an exercise for the honest reader which are not). However, the manner of your doing these things can be personal attacks and you have consistently chosen in the past to express these legitimate concerns in ways that are incivil and attacking. You are being incredibly hypocritical if you need to resort to such pitiful tactics. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That depends on your view, Saxifrage. For sure, if you want discussion to be all peaches and cream, then giving in to certified shitspreaders will be the order of the day. Misplaced Pages requires facts to create good articles. That is the goal, and that is exactly why Comaze must be dealt with using any means necessary. I would also like to point out that NLP promoters have made many direct personal insults to neutrally oriented editors for many months without being blocked. Mediators recently came to the NLP article and blocked neutrally minded editors without blocking fanatics. If mediators profess NPOV policy then they should enforce it fairly. They resorted to pitiful tactics in order to save their own faces. Camridge 06:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop attacking the mediators. We have a tough enough job as it is. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 07:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester, if you show yourself to be a good example, I will follow. Camridge 07:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

People don't get blocked for being POV, Camridge, they get blocked for violating civility and other policies related to user conduct. Think about that, and then ask yourself why the "neutral" editors are getting blocked and the "zealots" aren't. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where I've been uncivil Camridge? ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 18:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Repeat reply for repeat harrasment by Comaze

Comaze! Drawing attention to your extreme bias is not a personal attack. Neither is:

• Pointing out your long history of actual censorship
• Pointing out your vested interests in the promotion of NLP
• Pointing our your fanatical and zealously NLPpromotional advocacy
• Pointing out your months of propaganda and whitewash for the promotion of NLP vested interests
• Pointing out your persistent whitewashing of your own misdeeds
• Pointing out the similarity between your vexatious actions and that of Scientologists

Links, evidence etc can be added as time goes on. All neutrally oriented editors feel free to use this as you wish.Camridge 06:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Camridge, The problem is that a lot of this stuff is subjective. What is clearly valid to one person can be clearly vandalism to another. Sometimes people, in good faith, have different opinions. That means that they need to work though their differences. Sometimes that's not easy. Now I don't know if Comaze has an extreme bias. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. I'm prepared to extend good faith to you and consider the possibility that he does. I'm prepared to extend good faith to Comaze and consider the possibility that he doesn't. But when you use words like 'fanatic' and 'zealot' and 'propaganda' and 'vexatious', it makes me go "Oh oh. This user doesn't care who he hurts if he gets his point across." And that's bad. You may be right about NLP. I don't care. Being right doesn't excuse you from being civil. If you decend to being uncivil, you give people reasons to block you, regardless of whether or not you are right. So the only way to get what you want is to keep your cool whatever the provocation.

Anyway, enough of the dump. There seems to be a bit of a move happening at NLP to work out what needs to go into the article. I suggest you pretend Comaze doesn't exist and explain what you want on the talk page and be prepared to explain why you want it. And "because I'm right" or "because he's wrong" doesn't cut much ice. Sorry. Later, Ben Aveling 07:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Great. If you can take a healthy run up and kick Comaze's puny testicles really hard for his months of censorship while I ignore him using my repeat reply, then we will get along fine. Camridge 07:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you let Comaze have such control over your emotions? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My emotions are kept as cold as ice. I am applying the ice-axe of fact to Comaze's agenda. Camridge 08:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. He's just one guy. Now, how about you take that ice-axe to some of the repetition on this page?  :-) All the best, Ben Aveling 11:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

NPA

Referring to fellow editors as "certified shitspreaders" is a personal attack. Please refrain from such verbiage. KillerChihuahua 09:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very glad it caught your notice. From now on I will do my best to refer to them as-

• Fanatical editors who devote their hours to whitewashing pseudoscience
• Editors with vested interests in promoting misdirection, and myths for the purpose of financial gain
• Editors who repeatedly censor facts

Camridge 09:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Camridge, I strongly suggest you do not personalise this issue in the way you have been. There is no doubt that a POV is being pushed, but time and calmness will sort that out I think. Personal attacks, trenchant comments and personalising the issue (all of which are sins to which I often succumb) will not improve things, however frustrating it can be dealing with True Believers. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 10:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have refactored one of your comments

Assume good faith. To suggest that Greg was acting in bad faith simply because he was discussing something you had already discussed (remember, the mentors weren't privy to those discussions) is poor form. I've refactored this comment. Further suggestions like this will earn you a block. · Katefan0/poll 05:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0. Could you give me an example of when to call someone's bad faith? Camridge 05:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's best to simply not suggest such a thing, unless it's so blatant as to be obvious to all. · Katefan0/poll 05:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0. Its obvious to all who have read through the history of the NLP article. We know it, they know it, and if you have a good search around, you will also know it. Camridge 05:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

For the second time in less than 10 minutes, I've had to refactor a comment you left on the NLP workshop talk page, and you've earned yourself an hour-long block for it. Please temper your comments, focus on content rather than contributors. We can continue in this fashion if you like, but it's really best that you just focus on content instead of making snarky comments. The block lengths will increase from here. · Katefan0/poll 05:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me to show you evidence of GregA's recruitment of NLP promoters? Its very easy you know! Camridge 06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I see you have completely ignored the fact that I responded using enumerated replies to Greg Anderson's repeat nagging. I'd say you're doing a really bad job of encouraging that which you would like to encourage. Now lets see what other repeat nagging you can encourage from the NLP fanatics. Camridge 06:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)