Fahrenheit451 (talk | contribs) |
Justanother (talk | contribs) →Stop your incivility and personal attacks: What it really is |
||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
:: Sometimes I wish the whole "incivility" thing could just be jettisoned, because almost ''every single editor'' of Scientology articles - myself and Fahrenheit451 included - have been sarcastic, snide, caustic or just plain mean at ''some'' point or another. For ''any'' of us to play the "no personal attacks!" card is Bull at this point in the time track because we're ''all'' a bunch of contentious hotheads. (I, of course, am less hotheaded than everyone else. Of course.) [[User:Wikipediatrix|wikipediatrix]] 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
:: Sometimes I wish the whole "incivility" thing could just be jettisoned, because almost ''every single editor'' of Scientology articles - myself and Fahrenheit451 included - have been sarcastic, snide, caustic or just plain mean at ''some'' point or another. For ''any'' of us to play the "no personal attacks!" card is Bull at this point in the time track because we're ''all'' a bunch of contentious hotheads. (I, of course, am less hotheaded than everyone else. Of course.) [[User:Wikipediatrix|wikipediatrix]] 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::Of course. :-} [[User:Lsi john|Lsi john]] 00:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
:::Of course. :-} [[User:Lsi john|Lsi john]] 00:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
F451, you are the man that told me how to bait for PA way back when when I first got here (Memory Lane [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=72323690 me] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology&diff=next&oldid=72416843 you]). So keep on baiting, my friend. BTW, who is frustrated? Not me. I was simply commenting on your lame attempts at "Black Scientology" which lame attemps I can easily point to in your dealings with others. I am sure that most of our audience is not exactly sure what we are talking about. For them, F451 tries to misuse Scientology to misdirect an opponent. Actually it is more than that; the attempt is to introvert the opponent - to make them doubt themselves and look inward. The most effective position for someone that is looking to accomplish something is to ignore their doubts and look outward - extroversion. If you can make your opponent stop looking outward and look inward then you have gained a victory. Ta Da. F451 attempts that with his little comments designed to make you look inward including the one about my alleged "frustration". It is Black Sciemntology because he usually uses perversions of Scientology techniques. Actually Scientology is supposed to create the opposite effect; less introversion and more extroversion. Of course that is when it is used with good intentions and in accordance with the Auditor's Code; which is not how Mr. F451 does things. Ah, the pleasant light of the truth - let us bask in it together, my friends. Amen. |
Revision as of 21:10, 1 May 2007
|
Archive1/Archive2/Archive3/Archive4/Archive5/Archive6/Archive7/Archive8
Watchlist
|
Salam. I nominated Rumi as a Good article and 0.7 release version of WP. As a reviewer of Ga Wikiproject I reviewed it informally and wrote my viewpoint and also explain what should be done to to reach GA criteria. We need your help .--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I am honored! I will be happy to help though my help may be mostly in the area of cleaning up prose, something I am pretty good at. While I admire Rumi, as I do most spiritual leaders, I am not much of an expert and own only one compilation of his work in my personal library. But I will do what I can. Thanks again. --Justanother 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please write in its talk page what you can do. In a team working cleaning is as important as completion. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- الله أَكْبَر --Justanother 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please write in its talk page what you can do. In a team working cleaning is as important as completion. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Worst Scientology article?
Please check out Scientology Finance. Even worse that Barbara's. Steve Dufour 05:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- All due respect but it is nowhere near in a class with Barb's. Both aspects of Scientology policy are correct. There is an OR synthesis by F451 joining them together as they are unrelated other than both being policies related to money. They are also non-notable and too much detail for a separate article. Similar to F451's article on Dead File; non-notable, too low a level of detail, and that one is WP:Fair use vio. --Justanother 14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry
Hi Just. Sorry for the failed deletion. The rudeness of the admin was kind of shocking. Well, there are lots of other articles that need deleting. Cheers. Steve Dufour 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah well, it is just people. No biggie, I will post it on DRV. --Justanother 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
cult apologist
Per my mediation agreement, I will not edit articles that Smee has edited within the past 3 months.
I have posted a suggested addition to the cult apologist article, in the discussion section.
-Peace in God. Lsi john 23:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi John. All due respect but that is not your "mediation agreement". That is your own decision having little or nothing to do with the mediation. Re the article, it is not one I normally involve myself with (my previous involvement notwithstanding) but I will perhaps have a look. This crap is as distasteful to me as it is to you but someone has to do the hard jobs. Namaste. --Justanother 23:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. It's actually very distasteful.
- Whether it was requested in mediation or not, I gave my word, as part of the mediation, and a sign of good faith to Smee, that I would not edit the articles, and I will not go back on that word.
- I will give suggestions in discussion and I will make my case for what I believe. If other contributors see value in what I suggest, then that means there are at least two people who feel the way I do. My editing articles, only to have it all reverted, was pointless and wasting time.
- I now choose to work via discussion. If cult apologist isn't an article you have been working on or are interested in, then don't edit it. If you misunderstood my msg as a request to edit for me, then I apologize. It seemed that you had been gone a couple days and I wanted to make sure you saw my input there.
- No worries mate. -Peace in God. Lsi john 03:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, John. no problem. I hope that your method works for you, I will watch with interest. --Justanother 03:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- She is actually a very caring and gentle person. She and I have been working on several articles and have reached compromises. I wish she were a bit more open minded in subjective areas but so far she is continuing to discuss and that is refreshing from where we were before. Lsi john 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- God bless you both then and good luck. --Justanother 04:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- She is actually a very caring and gentle person. She and I have been working on several articles and have reached compromises. I wish she were a bit more open minded in subjective areas but so far she is continuing to discuss and that is refreshing from where we were before. Lsi john 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, John. no problem. I hope that your method works for you, I will watch with interest. --Justanother 03:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
heh
I do over-analyze don't i. Lsi john 22:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- We all do. We are a cerebral bunch here, by and large. --Justanother 01:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- wb.Lsi john 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- ty. --Justanother 01:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- wb.Lsi john 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Over On "Xenu: No Joke"
Hello Justanother. I understand you may be busy. If I've bothered/caused you ANY headaches over on Xenu, please do accept my apologies. We've stalled discussion on the No Joke tag while waiting to hear back from you. I've presented general views of the situation at the bottom of [[1]] thread, and am waiting for your input.
I hope you've noticed that none of us other editors plan to stomp on your toes by callously re-adding the box without you having further say-so and at least giving all editors a week or so to chime in if they dissent from the tag being there. That said, as far as I can see, concensus currently rests with -keeping- the tag. I assure you, I really believe this is what's best, and hope you can accept concensus and revert your -own- edit. It really would be a huge leap of good faith on your part to trust us that, far from damaging the page's integrity, our intent with putting the tag there is to maintain it. I hope to hear from you over there soon, if at all possible. Raeft 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC) (Who needs to learn not to let his login cookie degrade out, and thus to sign under his own name)
- Thanks Raeft, for your kindness and concern. Listen, you guys go ahead and put what respectful tag you care to put there. I am not going to self-revert as I do not agree with the tag being there for my stated reasons. But since I am a minority of one I am not going to address it further until such time as I address it further and that will not be by edit-warring over it so I reserve all rights to address it further at some future date. Thanks again and best wishes. --Justanother 18:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's really not the way we wished to do it (Reverting someone else's revisions is, in my eyes, a most unkind thing to do until concensus with them can be reached), but I look forward to reaching an amenable decision on the discussion, rather than just running up against a "cease fire", as it were? Nonetheless, I -will- ask that if ever you find fresh concerns for it being there, you do me the favor, not as an editor who believes it should or should not be there, but just out of professional courtesy: and not simply remove it while stating your reasons, but discuss the removal before effecting it, given the situation. Cheers. Raeft 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Stop your incivility and personal attacks
Please comply with wikipedia policy. I cite you for your violations here:[2]--Fahrenheit451 21:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see no personal attack in that comment. While it is colorful and perhaps a bit unprofessional, there is nothing which appears to violate WP:NPA.
- Fahrenheit451, your charges appear to be unfounded. You might consider your own remarks:
"Are those images of my index finger hysterically waving around from an implant you have received?"
- which do not appear to show respect. Tossing around warnings of alleged violations is fine, as long as your own house is squeaky clean.
- How about working on writing good articles instead of worrying about someone else's slip in control due to frustration which you helped create. Lsi john 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
My post was to Justanother. I am not obligated to show anyone "respect". I would suggest if "squeaky clean" is important to YOU, YOU conduct yourself to your own standards. My responses to COFS's incivility and personal attacks are not fodder for your posturing here. I do acknowledge your opinion, I just do not value it. I did not create Justanother's frustration, Justanother did.--Fahrenheit451 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose that makes you a victim. And, noone said you created it. Lsi john 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think you were attempting to paint Justanother as a victim. And you did explicitly state "frustration which you helped create" in reference to Justanother. Read your previous post.--Fahrenheit451 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- The operative word being helped, which you notably left out when you chose to misquote me. I didnt choose to paint Justanother as a victim. I clearly said his words were unprofessional. But as wikipediatrix said, enough with the finger pointing and name calling. Go edit. Lsi john 03:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You are still attributing Justanother's condition to me, even using "the operative word being helped". Lsi john, thanks for your gratuitous advice, but I suggest it is your own medicine and YOU need to take it.--Fahrenheit451 17:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- More coffee? wikipediatrix 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not at this time of night.--Fahrenheit451 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes I wish the whole "incivility" thing could just be jettisoned, because almost every single editor of Scientology articles - myself and Fahrenheit451 included - have been sarcastic, snide, caustic or just plain mean at some point or another. For any of us to play the "no personal attacks!" card is Bull at this point in the time track because we're all a bunch of contentious hotheads. (I, of course, am less hotheaded than everyone else. Of course.) wikipediatrix 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Of course. :-} Lsi john 00:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes I wish the whole "incivility" thing could just be jettisoned, because almost every single editor of Scientology articles - myself and Fahrenheit451 included - have been sarcastic, snide, caustic or just plain mean at some point or another. For any of us to play the "no personal attacks!" card is Bull at this point in the time track because we're all a bunch of contentious hotheads. (I, of course, am less hotheaded than everyone else. Of course.) wikipediatrix 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
F451, you are the man that told me how to bait for PA way back when when I first got here (Memory Lane me and you). So keep on baiting, my friend. BTW, who is frustrated? Not me. I was simply commenting on your lame attempts at "Black Scientology" which lame attemps I can easily point to in your dealings with others. I am sure that most of our audience is not exactly sure what we are talking about. For them, F451 tries to misuse Scientology to misdirect an opponent. Actually it is more than that; the attempt is to introvert the opponent - to make them doubt themselves and look inward. The most effective position for someone that is looking to accomplish something is to ignore their doubts and look outward - extroversion. If you can make your opponent stop looking outward and look inward then you have gained a victory. Ta Da. F451 attempts that with his little comments designed to make you look inward including the one about my alleged "frustration". It is Black Sciemntology because he usually uses perversions of Scientology techniques. Actually Scientology is supposed to create the opposite effect; less introversion and more extroversion. Of course that is when it is used with good intentions and in accordance with the Auditor's Code; which is not how Mr. F451 does things. Ah, the pleasant light of the truth - let us bask in it together, my friends. Amen.