Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:46, 10 February 2014

Please email me to ensure I will respond quickly.

F.Tromble, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi F.Tromble! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Slow down

Hey man, you're new. I'm sorry if anything I say can be a shock coming in here, but you need to slow down. I noticed that your discussion with me became testy and almost passive aggressive on your part very quickly. Perhaps my responses weren't what you expected, but that's part of collaborative editing.
I dug further into your edits and I noticed that you've been reverted by User:David Biddulph, User:Toddy1 and User:Неполканов, all of whom are established Misplaced Pages editors. And I'm telling you right now, as I told you at Template talk:Sunni Islam that if you try to edit the template based on your current line of reasoning, you will have me reverting you as well.
Perhaps it seems unfair, and that we're all wrong. That is theoretically possible. But look at it this way...you have not even been at this site for one month. You've engaged in your first edit war and you've fallen into conflict with multiple editors. That can't be a good sign and it might be a good idea to take a step back and ask yourself, "what can I do to not fall into such conflicts." Sometimes part of getting the job done (editing) is adjusting your own behavior even when you feel others are wrong. It's sometimes the best choice at work, and it's sometimes the best choice here at Misplaced Pages. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments sir, I do think though that you have got me wrong. I am just asking for sources on religion articles. I know religious folks can sometimes be quite political and extremely passionate about their opinions, indeed blind devotion is common in religions and that is perfectly fine and normal although it does become difficult when people think they have a "divine right". But I signed up to wiki to challenge and to ask questions on talk pages where it seems devotees might be using the encyclopaedia as a political platform, for example presenting the revolutionary/fringe idea that there are 5 Sunni Madhabs instead of the traditional 4. Naturally this is going to make me unpopular, but I have no bad intention. Being unpopular does not make someone into the bad guy. Just want to makes sure encyclopaedic entries continue to look encyclopaedic and not like politico-religious or politico-historical "propaganda". Nevertheless, I do not see you as threatening me, and I take your suggestions on board. Best wishes. I look forward to continuing our discussion at the Sunni template discussion when I have time. F.Tromble (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You're being passive aggressive again. Insinuating that your interlocutors are being political, passionate or blindly devoted isn't very civil, even if it isn't done in an overt fashion. More or less accusing someone giving you advice of being a devotee using the site as a political platform is somewhat overt.

I'll give you another piece of advice. If you continue with the passive insinuations about other editors, eventually they will get tired of it. That isn't a threat, it's a quote from experience. You aren't going to get your way with such behavior nor are you being clever. It's rude and makes you look like the POV pusher. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)