Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:46, 1 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

Notice

Please take this week to look at your talk page contributions and see where your attitude could use improvement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Misou (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi! Isn't this week over by now? Misou 04:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you are still blocked, it's not over yet. If the block persists, follw the instructions in {{Autoblock}}. — Sandstein 05:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That's what I call a greased line! Ok, will see what needs to be done to become a better citizen. Misou 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You should probably appeal. One week for a first block is arbitrarily long. 24-48 hours would have sufficed. --Justanother 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the user has been warned several times, and engaged in discussion/debate with the warning editors (which shows a very clear understand of the warning; no "oh, I didn't notice it, whoops" defense), I feel that the week-long block is sufficient. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well he can take what action he feels is appropriate; I just think that if you wanted a stern message then 48 hours would do that. --Justanother 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the language used in Misou's edits and comments... and I also think that this is not a clear-cut case of one user not being WP:CIVIL. I believe some of Misou's responses could stand some cleanup and others a complete re-write and from what I have read, it seems that he is being goaded into some of these responses by comments and edits from a few other contributors in articles which are highly disputed and contentious.

It appears that Misou feels that his views are being attacked or smeared and the other contributors, knowing that, are doing little to acknowledge his position, and instead seem to be poking a stick at the nest. -Peace in God. Lsi john 22:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Block is appropriate for inappropriate behaviour

• The block period is most appropriate for these types of violations, for which there have been prior multiple warnings. Here is the information at WP:ANI, with comments from outside editors WP:ANI#Misou_inappropriate_violations that feel this was appropriate. Smee 05:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Block is inappropriate and reflects taking "side" to anti-editors (considering Misou a "pro-editor") Those editors clearly not in favor of the main subject - Scientology/L. Ron Hubbard - spend a considerable amount of effort to bully the few neutral editors on the Wikiproject Scientology. Misou (if he/she is a Scientologist at all) might be temperamental but be bold and WP:IAR still apply. Overdoing it should be penalized with a 24hr block or 48hrs maximum, if repeated (which it is not). CSI LA 02:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My block of Misou has absolutely no relation to any project that Misou is involved in; honestly, I couldn't care less what he spends his time doing on Misplaced Pages, just as long as he abides by WP:CIVIL. Please take care to assume good faith. IAR has no bearing on violating Misplaced Pages's guidelines on civility. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Continue here?

Do you want to continue the discussion from L. Ron Hubbard here while you are blocked? I understand the discussion is important to you, which explains for me your occasional hostility. In case you don't want to be left out completely I thought this might be a good compromise. Anynobody 05:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I am turning hostile on display of cynicism and arrogance. Maybe I should get rid of that habit. What do you want to talk about? DD-214? You know my viewpoint. It is a forgery, you got some OR there in that Prouty affidavit (Palm etc) but that is all there is. There might be RS on the medal claim (21 or 27) but that does not mean the fake DD-214 form was distributed. Ah, just to be a bit mean I could also claim that it is actually not clear which of the two DD-214 forms is the real one or whether both are fake... Unless new data comes in this looks like a hopeless case to me. Misou 05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of just in case something pops up (RFCs can change quickly and unexpectedly). This way you aren't cutoff from any new topics of discussion. (I think we more or less understand each other's view of the DD-214, assuming you saw my last post to you on the page itself of course.)

Thanks. I keep an eye on what is happening - relentless injection of POVs right now. Spent some time getting my docs in order as long as I get to it. Might be worth it. Did you read the radio log of the submarine attack incident?

Which one? The Navy used different radios for different tasks. For example the ship to ship communications were handled on a different frequency than ship to air. I'd be happy to look at what you have. Anynobody 08:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also explain that I'm not just editing Hubbard and a few Scientology articles, I enjoy editing many controversial topics. The reason that is important goes toward the amount of time I'm able to commit to here, and to warn that it probably won't be as much as I'd like. That said, I think some discussion is better than none.

Regarding your occasional hostility, I don't mean to come off as patronizing. I apologize if this next analogy seems offensive I don't mean it to be: Hubbard is to a Scientologist what Jesus is to a Christian. Therefore I'd expect the same thing from Christians were I trying to disprove claims Jesus made about himself. In this case, the important figure -(IF from now on, unless you have a more neutral term)- was in the Navy during World War 2. These are two subjects I have studied for two decades. I just want to set the record straight because there are errors on both sides, but Hubbard makes it tough and I'll explain quickly: The PC-815 could be called a corvette as a generalization:

• A corvette was at that time was smaller than a frigate which was smaller than a destroyer but larger than a motor torpedo boat and specialized in anti submarine warfare.
• Hubbard said he commanded a squadron of British corvettes, which you know how I feel history says about that claim.

The WWII times of Hubbard are not significant for Scientologists. He has been a soldier at war times, ok. Many were, now what. The controversy about was made by others, mainly characters like Armstrong, whose plan was to inject fake documents into Hubbard's bio (did ever read the transcript of some hidden camera shots where he actually said that?). He or his friends succeeded somehow - unbelievable amounts of trash around tracing back to "nobody". In 15 years I could find at least some documentation. We can scrutinize this thing and keep the dumb commenters out.

I'll believe that if you say so (CoS assessment of significance), but WW II information is important to those who study it. The assertion puzzles me a bit, if it's insignificant then why are a few Scientologists taking such issue with it? Anynobody 08:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You won't find me actually editing articles having to do with Scientology itself (I do comment on talk pages though and try to solve problems/disputes). That is because I can't in good conscience pick apart the doctrine without doing the same to any religion whose doctrine doesn't make sense to me. I hope this clarifies that I'm not out to prove Scientology wrong, as much as I'm trying to correct errors (like the other side saying Hubbard battled a magnetic deposit). Anynobody 07:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doctrine is a belief thing and defies analysis by default. It's a human rights matter to let people believe what they want as long as it does not harm other's human rights. From that angle, well, there is some catch up work to do in Misplaced Pages. Misou 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a human rights matter to let people believe what they want as long as it does not harm other's human rights... That's exactly how I feel. Anynobody 04:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:) Cool! I couldn't put a Wikibreak sign on my user page (this user is blocked and so on), but as a note, I'll be on the road for the next days and back Sunday or Monday. Talk to you then. Misou 04:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

? Re comments on...

...Smee's talk page. Are you saying that by oversight request you want to find out if User:VolcanoXeni was one of the editors on the other side of the Hubbard debate causing trouble on purpose? If so you've filed the wrong request, you want WP:CHECKUSER.

If you really think something is going on, lets both submit a request because I'd just like to know if anyone we know pulled that crap. Anynobody 08:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Smee was damn close to this vandal from his first to his last minute. Might have sat next to her telling from time coincidences and the comparably harmless way she treated him. Anyway, since VolcanoXeni is blocked now I don't care much anymore. Misou 04:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, having unanswered questions can be irritating, so to assuage your concern I will answer your suspicion. (Please understand though I consider her a friend I would never sanction any kind of behavior like that.):

• Smee is on the welcome committee. These diffs from before, during, and after the incident in question explain why you saw her giving VolcanoXeni a welcome message:

Someone who is really concerned may see her effort on the committee as the set up of an alibi, this also is not true because Smee spends a lot of her time creating articles (If you want I can get the diffs, or just check out the past WP:DYK entries in the last few months). Lastly if you look at her contributions, she was posting at the same time as the editor in question. The above is all as an impartial editor, the following is from my experience: Smee would strongly condemn any action like that, it would go against everything else she does as an editor. I understand though why it might seem as though there are dirty tricks being played, I think we all feel that way every so often when editing isn't going the way we'd like. It's easy to blame a cabal, rather than believe there are individuals who are saying we're wrong. Anynobody 05:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am back. Thanks for the information on Smee. As I said, the story is over. But I see you got a new one rolling now. Hard to believe, that one on COFS. Misou 04:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't 100% sure on COFS myself, which is why I went to WP:RCU and waited for the results before saying anything about it. Anynobody 04:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that but sure we'll have some boring times ahead without him/her. Bad news is I had to leave the scanner at home. No new scans yet and a new round of dust is on the docs, sigh. Someday... Misou 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand it myself, why knowingly break the rules for a short block?

As to your documents, do you live in the U.S.? If so find a local Kinkos or other print shop and take em there to be scanned. It's pretty cheap if they still let you use your own media. (Buying a CDR or something like that from them could be a rip off though) Anynobody 05:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I know a shop like that, might even be open at night. Good idea. Misou 05:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) If you live anywhere near a college or university I'd bet money they'd be open late on a Sunday (especially this time of year). Anynobody 05:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

wb

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

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