Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Action potential (talk | contribs) at 07:46, 3 February 2006 (NPA3 warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

NPA3 warning

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Comaze 07:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)