User talk:Misou/Archive/Archive-May2007

WP:CIVIL / WP:WQ warning

This comment in an edit summary [1] This was constructive editing until you - Mr. Know-it-all - showed up here. Don't you have enough problems at home? is not helpful. Please stop this. Thank you. --Tilman 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your disruptive edits couldn't be less helpful. Study up on the last week and start contributing, thank you. Misou 19:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I did take the time to see the discussion, and it supports my edits. But feel free to point me to the segments that I may have missed.

The part about the racism was never shown to be "out of context", instead, someone first claimed that the quote wasn't there but couldn't come up with the book, then another came up with some highly personal ad-hoc interpretation of what Hubbard said.

The Quentin Hubbard stuff is well sourced, but in "his" article. Its that simple. It seems to me that the few editors that were active while I was away (busy with work) were confused by an incredible amount of edits, so some "bad" deletions weren't detected. --Tilman 20:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, thanks for the reminder. I shall behave. Misou 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL / WP:WQ warning (2)

Your suggestion about inserting statements where the sun never shines [2] are not in the spirit of WP:CIVIL. --Tilman 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You appearance and disruptive cynic comments and behavior is even less helpful. Start contributing. Misou 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I provided a WP:RS link for the segment that you had inserted before. That is my contribution. --Tilman 17:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Proper channels

I believe you are looking for Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, and WP:SOCK. But I can tell you right now, that this VolcanoXeni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is not me :) It is reprehensible to me personally to behave in a fashion that is against the spirit of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, unlike some other individuals on the project.... Smee 17:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Who knows. Highfructosecornsyrup was not Wikipediatrix either, right? Misou 17:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to say here, I don't think I was an active editor at that point, so I don't know to what you are referring. Smee 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

That just means you never know. Wikipediatrix was an anti-editor, Highfructosecornsyrup was a pro-editor. Both users were found to be same person. Misou 17:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Notice

• WP:ANI. Smee 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for perpetual violations of WP:CIVIL. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Misou/Archive (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 Wikipedia, just as long as he abides by WP:CIVIL. Please take care to assume good faith. IAR has no bearing on violating Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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:[3]

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 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)

Who be dancin? Lsi john 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We be dancin! Misou 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Woo hoo! people are the funniest animals. I've been around responsible people for so long, I had forgotten what it was like to work with people who don't know what Personal Responsibility is and don't realize that they are responsible for everything that happens as a result of their choices. ;)

Its interesting to watch some here that have to be righteous. Maybe that should be an axiom for wiki: Its more about being right than getting along and writing a good article.

Its good to see you back. Lsi john 17:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

nicely put. Lsi john 18:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

tku Misou 18:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Violations of WP:POINT

• Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, WP:POINT, as you did here: DIFF This is highly inappropriate. Sarcasm is not conducive to constructive dialogue. Thanks. Smee 05:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

3O:I see no violation of WP:POINT in this citation. In my opinion the warning can be removed. Lsi john 06:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sarcastic comments to make a point which disrupt constructive discussion. Smee 06:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

• Sarcastic / Sarcasm are never mentioned in WP:POINT. My opinion stands. Lsi john 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is "a disruption of the project to make a point", and thus a violation of WP:POINT. Smee 06:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee, no intent to be mean about your heavy work on this template business. Misou 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA warning

Assuming that the expression "smiling snakes" [12] means every editor who had a different viewpoint than the person/people editing from "that proxy", I consider it a personal attack and ask you to use a more moderate language. While I can't speak for others, I can reveal to you that I didn't open the Champagne bottle after learning of the sock-block. I just took notice of it and went on with my work. --Tilman 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is very nice of you. Why the h... then do you feel affected by "smiling snakes"? Don't need to be you. Could be those stabbing my back during the last week. Could be those wasting my time on talk pages during the last week with "smiling snake babble". How'd you now? It's more a class of people y'know. Misou 05:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself and other editors to be human beings. Calling humans "smiling snakes" denies them any humanity. --Tilman 06:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Personally I think smiling snakes are cute.. However, would you be so kind as to post an NPA on Anynobody's page on my behalf, as he wrongly accused me of being a SOCK. I'd have to say that pretty much denied me of more than humanity, it denied me of life itself and my very existence! And per your definition, it was NPA NPA NPA.. go warn him. You know you want to. Lsi john 06:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't bring any details, e.g. diffs. However I looked around and saw that there is a debate about the fact that you first appeared with another name. --Tilman 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed? An entire debate? Is this a real debate where people from both sides of an issue discuss it? I'm unawre of two sides to my first username. Though, I'm sure its equally both interesting and entertaining debate. Exactly how much can you discsuss about 1 post? Oh wait.. anti-cult conspiracy theorists.... they'll be busy for weeks. Lsi john 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Tilman, WP:AGF would suggest that you assume it was not a personal attack. Furthermore, you were not even mentioned in the comment. Issuing spurious and frivolous NPA warnings is disruptive and distracting. Stop taking things so personally. It's not always about you and its not always an attack. Lsi john 19:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't meant against me, then Misou will certainly clarify this. But even if it was against other people, it is still a personal attack. --Tilman 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Making such an assumption and posting an NPA warning is not a good example of WP:AGF. If it were personal, I'm sure that you (or someone) would have been mentioned directly. Misou should not be required (or even requested) to explain or clarify what he didn't mean in something he wrote to another user. You should assume good faith and stop creating conflict where none exists. Lsi john 19:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

One does not have to be the target of an insult to warn a user of a WP:NPA violation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

EVula, thank you for pointing out that perspective. I did read it as if Tilman was complaining on his own behalf. You are correct that it could also be interpreted more broadly. Lsi john 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And a personal attack would be an attack on against an individual, yes? If not, I would think that the charge should be more in line with WP:CIVIL. Mr Tilman seemed to indicate that he took it personally and thus that he was filing the WP:NPA on his own behalf.

I suppose we're off into semantics now. My reply was based on Mr Tilman clearly stating that he made assumptions (in bad faith) that the comments were a personal attack. I believe that WP:AGF is fairly clear, that when in doubt, assume the best not the worst and that was my point. Lsi john 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF is often, erroneously, interpreted as "stick your head in the sand and always assume good faith no matter what the evidence actually suggests". Given Misou's history of warnings for civility infractions (including a week-long block by yours truly), it requires no stretch of the imagination that his intent behind the statement was less than wholesome. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said on your page, I will not defend uncivilized comments. I also believe it is too easy to create a history of warnings where serious violations didn't actually exist.

I believe that Misou takes Tilman's edits too personally. I believe that Misou responds verbally from emotion, rather than mentally. I believe that Misou gets a bit overly colorful in some of his responses. And, I also have seen Mr Tilman repeatedly insert irrelevant and prejudicial anti-CoS information into articles. I believe that Mr Tilman has acknowledged his disdain for CoS and appears to me that he is making it a personal mission to make sure that negative views of Scientology are well documented on wikipedia.

EVula, if I were to post 10 NPA warnings on your page, would that make you a WPA abuser? Of course not. If I were to get 10 other editors to each post 1 NPA warning on your page, would that make you a WPA abuser? Of course not.

Misou is not innocent, and neither is Mr Tilman.

They should both stick to writing articles and stop poking the nest. Lsi john 20:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is ok, Daddy! Misou 05:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)