Misplaced Pages

User talk:Logos: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:12, 27 September 2009 editSimonm223 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,962 edits WP:3RR: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 20:54, 27 September 2009 edit undoVoiceofreason01 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users950 edits Misplaced Pages:CivilityNext edit →
Line 73: Line 73:


:it was not as extreme as you described, but i had to reply that way to the person who were not checking the thread but just accusing me of using bad etiquette, not to mention accompanying incivil tone ("again", "take your complaints elsewhere" etc.). even if it causes me a block, i can not take myself from revealing the fact to such attackers. otherwise, they might make habit of it. ] (]) 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC) :it was not as extreme as you described, but i had to reply that way to the person who were not checking the thread but just accusing me of using bad etiquette, not to mention accompanying incivil tone ("again", "take your complaints elsewhere" etc.). even if it causes me a block, i can not take myself from revealing the fact to such attackers. otherwise, they might make habit of it. ] (]) 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

::I understand how frustrating it can be to defend your opinion especially against multiple editors who disagree but your conduct on the ] especially some of your recent comments on the discussion page have been less than helpful and may violate ]. I would ask that you keep in mind that we are all here to try to make the we can. And I ask that you help me to maintain a civil discussion in an effort to improve the article. thank you. ] (]) 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


== ] == == ] ==

Revision as of 20:54, 27 September 2009

This is Logos's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Archiving icon
Archives

1



This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Non-free images in userspace

Please note that it is Misplaced Pages policy that non-free images cannot be used outside articles - see WP:NFCC#9. Therefore, I have removed the non-free images from your user page and the article you are building in userspace. Please do not re-insert them. Black Kite 09:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


you can just remove the image, not the image box completely. you can only delete non-free images which are not associated with any mainspace article. if you are not qualified to delete an image from wikipedia, ask an admin to do it for you. Logos5557 (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have worked mostly with images in the two years I've been an admin. You'll find you can delete any image, regardless of whether it is associated with an article, if it fails our media policies. In the case of userspace non-free images, I usually do delete the images, but in this case, since the article was at MfD, I wished only to remove their current presence. The neatest way of doing this was to remove the image box, after all it is redundant without the image. Black Kite 11:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling another editor a vandal

You really should know better. User:Simonm223's edits in your userspace weren't vandalism and he left edit summaries that made that clear. He didn't add profanity or insults or try to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages with his edits. Consider yourself warned. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but not agree with you. Logos5557 (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
THen I suggest you read WP:Vandalism. The warning is to help you avoid such mistakes in the future. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI conflict of interest guideline

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Misplaced Pages, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.Template:Do not deleteAthaenara 19:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

this is a borderline case and needs "common sense". just fyi, i am not connected with any organisation, nor I promoted any book. i just have a POV, like any other user. the article i created and edited heavily was well sourced with secondary sources. the other users disagreed and the article was deleted. i guess conflict of interest can not be decided over the use of some images & quotes. thanks anyway.. Logos5557 (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Userpage

Per WP:USER and WP:SOAP, I have removed your soaboxing/advertising comments. You are not allowed to have such comments on your userpage. Your userpage is for relaying to other users about your edits with wikipedia, is not is not some place to grandstand about the subject of your deleted article. Do not re-add them, you have been warned.— dαlus 00:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can't justify your removal by explaining how those quotes can be soapboxing or advertising, I will simply revert your edit. In addition to that, are you in a position to give me warning or something? Logos5557 (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Any user on wikipedia can warn any other user, as to the userpage, it is clearly soaboxing your POV in regards to your soon-to-be-deleted article, and this is not allowed. You can say you believe in whatever god you want, but you can't include the quasi-article you had there, the quotes and everything. The userpage is supposed to describe you as a wikipedian, and how things relate to you and wikipedia, in and of improving the encyclopedia. This is not facebook, this is not a blog, nor are you allowed to keep articles or interviews in your userpage.— dαlus 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I need to see that warning issue recorded somewhere, because it is also written somewhere that "be careful about your wording". Deletion of logos5557/ra (channeled entity) is fine. How can you judge that the quotes in my userpage constitute some sort of quasi-article? The headings and wikilinks can easily be removed. There is even no mention of what these quotes are; no mention of the name of the book, etc. It is quite possible that some may perceive those as fiction. I am not convinced yet. Logos5557 (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a free webhost. Misplaced Pages is not some place where you can post real or fictional interviews, be they current affairs or past.— dαlus 08:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
From WP:UP#NOT, 2, 7, 8 apply.— dαlus 08:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I had asked for the link to "Any user on wikipedia can warn any other user" statement, which you presented as fact. I am not hosting any material in my userpage. Those quotes are implicit material, which describe my POV and describe me as a wikipedian in a subtle manner. Misplaced Pages:User_page#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F states "You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere." Thanks for clarifying which clauses apply, but those statements are quite general as to their relations to the material in my userpage. Clause 2: Are those quotes any discussion between any users or my discussions in some subjects? No. Discussion is what we do here. Clause 7: For a material to self-promote itself, it needs to include the "full adress", that is the name of the book, organization etc. If the quotes were from, let's say, Bible, would you claim the same again? Clause 8: userpages are non-enyclopedic already. I guess what this clause describes is not what you perceive. Take agent smith quote in your userpage as an example. Logos5557 (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Clause two does not mention users, it mentions discussion, which this quite clearly is. It is extensive, and has nothing to do with wikipedia, or would you like to describe how it has anything to do with wikipedia. As to the warnings, I can't think of the place off the top of my head that says it, but ask any admin, and they shall tell you that you don't have to be an admin to warn users. If that was the case, applications like twinkle wouldn't exist.— dαlus 09:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle is not a good example here, because it's purpose and function are completely different. The one who are giving the warnings here, is you. The one who does not know the exact place where "warnings" issue is mentioned, is you. The one who tries to justify his action by simply referring to a completely irrelevant tool, is you. I think you should be the one to look for an expert opinion. Even I believe a user can warn another user in extreme cases, or in pretty clear situations which may include personal attack, I don't know where this is mentioned. Because of that, I believe a user should refrain from such actions that can not be justified clearly by the policies, guidelines and rules. The quotes are clearly not discussions. You might call those quotes "conversations" at most, which is also not so correct because those are just quotes from conversations. The quotes are not extensive and have a lot to do with wikipedia and myself; as I mentioned in my previous reply, those quotes describe my beliefs, my POV and the type of articles which I will tend to work on. You should separate "my soon-to-be-deleted article" from this case. Logos5557 (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Any appropriate warning can be given by any user. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
would you mind giving the wikipedia policy/rule link stating this? Logos5557 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This is straining my credibility - don't you think as an Administrator I know who can do this? Our guidelines on civility, for instance, say "As with other Misplaced Pages policies, enforcement of most policies is done by community action. Most enforcement is done by pointing out issues and talking about them, sometimes by formal warnings of some sort. If further action is required, such as a block of an account for ongoing problematic behavior, Misplaced Pages's volunteer administrators have to take that step. Anyone is empowered to get involved. Most enforcement is done by more experienced editors or the administrators, but anyone who sees abusive uncivil conduct or personal attacks may get involved.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 14:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
why do you take link request as straining your credibility. don't you think that, my aim could very well be to learn the exact location, to refer to in future for similar cases. now I can find the link by searching with the statements you provided. Logos5557 (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Now you're evading. Please explicitly describe how a conversation with your god has anything to do with wikipedia.— dαlus 21:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
the link is here Misplaced Pages:Civility_warnings#Who_should_make_civility_warnings. To daedelus: And you're leaning towards sarcasm; whether they exist or not, ra entities are not my god, there is no god to worship in this philosophy. I assume you had read the conversations I'm talking about; a conversation between "questioner" and "ra" is some sort of socratic dialogue and serves the purpose of implicitly describing me as a wikipedian, my beliefs, my POV and the type of articles I would tend to work on. Logos5557 (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop evading, and answer the question. Please explicitly, describe how it has anything to do with you being a wikipedian and wikipedia. As far as I can see, a conversation about types of bigfoot/creatures has nothing to do with wikipedia, and everything to do with your belief system.— dαlus 20:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
i explained already explicitly, but it is clear that you have not understood it yet. nor it seems you have any will to do so. for a neutral-civil discussion you have to choose your words carefully. you need to drop that tone and stop using some words like "evade", "answer the question" etc. Logos5557 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
No you didn't. You made sweeping statements that did not specifically explain how each question had anything to do with wikipedia.— dαlus 22:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
yes i did. read my statements again; those are not sweeping. my statements specifically adressed what you were looking for; the relation of the quotes in my userpage, with me as a wikipedian. dialogues on history of mankind, free will, ufos, bigfoots etc. tell the reader that the user will work in such articles. instead of stating my interests in brief like many other users, i prefer stating my interests implicitly by some sort of socratic dialogues. plain simple. Logos5557 (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Civility

Please do not insinuate that another editor is sub-human or instruct them to leave an open discussion, as you did in this edit. You may be blocked for further violations of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

it was not as extreme as you described, but i had to reply that way to the person who were not checking the thread but just accusing me of using bad etiquette, not to mention accompanying incivil tone ("again", "take your complaints elsewhere" etc.). even if it causes me a block, i can not take myself from revealing the fact to such attackers. otherwise, they might make habit of it. Logos5557 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand how frustrating it can be to defend your opinion especially against multiple editors who disagree but your conduct on the Global Consciousness Project especially some of your recent comments on the discussion page have been less than helpful and may violate wp:civil. I would ask that you keep in mind that we are all here to try to make the best encyclopedia we can. And I ask that you help me to maintain a civil discussion in an effort to improve the article. thank you. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You have now reverted the same material on Global Consciousness Project 4 times in the last day. I understand that you feel your edits are appropriate however they run counter to the established consensus of other editors. I suggest you might want to review WP:3RR and contribute constructively on the associated talk page. Thank you and have a nice day. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:
User talk:Logos: Difference between revisions Add topic