Talk:Bartonella rochalimae/Silliness
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Bartonella rochalimae. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
- True enough... personally, I'm a Bartonella
denialistreappraiser. I think the scientific community is ignoring and suppressing the clear evidence that Afipia felis is responsible for cat-scratch. Don't even get me started on Koch's postulates... MastCell Talk 00:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)- Hah! I will sue you in a court of law in Trenton, New South Wales.... - Nunh-huh 01:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nunh-huh, I know it was a joke, but it's probably best not to threaten legal action on Wikipedia :-P. See WP:LEGAL. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- You know, I wondered when I wrote it if someone would deliberately misconstrue it as a legal threat. It's a bizarre misreading that would not even occur to the person to whom the remark was addressed. Nishkid64, that was not a legal threat, as you acknowledge, so please don't suggest it is. I'm familiar with the rules here, and I really don't need your cautions. - Nunh-huh 02:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nunh-huh, I know it was a joke, but it's probably best not to threaten legal action on Wikipedia :-P. See WP:LEGAL. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hah! I will sue you in a court of law in Trenton, New South Wales.... - Nunh-huh 01:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, now I feel bad. Sorry, it was a silly joke, and now I've caused drama. I should have followed my own advice from WP:SARCASM... let's move on. MastCell Talk 03:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- We MUST use Smileys® when engaging in humorous discussion. Unorthodox capitalization and judicious use of evil laughter are also encouraged. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Think of it as a mellow drama. :) - Nunh-huh 03:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nunh-huh, I am just commenting on what it is. I know you said it jokingly, but even joke legal threats are a no-no on Wikipedia. People can easily make the mistake of taking your statement out of context, and that would definitely be problematic. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Nishkid here. It's my experience that many people have some difficulty following threads. More importantly, what may seem obvious to the writer is not necessarily so obvious to the reader. Bear in mind that many wikipedian editors don't have an excellent understanding of English so implied sarcasm may easily be lost. At the very least, as others have mention one should use smileys and the like to minimise the possibility of confusion Nil Einne 06:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- If people are having trouble following threads, and for some reason feel it is important that they follow threads which have no relevancy to them, they can ask to have them explained. This is especially true of those who "don't have an excellent understanding of English" yet feel it important to comment on threads they don't understand. - Nunh-huh 05:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Nishkid here. It's my experience that many people have some difficulty following threads. More importantly, what may seem obvious to the writer is not necessarily so obvious to the reader. Bear in mind that many wikipedian editors don't have an excellent understanding of English so implied sarcasm may easily be lost. At the very least, as others have mention one should use smileys and the like to minimise the possibility of confusion Nil Einne 06:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nunh-huh, I am just commenting on what it is. I know you said it jokingly, but even joke legal threats are a no-no on Wikipedia. People can easily make the mistake of taking your statement out of context, and that would definitely be problematic. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, now I feel bad. Sorry, it was a silly joke, and now I've caused drama. I should have followed my own advice from WP:SARCASM... let's move on. MastCell Talk 03:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- As MastCell said a few edits ago, let's move on. This has strayed off-topic long enough, everyone involved in this discussion has been around a fair time, and this is hardly productive. Enough is enough. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)