User talk:Rtwise

Muhammad

Please read through the archives and/or the FAQs on the page. The issue has become a dead horse, and the images are not going to be removed my friend. Jmlk 1 7 22:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for the love of the FSM, stop interspersing comments. It makes the page beastly to read. -MasonicDevice (talk) 00:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted you comments here [1] because you insist on interweaving comments. Get your own comment block and stay out of mine. Proper quoting and indents make the page a lot easier to follow. -MasonicDevice (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not clear on what I mean, here's a coulple of guides Wikipedia:Talk_page and [[2]]. -MasonicDevice (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you actually ready your talk messages, but anyway... When the comments of others are interspersed with mine in such a manner that they reduce clairty of attribution, legibility, and message, it is my right to delete or move them forthwith. I refactored your comments on four seperate occasions yesterday, with good faith and without changing the meaning. Two other editors have stopped by here to tell you to use quotes and indent. It is not my responsiblity to ensure that you clearly express yourself, but is is my reponsibility to be sure I am clear. Typically, the deletion of the comments of others is grounds for immediate blocking, but guess what? I'm still here. I guarentee you an admin has come by that talk page and seen what I did. That must mean I had some right to remove your comments. And cussing? Please. Again, if I'd been cussing, I'd be blocked. -MasonicDevice (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome this discussion under the rules and guidelines that exist at this site. Rules and guidelines you ignore (commenting inside of others' comments, thus making the discussion hard to follow and changing the mean of the comments you split) or dismiss (NPOV). Until you follow the rules, no one is going to want any part of you. For the last time: I deleted your comments once, after numerous GF refactors of other offending comments, because it was obscuring my comment and I did not feel comfortable that I could rewrite it w/o changing its meaning. I left a message on your talk page, stating what I had done, where I had done it, and why I had done it. What more do you want from me? It's not my job to ensure you comment clearly, but it is my job to ensure that my comments are clear. Furthermore, I'd watch the slander. The strongest language I've used is "hell", last week, in a conversation with User:Wolfkeeper. It's in Archive 8 if you want to look it up. That's the good thing about the logs: if you're claiming someone said something they never said, everyone knows your full of it. Good day. -MasonicDevice (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Facepalm- The "a priori exclusion" I was referring to was the rules and policies of the site. Taking things out of context is no way to win friends. I removed your text because it obscured and modified mine. It was my right to do. Removal of others comments w/o damn good reasons is grounds for a block, and I've yet to be blocked for what I did. The facts are all there in the edit log and on your talk page. Go find an admin if you're really so aggrieved. If I were you, I'd walk away from this, because the more you press it, the more you exhibit bad faith and skirt dangerously close to a personal attack.

And are you really getting in tizzy about "damn right"? Sweet Zombie Jesus, have you never heard anyone say "Damn Skippy", "Damn Straight", or "Hot Damn"? It's pretty mild language on the scale of profanity. It's probably not best used in formal company, as it's lowbrow, but it's OK by the FCC.-MasonicDevice (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Rtwise, I suggest you write down your arguments in a paragraph. If you want to support your argument with a theory or a current intellectual understanding, please provide enough references so that a person who is not aware of the field can track them. Then post your arguments in a new section and ask people to write an answer on that. There is no way that people all agree on such matters but both sides can provide their arguments on the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and let the readers that come by later make up their mind. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2008 (UTCz

Also, when supporting your argument with theory, you must relate those to WP policy. Without that it's "a tale told by an idiot, all full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (Macbeth 5.5) There are rules to follow, and you must argue within that framework or you'll be dismissed out of hand. It's a peculiar institution, but it's an institution nonetheless.-MasonicDevice (talk) 02:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we have the policies of neutrality when it comes to the abstract representations tradition and the visual representations tradition. All I am saying here is to provide both sides of the new arguments without endorsing any of them at the moment. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RtWise, whether you want to pursue your point on Talk:Muhammad or on policy articles, I think it would be best if you write a short essay explaining your arguments. That way, it will be preserved for future discussions and not buried forever in the talk page archives. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd sign up for that newsletter. It's not that I think your ideas are bad, they just seem to run counter to the project's guidelines as the now exist. -MasonicDevice (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quotes

just to echo a comment made in an edit summary - it's considered bad practice to spilt another editor's comments so attribution becomes difficult to understand. use quotes instead. regards. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]