User talk:WizUp

Sorry, Celestian, but your comments are bottled and don't allow individual response on my talk page, so I'm going to delete them. If you want to add to a user page, I suggest adding content in a form that easily lends itself to line-by-line responses. WizUp

(Message deleted) -- Hoary 09:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, there, "hoary" but if you want to write on my user page, please address your comments to me. If you want to write to Celestian, please post your comments on Celestian's user page. Otherwise, speaking or writing about a person in a context where the comments are likely to be heard or read by the person, but writing in the third person so as not to address the subject of the comment is a tactic straight out of "Guerilla Media". It is there described as a rhetorical tactic for offense. I consider it a personal attack, to which I have no compuctions against responding in kind. If I choose to further deal with you in this venue, you will find it impossible to mask your personal attacks behind a facade of gentility. WizUp 23:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting other people's messages from your user page. Thanks. Hipocrite 01:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been deleted. If you want to read earlier versions, you can do as I did and read the page history. It appears that bullying is the standard operating procedure for this project. How typical of Americans. I read a policy that said even blocked users can change their user pages, which is oxymoronic, because the software doesn't allow arbitrarily blocked users to modify the pages after they have been victimzed by a sophomoric sysop . And I found several occasions in which sophomoric syspops deleted comments from their own user talk pages, often with snide, arrogant, demeaning and personally attacking comments left as a rebuttal. Can you site a policy that says users can't control their user page? Not! 18:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No biting!

I think it's important that, even when dealing with people who we believe are loathsome, that we follow WP:No personal attacks. I myself have failed at times, and feel worse for it. Additionally, I find that treating people well makes them agree with you more! Thanks. Hipocrite 14:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have not reached a concensus on that matter. A concensus that excludes my objection to your doctrine is no concensus.

I think it is important that we recognize the difference between biting, talking and writing. Only one of the three can cause injury. I also think that rules, standards and protocols for human behavior existed long before fans of a free encyclopedia created the page WP:No personal attacks, which defines a few writers' personal preferences but in no way begins to anaylyze the sociological, psychological, tactical or strategic merits of various forms of written communication beyond expressing those writers' personal preferences.

I think "shaping the issue" as a complaint about a person's manners rather than to respond to the substance of a complaint is as much an attack as is calling a person names. And I think that the majority of administrators -- at least those who seem to control processes at Wikipedia -- manage very well to mask their ethnocentricity, racism and bigotry behind a facade of civility. If some want to consider the factual representatations contained herein as a personal attack, please consider yourself attacked. Your systematic attacks against myself, against my colleagues, against my friends and against much of the rest of the world have not gone unnoticed. WizUp 23:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:No personal attacks is a policy of this encyclopedia. Consensus on this has been reached, and Personal Attacks Are Not Allowed. "No shaping issues " is currently not a policy. Please, No personal attacks. You certainly haven't attacked me, because I could care less about the article being edited.

How is it a concensus if not everyone agrees? I don't agree, and this "WizUp" didn't agree. It sounds more like mob rule to me -- anyone who doesn't join the concensus is bullied out of the mob. Exactly who defines "personal attack"? The mob? The dictator of the mob? Not!

Ah well. I tried. Hipocrite 16:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]