User talk:Misou

Sorry, got no time yet to put something in here. But feel free to leave questions or comments.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Misou/Archive/Archive-May2024. Sections without timestamps are not archived. All archived sections are listed at the section index.

Hi there!

Please feel free to discuss all kinds of things here, as long as the Talk page of an article is not the better choice. Misou

Freezone

Re 'Freezone survivors' website: please read the discussion page, this has been disputed before and should be discussed not used for yet another revert war. Messages also sent to others involved and discussion section opened. --Hartley Patterson 21:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You have responded to a request to discuss by reverting again. This is not good. --Hartley Patterson 17:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You have not started nor given any reason on the Talk page for your ruthless destruction of my contribution. Misou 17:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made any alterations to the article since May. I've asked people to discuss rather than revert. This is proceeding, and if you don't contribute your voice will not be heard. --Hartley Patterson 17:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not you but F451. Misou 17:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Original Thesis and Evolution of a Science are not the same!

Misou, you have The Original Thesis and The Dynamics of Life redirecting to Evolution of a Science. Of course, these books are not the same. I'm trying to fix the error, but am having trouble doing it.HubcapD 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I got it fixed! Will add more data later, once I have my new copy in front of me!HubcapD 22:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, how did that happen...! I wanted to redirect Dynamics of Life to The Original Thesis, same books or at least both in the same article. Thanks for fixing it. Misou 01:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Heads up from your false accusations

WP:DBAD--Fahrenheit451 00:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• sigh... sometimes it IS hard to just converse with you, man. Misou 01:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it utterly impossible. wikipediatrix 02:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you both avail yourselves to the subject you want to promote here and complete Grade 0 auditing. If it did not give you the end phenomena, you need to handle that.--Fahrenheit451 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sure you breezed by this line without any sense of irony whatsoever:Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly.HubcapD 00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer "snorted by this line". Onto my talk page, that p...erson! Misou 04:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Miscavige links

I think all your edits in the last few minutes are a definite improvement, except having TWO external links to scientologytoday.org probably won't fly. wikipediatrix 02:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see that. The one with the picture seems more informative. Let me correct it. Misou 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Help request

Can you look at the talk page of Scientology bibliography? --Leocomix 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Scientology

Hi there, I don't want to seem prejudice but you seem to be making some major edits that seem to be removing well sourced court findings to make the article on Scientology less neutral, I suggest you revert your edits and talk about the changes on the Scientology talk page. Thanks, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 18:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep looking. I have not removed ANYTHING. I did exactly what I said in the edit summary (worth reading). Good that you don't want to seem prejudiced but tell me what is so important about the back and forth about auditing confidentiality over more than half page when there is no story at all? Misou 18:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at the difference between the last edit before you and your edit, something was removed, I'm saying that you should find support before doing that because it doesn't look neutral, you don't have to find support but removing stuff and only leaving their references is bad for Scientology because it makes it seem like they support censorship. PS: Usually when it goes to court it's notable and when something gets too long the Wikipedian way is to put it in a separate article and add a "see also" or "main article" template and not to delete it (after all, a lot of different and diverse people spent time working on it). Finally, it's only your opinion that it's too long and opinions don't really count for anything on a neutral website like this one, so go to the talk page, or else I'll have to revert your edits which might end up in an unproductive edit-war (although I haven't been in an edit war yet, so...). Jeffrey.Kleykamp 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the big picture "auditing confidentiality" is minutia. If you'd want to put any court case about, by or against Scientology in there, you'd have several volumes soon. Read a little of WP:PG and check the style manual. And, finally, 60 years of auditing, one claim of a confidentiality breach, no victim, no witness. That makes it what? Genau, mein Lieber: PROPAGANDA. And no way that such crap stays in there. Misou 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. wikipediatrix 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My friend, quit biting me, I haven't reverted your edits. Plus, if it's not notable then delete the whole section and leave a note on the talk page instead of pushing your POV. And don't start with things like "Read a little of WP:PG and check the style manual" because you're just implying Ad hominem and that doesn't at all effect my argument that you're making major edits to get rid of anti-Scientology propaganda and replacing it with your own pro-Scientology one. Also, I have an issue with one of your more recent edits, you deleted half a sentence because there is no reference but the reference is right here (OK, I'll grant you that the reference doesn't really say "[Scientology's dietary recommendations are] inaccurately bequeathed or highly contested today" but that would just require a rephrase and not a deletion). Jeffrey.Kleykamp 23:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:Tilman, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Linking to a website such as this solely to harass and defame another editor is wholly inappropriate. Krimpet 00:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)