User talk:Mezzkal

Please, feel free to post any (pertinent !) comment on this talk page !
--Mezzkal (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

. Hey Mezzkal Will respond in full later when I'm off work. Just thought I'd drop a line to say I appreciate your work and suggestions, and hoping the arguments aren't getting you down. Your recent comments seems less calm than earlier ones.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hello

Just got your message...

Don't misread me : my "pique" was rather friendly (that's why i concluded it wth a little typed smiley...)

If, when saying "your recent comments", you are refering to my reply to "FOUNDING FATHERS", well... I must confess that his recurring diatribe about this article on "Relig. & Intell." being a vast conspiration mounted just in order to squash the "so fragile" feelings of religious people... "slightly" upset me !

(Then, now, fer somethin' complet'ly diff'rent : i'm waiting for your full developments...)

--Mezzkal (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. you've said it yourself really. You've got a bit upset and let a troll get to ya. I started to list the irony of your "Maybe, you should read more carefully the posts to which you react?" and lecturing about "no personal attacks" and "don't presume what I have in mind" comments, but gave up. Really, I just hoped you realise that, regardless of your intent, smiley faces and strikethroughs aren't always making your comments "sound" (is that the word?) friendly or rational. Despite your best efforts, you gotta watch that you don't end up sounding just like someone you are upset with.....

Peace. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you wrote : "I just hoped you realise that, regardless of your intent, smiley faces and strikethroughs aren't always making your comments "sound" (is that the word?) friendly or rational.", you got straight to the point... Actually, you're right ! I was not "friendly" at all with FI, and didn't intend to either (I hope you believe me when i say that i realise when i'm being "not-friendly" !) [Note : you also mentionned "smiley faces and strikethroughs"... eventhough they weren't in the reply to FI, but in the prvious post addressed to you, and were really meant to be understood as "tongue-in-the-cheek".... and friendly ! I'm sorry you took it badly...]

As for "rational", i don't think that.. appealing to consensual guidelines made for cool living-together would be irrational ? You almost reproached me to remind him "no personnal attacks", as he threw ...[ Wikipedia is ] not a place for you to try and promote prejudice against a group of people for their religious beliefs.

Isn't that what every polite wikipedian is doing all the time to vindicative contributors, in all kinda talk-pages, all over this site ?

I think that all the misunderstanding might --may be-- come from the fact that you think of FOUNDER'S as being a troll...

If it happens to be true, then i've certainly been misled, and of course, the common saying "don't feed the trolls" was to be applied here !

But how could we explain, then, that he's been a wikipedian for almost five years (since november 2007), that he's got rollback and reviewer rights on en:WP, and --even more astonishing-- is an "Experienced Editor" and is entitled to display this Service Badge ??

BTW, that explains why i told him "It's a pity that I should have to remind you (!) of no less than six Wikipedia guidelines" (underlying : please... not you !)

Anyway... This seems to belong to the past already, and to be just a scratch on the leather. Let's all go on forwards to new constructive debates.

--Mezzkal (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Atheism

Hi, you recently added the results from a poll to the atheism article. I would first suggest adding the poll information in Demographics of atheism to be worked on. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mezzkal. I came across your "problem" at Atheism while doing recent change patrol. Just a short disclaimer: I do no substantial editing at any religion articles because of the strong feelings that people (myself included) have on religion. I reverted an edit that came after yours because the summary made no sense, but I want you to know I have "no horse in this race". I am writing to you to make a suggestion. No matter how you go about getting your stuff in, you may fare better if you rewrite what you want to insert to make it more encyclopedic. Using bold-face type as much as you have puts undo emphasis on what you are trying to say. Also, in comparison to the length of the article, the length of your edit also puts undo emphasis on what you are trying to say, so perhaps you might condense it a bit.

Newer editors, like us, can find friendly and non-judgmental help at The teahouse. They don't really deal in content disputes, but they can help you with style and technical issues. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gtwfan !

I thank you for your intervention.

However, if you have a look at the history of that "Atheism" page, you can see that IRWolfie began initially (that's his own word) by doing a "clean up" on the new text, mainly removing the bold types, the (Gallup report's) sections titles that I had typed in capital letters, and so on.

Then after ---and only then---, he decided to erase the whole text altogether ---which is, you'll agree with me, a very open-minded way to open a peaceful debate !.

But... I invite you to cast an eye on the last paragraph of my answer to the same IRWolfie, and you will see that I had warmly approved his "trimmings" !

I approved it so much, that I re-introduced my contribution... after having removed all the bold types etc... myself, "as a proof of good will" (that my exact words, see the cited answer..)

And, of course, some other "well thinking mind" --namely Dominus Vobisdu-- found nothing better to do... than to erase these (apparently "cursed") paragraphs again !.

It begins to look like the informations contained in it really scare some people, up to the point that they could do anything --even silly things like trying to delay by any means the publishing of those infos on WP...

Friendly yours

--Mezzkal (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counterculture of the 1960s

Hey! I noticed you're interested in the counterculture of the 60s (among other things). I'm on a quest to find a userbox for that (or the hippie subculture), and too lazy to make my own. Do you know if there's one? If not, I'd love some suggestions on what would be best for a userbox icon.

Cheers. Ithinkicahn (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]