User talk:Elidizon

Welcome!

Hello, Elidizon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Addhoc 21:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Human trafficking in Angeles City#this_article_is_about_human_trafficking.2C_right.3F. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Phrases like "This is laughable." in response to sincere inquiries may be insulting, and disruptive to the process of developing articles. Please consider Wikipedia's civility policy. edgarde 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so my calling the article laughable is an attack on Susan Bryce? Sorry, but that is quite a reach. Now, hinting that she could be on the payroll of PREDA could be construed as an attack I suppose. Perhaps you should reread my comment. Susan was saying that the article had something to say about Angeles City, because a Philippines journalist made an ill-informed reference to the bars in Angeles City - citing a NATO consideration. NATO has no troops in the Philippines. No doubt the journalist did not understand that, and thus made the mistake. I however found it laughable, enough so that I actually did LOL. My Filipina wife, very proud of Angeles City, also found it funny. Thanks, Eli--Eli 00:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: off base

Hmm, so my calling the article laughable is an attack on Susan Bryce? Sorry, but that is quite a reach. Now, hinting that she could be on the payroll of PREDA could be construed as an attack I suppose. Perhaps you should reread my comment. Susan was saying that the article had something to say about Angeles City, because a Philippines journalist made an ill-informed reference to the bars in Angeles City - citing a NATO consideration. NATO has no troops in the Philippines. No doubt the Filipino journalist did not understand that, and thus made the mistake. I however found it laughable, enough so that I actually did LOL. My Filipina wife, very proud of Angeles City, also found it funny. Therefore, my remark that it was laughable. Your assertion that it was a personal attack on Ms Bryce is biased, and demonstrates your lack of objectivity on the Angeles City subject, with or without your dearth of knowledge of the subject. Thanks, Eli--Eli 00:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a comment on my talk page.[1]

The specific attack to which I was referring was here, where you accuse Susanbryce of editing for financial gain. This accusation appears solely intended to discredit an editor whose point of view differs with yours.

I would have been more specific about this, but I didn't anticipate that it wouldn't be obvious to you what the warning was mostly about. My apologies for complicating matters by trying to kill two birds with one stone.

However, you repeatedly describe information that conflicts with your point of view as "laughable". This is neither helpful nor WP:CIVIL. While you and your wife find this sort of thing humourous, it just comes off arrogant and aggressive on article discussion pages.

If you think information contributed by any editor is wrong, it would be helpful for you to cite sources for your point of view. Your current tactic of disparaging other editors does not help edit the article, and your inability to provide sources may draw your objectivity into question, which you seem to understand is an important matter. / edgarde 03:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]