User talk:Action potential/ Archive2

comaze

Re: Please assist

It's not against policy, but I'm of the opinion that refactoring a Talk page while there is a lot of controversy and conduct issues is best avoided or left up to an uninterested third party (if you are so lucky as to have one of those come by and not get involved). It tends to be taken the wrong way by one's opponents and can make it difficult for anyone that isn't already thoroughly involved to get a grip on what's going on (which is very important to make easy when you want to bring in more people to add to the consensus). If refactoring really must be done, then the lightest possible touch should be used to avoid disrupting the page and to avoid stirring up the ire of detractors.

It looks like there's a long and tangled history to this dispute and it's currently going through arbitration. It looks, from what I can see from the outside, that the process is operating well enough. It also looks like it's slow because of the complexity of the dispute and the circumstances around it, but I don't see that it is failing. One thing to remember is that allowing oneself to become less involved in actual editing during a dispute can hasten the process by avoiding creating new disputes, and that if the final decision is in one's favour there is always a record of old versions to draw on for material with which to fix the article after arbitration concludes. The article isn't going anywhere, after all, and can always be edited in the future as well as it can be edited today. — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:35, December 20, 2005 (UTC)

To Comaze, I appreciate that you have been spending a lot of time improving the reference and refactoring the article. However I am not sure that this will be fruitful considering the article is under heavy dispute. Currently, the article is being monopolized by Headley, Cambridge, DaveRight et. al.. I suspect that Headley would regard anyone not subscribing exactly to his point of view as NLP fanatics. So I don't see any possibility of having a mutually recognized neutral party doing the edits. Equally, I don't see any possible way of engaging Headley into any form of sensible dialog either. --Dejakitty 13:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Comaze, Thanks for helping. I think the flame war on the NLP talk page is gradually subsiding. Its OK to post ideas about how to improve the NLP article even it is about content issue. Just be careful not to get sucked into one-up-man-ship or competition on who has the last word. Don't reward flame warriors behviour with either positive or negative attention. (I learnt this the hard way.) In time, people will loose interest in flame wars. Thank you --Dejakitty 18:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

russian characters

The bot translates always the characters, dont ask me why. I don't understand whats the problem. Was the bot wrong? --Armin76 10:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i understand now. I will investigate that. --Armin76 16:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frogs Into Princes

Hey Comaze, have you read "Frogs Into Princes"? If so do you feel each of the change tools work? jVirus 08:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So as for yourself, that'd be a yes? jVirus 08:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response

I responded on my talk page. Swatjester 10:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the first step mediation:

"Looks like we're having some trouble reading here. Lets keep the statements of dispute short please, and limit them only to naming the NATURE of the dispute, not evidence supporting it. What do you think is the problem here? Is it that this user does not show good faith? is it that this other user continuously reverts? what is the actual physical problem, at the lowest level possible? I ask that Comaze, you rewrite your statement to better fit the template's request please?Swatjester 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

MSN

Comaze, do you use MSN messenger? jVirus 05:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science

Here is a good one from the science article: "Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it." I like this because when I use the word science to describe some controversial thing, I can tell the other users that I mean "Science" as in the second definition on the Wiki page. jVirus 04:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy:

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.

Comment on content, not on the contributor
Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.

Note that you may be blocked for disruption.. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, You said, "Stabilize Comaze and the rest of the NLP delusional:)" Please remove this remark and all similar remarks directed at my user. --Comaze 14:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I should refrain from personal insult. But who us your user?

Comaze! Drawing attention to your extreme bias is not a personal attack. Neither is:

Pointing out your long history of actual censorship
Pointing out your vested interests in the promotion of NLP
Pointing our your fanatical and zealously NLPpromotional advocacy
Pointing out your months of propaganda and whitewash for the promotion of NLP vested interests
Pointing out your persistent whitewashing of your own misdeeds
Pointing out the similarity between your vexatious actions and that of Scientologists

Camridge 06:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do me a favor comaze

make your desires known here if you would. Then we can start to keep track of peoples demands and nail everyone down. I have a feeling that the only ones that at first will be a challenge to get their specific demands out of will be flavius, headley, daveright, and camridge. I may be wrong but everyone else seems pretty cool with the idea. jVirus 09:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony

Hi Comaze,

I've been trying to get around to dropping you a message. You've been accused of some disharmonious editing. While I'm yet to see anything that I particularly disapprove of, I've not checked every edit you made, and perhaps I've missed things. Perhaps somewhere you've dropped a seemingly polite yet subtly hurtful remark? In the wrong context that can do more actual harm than any crude and easily dismissed expletive. Not to mention that I have seen someone I trust say they thought that you had violated 3RR. If so, then that was a lapse.

Could I trouble you to drop by the clubhouse, maybe apologise for any lapses you might have made in the heat of the moment, and repeat your pledge to nothing but harmonious editing in the future?

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ben. Comaze will also need to get on his knees for the disharmony caused by his petty and most definitely intentional conflict provoking objections (He claimed they were personal attacks) to the very very well meaning posts made here:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Comaze IS bent on both sluring the name and good work of well intentioned and hard working editors who have repeatedly had to remove Comaze's whitewash, and revert his repeat and undiscussed sensorship.

Here is the general time of most of his petty and conflict provoking objections to make it easier to find his actual objections. [9]

Please do your best to keep an eye on Comaze. He has been a major offense to many editors, and he has offended your own group with his clearly alterior motives to promote his own POV in the article, and to promote his own vested interests by whitewashing, promoting and selling NLP misdirection. Camridge 06:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, perhaps the harmonious editing group could pay a visit to Camridge and teach him the meaning of WP:NPA. I've seen no example of disharmonious editing from Comaze yet. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep trying. I've come to suspect that Camridge understands perfectly well what Harmony means and simply chooses not to indulge, perhaps because he believes that being right means that he doesn't need to be civil to people who are 'obviously' wrong. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my request. Now that we have mentors, they'll be ensuring whether or not he complies, and assurance with a big stick is more effective with him than assurance with kind words. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you left on my talk page

Hi Comaze. Comments like the one you showed me that was directed at you will not be allowed going forward -- and this goes for everyone, I'm not intending to single anyone out. Comments like this will be refactored or, if they can't be salvaged, simply removed. No one should have to be subjected to language like that going forward. If editors can't or won't be polite, and we find ourselves constantly refactoring discussions, then some blocks may be in order. Civility isn't optional. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Thanks

I really like the NLP article. I find it cool to find communication forms in the very act of challenging the article. I find myself quite serene when the others want control of the document. I really actually like it. I get to ask them questions and learn about their models, which they want me to do. It is pretty cool. jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 02:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the mentors are now doing the right thing with the NLP article. It would have been nice had they made this decision a bit earlier. I don't think I have much to contribute from now on. --Dejakitty 01:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flavius

He's been blocked for referring to you as a "lapdog" and other things that I'll cover in an email to you. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig

It does appear that at least two users who came recently to the discussions may have thought of you as more than one person, because of your sig-switching. I don't think you intended this as any sort of deception as it's not been shown to me how you sought to influence any consensusgathering (certainly nothing that resulted in a change to the articlespace), but I think it would be best if you placed something on the talk page making clear that the signatures are linked to the same person. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your new sig. // thanks

Your new sig looks great! :) I might have to develop one that matches your style --'c' 05:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! You're welcome to. I'd rather they don't match colors though. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken refs on Neuro-linguistic programming

Hi. All revisions on Neuro-linguistic programming after this of your edits [10] currently look horribly broken. Did they also look like they do today (a lot of empty references) after you did that mentionend edit? In the mean time, several edits have happendend, so it is probably a lot of work to fix that. At least the version before your edit looks ok. Any ideas/intentions what to do? BTW I have left a note on the talk of Neuro-linguistic programming regarding the broken refs. --Ligulem 14:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Sorry, but - to be honest - I'm not completely satisfied. Doing an edit that breaks an article is a bad idea. Didn't you check what you submitted then? Sorry, I'm not assuming bad faith here, but normally I would expect that if an edit breaks an article in such a way it is either reverted (best by the editor itself), or fixed. I know fairly well how that cite.php stuff works, as I'm doing a lot of citation stuff (see for example the category:citation templates). At the moment, I cannot help because the article is protected and I do lack the sysop bit. OTH, I must say I don't know what happenend around that NLP article. Seems to be contentious stuff. I'm just a template mechanic, which is a bit amazed. There must be strange things going on on that article if nobody cares about such a lousy state of the references. --Ligulem 16:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question on the NLP introduction

I responded on my talk page. --Davidstrauss 16:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP

We'd like to keep the dispute tags to 4-5 per user on NLP. So Comaze, could you remove several of your tags for now and then you can add back when we've covered your first few? If we have too many tags at once, we're going to have chaos. It'd be much appreciated. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll just choose a few of the most pressing. ---=-C-=- 07:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Using disputed tags is not a bad idea. Just don't want it overdone. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also about NLP -- I got your message on my talk page. I appreciate the heads-up, but it's not a subject I'm well-versed in; I've only encountered it sporadically in the course of other research. I think it's probably best if I don't get myself involved. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]