User talk:Anjoe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Anjoe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Siva1979Talk to me 15:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. VERY well put! Nach0king 09:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] crazy people

On your comment on this talk page, you say "Yes there really is crazy people all over the world and just because a few of them has decided to be crazy in concert in regards to this article it doesn't mean that their aren't crazy people still, - and still, mind you, a minority.", which is a personal attack against all Wikipedians, who are offended by WP displaying the cartoons. Please remove your personal attack.

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. Raphael1 15:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You write: "... a personal attack against all Wikipedians, who are offended by WP displaying the cartoons". I find it very amusing that you somehow manage to portray me as attacking a group 'personal'. For the record though I want to state, that if anyone from that group you mentions one day should come to his or her senses and leave behind the crazyness in question, then I would (on the bases of this issue at least) indeed be very happy to welcome them back into non-crazyness. I am attacking nobody in particular, and if you felt somehow personal hit by my comments that would be most unfortunate, but really none of my responsibility. In any case: If you still think that I made a personal attack I would also like to add that I'm not a psychiatrist, and if you ever come by any one of those using 'crazyness' as a medical term (as in: "Whats wrong with me doctor." - "Well son, you're crazy person.") it's not in that sense that I am using the adjective. The crazyness I am talking about lies in the utter misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Mainly I find the following crazy: a) That someone would ever think that Wikipedia was meant not to try to exhibit relevant knowledge in the most accessible way. b) That someone would think that a legitimate voting result somehow would have to yield if someone got, what vaguely is described as, "offended". Generally speaking I use the term 'crazy' to denote (a person holding) certain kinds of beliefs which I do not really deem worthy of serious rebuttal. I admit that this kind of attitude to an opponent's beliefs is anti-constructive in a discussion, but consider that what is being suggested (to remove highly relevant material from an article) is the exact opposite of what every wikipedian every day is trying to do (namely to *add* highly relevant material to an article). You are in other words touching the very non-negotionable core of Wikipedia, and me being a little harsh in my choice of words is of no real importance seen in that light. I really hope that at one point you will come to realize this. Yours truly, --Anjoe 01:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oceaner af tid..

Hej, Jeg landede på din side, via JP's MC siden i endnu et prokrastinations forsøg... Raphael er mig en gåde, jeg kan ikke gennemskue hvem han er. Men, at modbevise alle hans argumenter kræver nær overmenneskelig tålmodighed, hård hud (godt gammelt Denglish), ditto twisted logic og.... oceaner af tid. Held og lykke. : ) Varga Mila 17:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Jamen, jeg takker (– ikke mindst for, at den noget trælse udvekling nu ikke mere står som det sidste her på siden). - Men bare rolig: jeg har ikke tænkt mig at forsøge at overbevise Raphael ene mand, og forresten har jeg lidt på fornemmelsen, at han også ser det som et (for mig ukendt) religiøst kald at forsøge at påvirke os, så det bliver nok svært i alle tilfælde. Det kan vist godt komme til rimeligt hårde udvekslinger på den der JPMC-diskussionsside, men hvis det lykkedes for uneutrale folk at skræmme andre væk, så har de jo vundet. - Omvendt kan man håbe på at diskussionen dør lidt ned efterhånden, men man kan jo ikke være sikker. Vi ser forresten ud til at være rimeligt enige, så det er jo godt. Held og lykke med både chimpanserne og overspringshandlingerne. Mvh./--Anjoe 20:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much.Loom91 09:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please discuss on talk page

Please discuss on the talk page, before you change the Good article nomination system to keep the JP article nominated. Raphael1 10:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please try to understand that I am not changing anything to what is meant. Please also try to understand that I could just renominate the article and keep on doing it, which does not make any sense. Please let someone impartial decide in this discussion - which is what Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles clearly is all about. --Anjoe 11:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Disagreements with objections on a nomination are meant to be discussed on the review page. And changes (resp. new interpretations) to the Good article nomination system are meant to be discussed on the relevant talk page. Raphael1 11:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please remember to edit users talk page, not user page

Hi, although you have had an account for a while, I see that most of your edits are recent. Please remember to use a users talk page to communicate with that user, not the user's user page, as in User:Wikipidian. Thanks. --BostonMA 15:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I pressed the wrong button, - the mistake has already been corrected. Cheers/--Anjoe 16:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please respond to mediation

Hi Anjoe. Natalya has asked for responses to her mediation questions from the participants in the GA criteria dispute. Hope to see you there. — JEREMY 08:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my message to you

Thank you Anjoe for letting my opinion stand on the Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Nominations page. I know, that the discussions on the JP talk pages have been very heated sometimes, and I definitely contributed a large share to that. Unfortunately (for you) I do not agree to Februarys majority opinion, which is why I keep argueing an opinion you don't share. I am sure, that this must be very disturbing to you, as your arguments feel disturbing to me too. I certainly can understand, that some people wish, that I would just go somewhere else, since they are the majority and have "won" anyway. I don't agree, that this is how Wikipedia should work. I want to apologize to some comments I've made (like calling the majority ignorant), because I don't think attacks like that can lead to a mutual understanding. Unfortunately many of those, who side with my position on the cartoon display conflict, don't even consider to add comments to the Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display page. And those who do sometimes get harsh responses. Your argument on the cartoon-display issue seems to be, that the cartoons constitute highly relevant material to the controversy and I certainly agree to that. I likewise agree, that an encyclopedia should include highly relevant material to an article. But there is something I disagree with, namely the practice of calling an opposing view crazy, not even if they are a minority. Instead of driving the opposition away, I'd wish to invite even those, who feel that the cartoons are mocking their religious belief, to constribute to the article. I can understand, that you prefer not to have more people, who share my position in that dispute, to join the editing effort, and it won't make the editing of that article easier neither. But in the end the article (which is ultimately about a controversy) will be much better, if both sides of the controversy will be represented. Raphael1 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/j/User_talk%7EAnjoe_bd49.html"