User talk:Rosenkreuz

Hi Rosenkreuz; Thanks for the edit summaries. I hit Google to look them up, and learned about something amusing that I hadn't known. Here is the bolier-plate welcome message:

Welcome!

Hello, Rosenkreuz, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Once again, you are straddling the line between civility and incivility with your most recent comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. As much as Ireneshusband seems to be trying to make this painful, you need to try to avoid exacerbating the situation. Also, your last edit summary might be considered a threat, but that is assuming Ireneshusband understands Latin ;). --Wildnox(talk) 16:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realised as much after reading the civility policy last night, but I left Ireneshusband a note [1] in order to try to allay any damage I may have caused. Thanks anyway for pointing it out. Rosenkreuz 16:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I had seen the note, but I thought the note was before the comments I mentioned. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Wildnox(talk) 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So your apology only came after a rebuke from another editor. If it were sincere you would have appended it to the discussion itself rather than leaving a little private note on my talk page.

Your apology is entirely hollow. You knew exactly what you were doing. You have carefully pressed all the right buttons to paint me as an over-intellectual and conspiratorial nutcase through your sarcastic personal jibes, while throwing out enough red herrings to make sure the specific issues I outlined were not addressed.

I have, to the best of my ability, tried to assume good faith on the part of the opponents of the motion, even to the point of absurdity given the behaviour of you and a few others. You have made no more than a token effort to return the courtesy.

You claim to have a PhD—in logic of all things—yet you seem incapable of understanding the basic principles of debating, such as the need to define your terms, to address challenges directly and to concentrate on the issues rather than launching personal attacks or trying to intimidate your opponent through personal threats.

So what's your game, Rosenkreuz? Ireneshusband 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, Ireneshusband, I tried to act honorably and decently, but you are evidently unwilling to appreciate that. What happened is this. Tom Harrison slapped the standard `welcome' message on my page, as you can see above. I had been wondering about just how Wikipedia treats issues like arguments and disputes among editors, so I followed links from the welcome page and found the civility policy. After doing that, I left the note on your page, before anyone `told me off' or anything like that. I put the note on your page so that I was sure you would see it, and it would not get lost in the fray which is dominating the talk page of that 9/11 article.

You obviously, and you certainly cannot be blamed for this, have no conception of what the study of logic is like. In debating, while it does one well to be logical, ultimately results come down to rhetoric. Being able to lay out the essence of the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem on the back of an envelope is a wonderful skill, but it doesn't help very much in persuading people that you are right . Fortunately, I happen to be quite good at rhetoric as well, but, as I said, I think I have rather over-indulged in the argumenta ad hominem. I once again extend my apology to you for that.

But ultimately, it's up to you. You can accept my apology with the dignity and decorum with which it was offered to you, and we can move on; or this can turn into a Monty-Pythonesque argument about arguments where I can assure you, you will come out the worse for it. It's up to you. I have no wish to continue this bickering, and I have not wanted to idly toss insults around (hence my apology) but I won't put up with ongoing harassment either. Rosenkreuz 18:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop making threats. You are very cunning, but that is all. Ireneshusband 18:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Coming to think of it, isn't it rather strange that you feel so confident in your knowledge of the policies and politics of Wikipedia that you are able to make your threats so brazenly, even though you have only been a Wikipedia editor for 3 weeks, whereas I (and I firmly doubt that I am unusual in this) have been an editor for many months yet I still feel I am learning the ropes? What are we to make of this? Ireneshusband 19:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

For a start, some people learn very quickly, especially when the subject matter is straightforward and easy to assimilate. I read something, and it sticks; and I am well practiced in inferring 10 more things for every 1 thing I read explicitly. Second, I didn't even know about certain policies until yesterday, such as the very civility policy which prompted me to try to make amends with you in the first place.

Thirdly, I would love to know what `threat' I am making that displays such an astoundingly subtle grasp of Wikipedia policy. I wasn't aware that I was making any threats at all, personally, only that I said I wouldn't put up with harassment (which isn't a threat), and that you would lose in an argument against me (which is a bald statement of fact). But your accusation is self-contradictory, anyway, because if you are so certain that my `threat', such as it is, makes maximal use of Wikipedia policies, how is it that you, who claim to still be learning, feel confident in describing it in those terms?

Finally, I don't know what you're on about, actually, and so would appreciate it if you would scarper off and leave someone else messages, someone who maybe wants to hear from you, because at this point in time, I don't. Rosenkreuz 19:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let it go

It would be better to stop now and let it go, both of you. There is no reason for this to go any further. It was pretty minor incivility in the first place (sadly enough; if you don't believe it, stick around for a while.) He has apologized, and no one should answer incivility with incivility, even if he had not. To the extent that you cannot avoid each other for a few days, both of you should limit your comments to content and avoid talking about the other person at all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Africa

I just read book and watch films, if i dont know i go to websites and get info. i like fairness and pluraity and truth first.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 13:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

israeli espionage

Hey Rosie, thanks for your immediate suppression of the Israeli espionage possibilities. Did you ever bother to look into any of that stuff? I didn't think so. If you had, you would have seen how widely it was covered in the mainstream media, and you would have seen the DEA's 55-page report. Oh well. Ignorance is bliss for you, I guess, or at least a wet dream. --Fluffbrain 22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)