User talk:Eissink

Chat

Please don’t do this anymore --> [1] (..attitude in this – apart from the current subject – rather presumptuous and overbearing) GizzyCatBella🍁 16:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't ever say anymore that "WE are here to protect [whatever] feelings of readers", because it is presumptuous and overbearing. What is it that you want from me? Keep silent and lie about how I see what you are saying? You are saying we are here to protect the (supposed) religious feelings of readers, but let me just tell you this: we are not. It is all in your mind, but don't try to impose it on me or the wider community. If you think that is what Wikipedia is about – standing on a high ground and feeding sensitive readers religious correct stuff, whatever that may be – then I suggest you start a process to get that [in my view] outdated and arrogant line of conduct in the guidelines, but I don't think you will succeed. Good luck & stop bothering me, please. Eissink (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC). ​

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said, "WE are here to protect [whatever] feelings of readers." I asked you to refrain from personal attack WP:NPA in line with "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Personal attacks are harmful and disruptive, and this rule applies equally to all Wikipedians, including you. Thank you.GizzyCatBella🍁 16:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You say we are here for the readers and you directly connect that to "the religious feelings of our readers". Yes, we are – also – here for (external) readers, but the goal of Wikipedia is of an epistemological nature, not of a sentimentel, emotional or religious one. Implying that Wikipedia should somehow direct the religious (or emotional) disposition of external readers, as you seem to favour and advocate, will continue to raise my opposition, which you choose to flag a personal attack, which it wasn't. Eissink (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC).

Okay Eissink, just please don't comment on other contributors but content. That was a personal attack, and I left you the note here to remind you about it, that's all. I have no hard feelings, and I hope we can continue to edit cooperatively. Thanks.- GizzyCatBella🍁 17:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The implications of your words meant nothing but an intellectual and social attack on my world view and the personal freedom of people in that worldview, so my reaction of course was strong. I regret that the reaction is considered a personal attack, yet the trigger, the concealed, perhaps unconscious, attack on the intelligence and the social freedom of readers, the submission of those readers even, remains unmentioned. I'm not buying it. Stop accusing me of a personal attack (it was a personal defence) or take your complaint elsewhere, and reread your own words. Eissink (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC).

Your comment [2] was not in the line with our policies WP:NPA "Comment on content, not on the contributor" Editors are encouraged to ignore or respond respectfully to isolated personal attacks WP:NPA, so that's what I did here because I felt you attacked me. I don't think taking my complaint outside of this page is necessary. I've read, and respect your position even thou I don't agree with it. Approaching others with respect is core to collaborating effectively. That’s all. GizzyCatBella🍁 18:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Readers having religious feelings being "our" target audience, as you attempted to construe and impose, is also not in line with our policies. Personally I don't care whether the Rainbow Madonna be mentioned in the Black Madonna article or not, but your reasoning appeared to me not respectful at all also, not to say it is a danger to the free exchange of knowledge that stands at the core of this project. I'll leave it there, thanks so far, Eissink (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC).

I was just trying to think about everyone... okay, thanks.GizzyCatBella🍁 18:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that, GizzyCatBella, but I hope you got a glimpse from a different angle. There are many ways to think about everyone. In relation to religious matters, or rather the history of religious culture, maybe you may find interest in Devotio Moderna. This movement had it's base more or less in the surroundings I grew up in. The article doesn't go deep into it all, but what struck me about it, in earlier readings, is that they encouraged people (laity and worshippers in general) to read, just to freely read, which in that time of course encompassed the Bible and related scriptures. People were not lectured as such, in as far possible given the overall religious purpose, but they were encouraged to read (in freedom). What I – centuries later – took from that, is that people should not be confined, everyone should make up his or her own mind. Patronizing is not the way to go, no matter how well intended. Hope I'm not patronizing here, just trying to show you a different view that in my opinion is better. Greetings, Eissink (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC).

Yea, I get your point...GizzyCatBella🍁 19:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this Devotio Moderna, interesting..GizzyCatBella🍁 19:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Friendly note

If you ever again modify someone's post to make it appear they said something they did not, as you did here, you'll blocked so fast it will make your head spin. EEng 01:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You wish. Your sense of metaphor must be the worst I've ever seen. You would be, perhaps, funny if we still lived in the Fifties, yet here you are in 2020 and all I hear is a non-stop stream of clichés that seems to self-boost you into believing your facetiousness somehow equals intellectual vigor, but you cannot even stand a little joke that is better than anything you will ever produce. Don't you be afraid that I will ever voluntarily seek the downer of your presence again. Eissink (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC).

If you'd pinged me in the edit summary, or left a note on my talk page a little later, in order to be sure I was aware so I could fix it, it would have been worth a chuckle and perfectly acceptable. But you didn't so it wasn't. You're new in the community and need to recognize the need to attune yourself to its norms. Don't choke on the ortolan bones. EEng 00:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

LOL! That was actually funny :) but EEng is very right here, this kind of things could get you blocked very fast, some people don't share this kind of humour as three of us here, don’t do it Eissink. :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As with so many other things, the proof is in the execution. In this case a good idea was spoiled by an execution failure, viz. not making sure I saw it, without which the gag was a serious breach of community norms. It's kind of a like a really clever practical joke during which, through sloppiness, someone gets hurt – suddenly it's not funny at all. EEng 01:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Grow up. And stay away from this Talk page. Eissink (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC).