User:PMajer/complaints

I'll gather here all complaints of people about me, so as not to forget them, because there is always a truth in what people think about you. And, also, I'll put all complaints here in order not to see them too often, because they make me sad, and newcomers frightened.

Unfortunately, it seems like the reference desk does not tolerate profound questions on religion -- I say this because it seems like all other topics are given license to spread and tangent off into topics that bear no resemblance to the original question, without incident, but if anything like that happens with a religious question, the question is terminated or asked to be so. But perhaps it's just not the forum...we can't just debate religion all day and all night forever.

That being said, I wanted to ask you about your response about "someone claiming that God gave them your bike." Why is that any different than the personal revelations of such individuals as Jesus, Mohammed, John Smith, etc.? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In a sense, it is not different. I have the greatest respect for the intimate religious feelings of people, but what many believers forget, incredibly, is that their faith is just an intimate feeling, and has no dialectic value. I'm saying nothing new, of course, and I hope you agree. There is an irremediable logic flaw in the usual argument "This is the word of God and God is omniscient, therefore I am right". Indeed, the whole sentence should be "I think that this is the word of God...", therefore, it is my word, not God's word. That being said with the due respect to Credonia Mwerinde, Moses, and all the other people you quoted, of course...

Why do you flare up? If the Jewish people claim that 3M people witnesses God speak to them, that's the best evidence one can hope for. I answer a question in proper order, and then defend against a comment made by a rabble-rouser, and you take aim at me for my annoying posts? And then you pepper in some "trolling," as though it justifies your position and weakens my argument -- you are the one who is being annoying. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear DRosenbach, I hope you didn't take it bad my recent comment here. Sorry for the shape form of my post, but the point is that the RefDesk is not the place for such claims of faith (of any faith). As to the claim about Revelation, the usual argument that "3M people witnessed God speak to them" , or that "it is reported in a text inspired by God", of course is not an evidence in support of the claim, but is part of the claim itself: a claim with no scientific evidence. On the other hand, from a religious point of view, one doesn't need any scientific evidence at all. Note that I've always aknowledged the right of everybody of having religious feelings. But having a faith, do not allow you to make other people aknowledge as true what you feel true. You certainly know how hideous the Chistian church has been through centuries under this respect; and of course they were convinced to be right, and that they were even following God's will: for instance, after Agostinus, they interpreted the parable of the Great Banquet (Lc 14:15-24) as God's justification to forcing people to convert. Wouldn't it be better if everybody recalled to precede any religious statement with the obvious "I personally believe, and as human being could be wrong, that &c.." (that God did this/ that he allowed me that/ that he wants us to do that/ that one must behave this way / that this is a sin, according to God's sensibility, or God's standards of decency, &c.).

Checking your preceeding posts, I see that you have a kind of mixed attitude in these topics: there is interesting doctrinal information from you, and here and there there's a kind of disposition to start religious quarrels (Jesus revelation is of lower quality than Moses's; the Ten Commandments are copyright material and gentiles should not be entitled to follow them,...&c). C'mon, don't you find it is a bit childish? Excuse me if you feel offended; as I told you I really do not mean to. I am sure that you will grow up in your faith and reach a mature and tolerant position, as several wonderful religious persons of your faith that I had the chance of meeting.

I find your comments quite hurtful and unnecessary. I like to answer as many questions as I can in order to help people. Your attitude, like many other users on that page, is all wrong. I would recommend that you read wp:good faith and wp:civility when you have some free time. (p.s. I've been reading some of your other use talk page comments and it seems that I'm not imagining things: you could be a lot nicer) ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I take it back. In our last few correspondence you've been very civil, and most helpful. And for that, I would like to say thank you :o) ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Very good! I'm very glad. --pma (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC) In fact after reflecting I think I have to add my apologies: I did not realized that I was being so rude.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at with this edit history at User talk:PMajer. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 20:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK here is the attack. Maybe this is one of the rare evenigs that I am not in a good mood, which is maybe the right opportunity to express oneself clearly. So, our Dr Dec asks to talk about problems with him in his talk pages. But if you do it, he censores (it's a habit of him, right?). Ok, let me do it here. Well, I think we have a problem at the RD/M with Dr Dec. Fact 1: sadly, his education in maths is extremely poor (check his posts). Fact 2: very often he is unable to understand even those elementary problems that do not require a mathematical culture (check his posts). However, he hides himself behind an academic title: ok, let me state what I said as a full professor. Fact 3: he is continuously adding noise, pretending he understands what he's saying, and trying to make everything into a forum. Fact 4, he has an annoying and arrogant attitude towards everybody (check). The result is that the quality at the RD/M is dropping. Intelligent editors get disgusted, and leave. --pma (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

See what I mean: name calling! Just as the warning template states, you should "Comment on content, not on contributors." I moved your comments to my archive, and shall I tell you why? After me warning you about using Latin on the English Wikipedia you came along and replied in Latin, again! Then you made another pointless edit along the lines of "no comment", "so what?", etc. You had decided to to be disruptive and, to borrow your own phrase, started "adding noise". I saw which direction your comments were going and so I moved your comments into my archives. I'm sure that if you come back to those comments in a few weeks you will be quite embarrassed. As for your comment that "Intelligent editors get disgusted, and leave", well, that's just mere rhetoric. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As for "hiding behind a title", I thought that the name Dr Dec had a nice ring to it: nothing more, nothing less. Congratulations of your "full" professorship, I'm very pleased for you. I hope that I can one day follow in your footsteps. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "poor education" is exagerated; let's say you should just work a bit on it. Let's say I wanted to provide you with a true personal attack, since you always complain about people attaking you. Anyway, talking in general about the problems you encountered with some editors here, I had the impression that they are originated by a strong need of communicating from your side, a natural fact, after all. Sometimes it seems that you greet a new incident as an opportunity of quarreling a bit, explaining yourself, talking, and then make peace. I do not think you are a troll, but you should find new ways.

Since I am possibly the reason for this dispute, I feel obliged to comment here, in defense of pma. Firstly, I do not think that pma was ever "hot" - looking at this history of events, one notices that he kept his cool despite Dr Dec's insistance that writing in another language is a "crimial offense" - [1] (surely you do not believe that the editors at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language are criminals?). After Dr Dec's post, pma politely responded on Dr Dec's talk page, which Dr Dec subsequently removed suggesting that Dr Dec wished to end the matter. However, he still continued to persist on pma's talk page with repeated "warnings". It is humorous that someone should be warned for using another language - in fact, it is in some sense a form of discrimination. Pma, as well as the other editors at the reference desk, have tried very hard to make Dr Dec feel welcome, but apparently with no success. Succintly, Dr Dec has tested pma's patience throughout this discussion, regurgitated some "Wikipedia laws" and then wrongly applied them in context. I would urge Dr Dec to constructively comment from now on, or otherwise I will take further action. --PST 10:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that using a foreign language was a criminal offence. I applied an existing Wikipedia template that is used to ask people not to write in a foreign languages for the reasons that the template's output states. I did not remove any of comments, from my talk page. I moved them to my archives. It's all still there for anyone to read. Please feel free to take any action that you feel necessary. Everything's in black and white for everyone to read. I commented on the content of your contributions whereas pma seems to be commenting on the character of a contributor. This is exactly the reason I issued pma with the caution regarding personal attacks. You'll want to go to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to report me. The admins will do a full edit history search of all of mine, pma'a and your own comments and will be able to see everything that has been written. Also, if you think that the use of the Wikipedia template {{uv:english}} is discriminatory then take it up with the admins. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As for editors trying to make me feel welcome: the vast majority do. There are only a couple of editors that I ever have any problems with. It's just like life: some people just don't like you and there's nothing you can do to change that. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if Dr Dec did understand the latin language, and even if he correctly identified the bible as the source, he sadly did not get the message. Perhaps that cannot be helped, but perhaps Dr Dec will eventually learn to behave politely. Bo Jacoby (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC).

I don't see how anything I have done this week has been impolite. I simply commented on the content of someone's post. Did I call anyone an "arrogant", or an "idiot"? Have I said that anyone's mathematics is "extremely poor"? I would say that pma is the one that's being impolite here. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if Dr Dec doesn't see how he has been impolite, his attitude was obviously regarded arrogant, by PMA, (and also by me). He may or may not learn from that. I find his changing the subject into whether somebody else is impolite to be discouraging, though, and arrogant, and a little immature. Bo Jacoby (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

I'm amazed by this. You keep saying that I've been impolite, but fail to give any tangible evidence of this. I have pointed out that I have not been impolite, and that pma is the one that has been impolite. I gave you examples of his comments that were impolite. So, how is that childish? You are casting aspersion towards me in defence of pma when those charges should be filed with pma and not me. That isn't childish: that's showing you, with examples and evidence, the facts of the matter. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Should this issue be raised at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk? I do not think that this matter should be unnecessarily escalated (and also fear that such may be counter-productive for some editors involved), but the general attitude that Dr Dec has displayed at the reference desk seems to continually lead to problems and disputes. I have attempted to persuade him to perhaps archive (or move) this discussion so that we may all move on, and am waiting for his reply. If his attitude changes, then I think that we are all happy to forget the past incidents. However, if he maintains the same stance, for the sake of productivity, I fear that some disciplinary action should be taken. --PST 05:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the day after is more than enough, no need of a few weeks. I really feel ashamed for having allowed myself to go into such a dispute, and to show such a bad example. It is mainly a problem with this community, more that with the user Dr Dec. The two of us may be happy to forget the incident, but the damage I gave to the environment remains. Even if it's a small, playful title, as a "regular desk", I think I was given a sort of small position, that nevertheless does imply a responsibility. I don't think I can give a proper answer to a question about maths, and in the very same moment, a bad answer to a moral demand. I live in a sinking country where people have been convinced that one does not have to pay for his errors. I think it is a must. Wikipedia is a great democratic project. So long! --pma (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

May I say that I am sad that you are leaving the reference desk. I would ask you to reconsider. It's clear that you are annoyed by me in some way, I'm not sure how, but it's clear that you are. Let's assume that I'm the most antagonistic, idiotic, uncultured, fool in all of the world. Why don't you just ignore me? Count to ten and think again? You are a valuable contributor to the maths reference desk and to Wikipedia in general. I would ask you to reconsider your retirement. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 17:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is very kind of you... But it wasn't really you the reason of my decision. As I told, I am ashamed for the bad example I gave and I'm worried that other similar episodes may happen more easily because of it now. Bad examples are much more contagious than good ones. And one episode may be nothing, but a series really gives a damage. We have been wasting a lot of energy and time in these quarrels. Think how many articles we could have written instead. So, I think I must repair, and one thing I can do is trying to give a more edyfing example, to emphasize that one should not allow himself to make a mess around, and then just forget about it. I'll just be glad if this leads two or three persons to reflect on the possible consequences of their actions, before starting a new fight. As you can imagine, I am deeply soaked with Catholicism, even if I am definitely not a believer, and I need to pay for my faults. But, since you sincerely ask, say I'll think of it, and maybe I'll get back when I am more serene. Besides, at the moment, I couldn't "just ignore" you, as you are saying, because it makes me too angry to see an intelligent person wasting time and energy in useless arguments. I wrote a lot of horrible things about you... I hope you don't mind --pma (talk)21:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology and I offer you my hand in friendship. ~~Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy reading the maths desk, and occationally ask questions there, although I rarely contribute (because, although I have the interest and fascination, I usually do not have sufficient knowledge to provide good answers). I want to urge you to reconsider your decision to retire. You said to Dr. Dec that "I am ashamed for the bad example I gave and I'm worried that other similar episodes may happen more easily because of it now. Bad examples are much more contagious than good ones". Well, yes, you lost your temper. Perhaps not totally without reason, but nevertheless, a bit of restraint would have been much wiser. However, these things happen all the time on Wikipedia. The episode is being discussed right now, on WT:RD. I disagree, however, with the statement "bad examples are more contagious than good ones". You have been a highly valued contributor to Wikipedia, and I'm very sad to see you leave. Your positive contributions far outweigh this episode, which you and Dr. Dec now seem to have settled. Online, like in real life, you have to interact with all sorts of people. There may be both misunderstandings and disagreement, and tension tends to build up more rapidly when people are interacting only in writing. I urge you to take this as an opportunity to get to know your "online temper" better, and to learn how to interact with other, possibly immature, editors in a mature way. I sincerely hope to see you back. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. I saw that you have retired and this greatly saddens me. While I respect the dignified approach you have taken, you must know that your guidance on the ref desk was tremendously helpful for novices like me. I urge you to reconsider your decision for the sake of the so many people who were truly benefitting from your presence. I do not know the exact dispute you have had with Dr Dec but I sincerely hope that you will come back on wikipedia. Thanks.--Shahab (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)