Changes

:::It's a tricky situation.  I am also a user with block rights, (as I believe is AugustO), would either of us be entitled to use our judgement that you are wrong and undo the block.  I would say no, but then I would also say that you have overstepped your role in applying the block to begin with.  AugustO was hardly edit warring, he was actually proposing changes be made with each edit.  Your block has potentially inflamed a situation involving a longstanding editor in a manner that was unnecessary.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:55, 22 November 2012 (EST)

:::It's a tricky situation.  I am also a user with block rights, (as I believe is AugustO), would either of us be entitled to use our judgement that you are wrong and undo the block.  I would say no, but then I would also say that you have overstepped your role in applying the block to begin with.  AugustO was hardly edit warring, he was actually proposing changes be made with each edit.  Your block has potentially inflamed a situation involving a longstanding editor in a manner that was unnecessary.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:55, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Edit warring is the constant revision of pages - which AugustO was doing. He started a talk thread, I told him to continue the conversation on the talk thread, he did not. He reverted Andy's edits twice, mine once; and after I told him to allow the discussion to play out on the talk page he made two further edits to the clause in dispute that were unbecoming of an encyclopedia. By blocking him - for one hour - I stopped him from editing the article.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 15:57, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Edit warring is the constant revision of pages - which AugustO was doing. He started a talk thread, I told him to continue the conversation on the talk thread, he did not. He reverted Andy's edits twice, mine once; and after I told him to allow the discussion to play out on the talk page he made two further edits to the clause in dispute that were unbecoming of an encyclopedia. By blocking him - for one hour - I stopped him from editing the article.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 15:57, 22 November 2012 (EST)

:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Epistle_to_the_Hebrews&diff=prev&oldid=1020101 This edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Epistle_to_the_Hebrews&diff=next&oldid=1020102 this one] are both appropriate in my opinion.  The only source that suggests this to be true (or even plausible) is the article written by Andy.  I accept that this is a sufficient citation for this encyclopedia (perhaps AugustO would do better to also accept this fact) but the citation itself should be referenced.  If you just put in the article that it is true then a casual reader might think that there are multiple sources for the contention, whereas there is only one - albeit an impeachable one.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:10, 22 November 2012 (EST)

:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Epistle_to_the_Hebrews&diff=prev&oldid=1020101 This edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Epistle_to_the_Hebrews&diff=next&oldid=1020102 this one] are both appropriate in my opinion.  The only source that suggests this to be true (or even plausible) is the article written by Andy.  I accept that this is a sufficient citation for this encyclopedia (perhaps AugustO would do better to also accept this fact) but the citation itself should be referenced.  If you just put in the article that it is true then a casual reader might think that there are multiple sources for the contention, whereas there is only one - albeit an unimpeachable one.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:10, 22 November 2012 (EST)