User talk:Iduan

M Welcome to my talk page! Please feel free to ask a question I'll be happy to respond as soon as possible leave a comment Some things to keep in mind: Please sign your name using ~~~~ I'll typically respond on my talk page unless otherwise requested I archive whenever a convo is done T A Y L K

2007 (August) (September) (October) (November) (December) 2008 (January) (February) (August) 2009 (January) (February) (March) (April) 2010 (January) (June) (July) 2011 (March) (April) (May) (June) (July) (August) (November) Account promoted Welcome back and your account has been promoted!--Andy Schlafly 13:46, 22 November 2012 (EST) Thank you! Great to be back.--IDuan 13:48, 22 November 2012 (EST) Epistle to the Hebrews This is a quite serious business - and it should be discussed on the talk-page at first. But until then, the statement "and the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it" is to ridiculous to stay in the article. --AugustO 14:49, 22 November 2012 (EST) You know the rules of the meritocracy; until the issue is decided the senior-most editor gets precedence.--IDuan 14:51, 22 November 2012 (EST) No Biblical scholar shares Andrew Schalfly's insight - there is nothing plausible about it. This is a fact that must be stressed. --AugustO 14:57, 22 November 2012 (EST) It's obvious you disgaree with his point - that's fine - but your last edit was to prove a point - an end for which an article should never be used for. I've toned down the wording so you can be slightly happier with the article's current state - but until you finish discussing this with Andy do not keep editing the article. You have two editors reverting you.--IDuan 14:59, 22 November 2012 (EST) If you wish to get involved in a meaningful way, please try to judge the content and not the formalities. Thanks. --AugustO 15:01, 22 November 2012 (EST) I'm not an expert in this subject, but as a user with blocking privileges part of my job is to make sure the "formalities" - such as civility, including not edit warring - are upheld. Users who participate in this wiki-encyclopedia are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is befitting the serious job of editing an encyclopedia. --IDuan 15:13, 22 November 2012 (EST) Mr Schlafly has access to the block button and chose not to use it. I wonder why you presume your judgement to be superior to his. --JohanZ 15:32, 22 November 2012 (EST) He also hasn't edited since one of his early reversions; leading me to believe he's offline. The edit warring didn't commence until after his last edit. Also as a user with block rights it is ultimately my judgement; if I am reverted then I respect that and discuss it with whoever reverted me.--IDuan 15:37, 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. --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.--IDuan 15:57, 22 November 2012 (EST) This edit and 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. --DamianJohn 16:10, 22 November 2012 (EST) Again, and for the last time, at this point it's not a matter of accuracy to edits - it's a matter of what edit warring is, and that AugustO waited for Andy to leave (and thus no longer be there to revert him) even though he had already started a dialogue with ASchlafly. Those edits can at best be described as snarky.--IDuan 16:14, 22 November 2012 (EST) I disagree. You don't appear to understand that everything you put in an article needs to be backed up. AugustO was attempting to do so, and you went above and beyond your remit to enforce your will on a lonstanding editor. By your actions you have inflamed a situation that could have been resolved more appropriately. --DamianJohn 16:18, 22 November 2012 (EST) I am also a longstanding editor DamianJohn that has no play here. This is Andy's talk page if you wish to complain further. I suggest you not participate in block warring. Blocking a user because you disagree with his block is not a thing.--IDuan 16:23, 22 November 2012 (EST) You have behaved inappropriately, and that needs to be said. And you need to understand that. Who are you to say that AugustO was edit warring? You were also just reverting his edits. He was at least attempting to be constructive whilst you were just blocking any attempt to improve the article. There are ways of dealing with these things that do not involve deliberately picking fights with editors. --DamianJohn 16:30, 22 November 2012 (EST) AugustO waited for Andy to leave (and thus no longer be there to revert him) even though he had already started a dialogue with ASchlafly. That is just slanderous - or libelous (I always mix these two terms): I reverted Aschlafly's edit at 14:16h and commented about this at 14:18h on the talk-page. At 14:22h Aschlafly reverted my comment (without addressing my points at the talk-page) and I did so with his at 14:23h, clearly waiting for a whole minute for Aschlafly to leave! Twenty minutes later you appeared to "settle down a little". And while Aschlafly reverted my edit because he thinks he has a point, you did so without understanding the subject. --AugustO 16:34, 22 November 2012 (EST) I did so because of the nature of wikis and how you're supposed to conduct yourself while editing this encyclopedia. Again, settle the issue on the page's talk page.--IDuan 16:36, 22 November 2012 (EST) August you know what edit warring is. Andy - who does have seniority - made an edit; you reverted and posted on the talk page - nothing wrong with that, but when he reverted you again you should've stuck to the talk page, not re-reverted. After that I reverted you, because, again, this is the way things have always been, senior editors are allowed precedence. Then you reverted me. That was 3 reverts in a very short amount of time. That is tantamount to edit warring.--IDuan 16:39, 22 November 2012 (EST) (EC) You accused me of an underhand tactic ("AugustO waited for Andy to leave (and thus no longer be there to revert him)" because of the nature of wikis? That's indeed not easy to understand. For the record: I did not wait for Andy to leave, I expected an immediate answer. --AugustO 16:41, 22 November 2012 (EST) Fair enough - you didn't wait for Andy to leave that was a misstatement I take back. But as I've clearly pointed out you still edit warred - an disputing editor's presence does not determine whether it's an edit war or not, but I should not have stated that you specifically waited for him. (Also expecting immediate action on a wiki is silly)--IDuan 16:43, 22 November 2012 (EST) Thanks, it's nice to know that I'm just silly and not sneaky. At the moment we read: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it. You took the editorial choice to call the idea that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it "one plausible theory". It isn't. It's utterly implausible. In fact it is a statement which violates at least three of the Conservapedia:Commandments: It is not verifiable No source is stated It is just a personal opinion The latter is obvious as no one shares Aschlafly's idea - and the reason for this: if you indeed read the epistle, you see that the author and the Son of God are different persons. Crow-barring a personal, unsubstantiated opinion into an article on a Book of the Bible is something I have difficulties to swallow. For me, my actions are not so much edit-warring but reverting of vandalism. And I would expect anyone who is interested in the integrity of Conservapedia's articles on the Bible to revert such ludicrous edits, too. --AugustO 16:56, 22 November 2012 (EST)