Difference between revisions of "User talk:Iduan"

Latest revision as of 16:38, February 20, 2014

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

Thoughts on clarifying some username policies.

Please check your email so I can ask some questions about these.--ChrisB00 17:16, 19 February 2014 (EST)

Also, I don't know why this posted three times.--ChrisB00 17:18, 19 February 2014 (EST)

I deleted the extra sections. Responded to your email - feel free to ask any questions. Just so everyone knows what I sent/to clarify: Username policy is that you use your first name and last initial; you might see a few users who don't fit under that policy (Conservative, Karajou - even I use the opposite (although your first initial last name would also be okay)), but that is because those users predate the policy.--I Duan 18:11, 19 February 2014 (EST)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 *[[/Archive20|(July)]]
 *[[/Archive21|(August)]]
-*[[/Archive22|(November)]]
+*[[/Archive22|(November)]]<br/>
+*2012
+*[[/Archive23|(November)]]<br/>
+*2013
+*[[/Archive24|(July)]]
+*[[/Archive25|(Decemeber)]]
 </div>
 |}
-== Account promoted ==
+== Thoughts on clarifying some username policies. ==
-Welcome back and your account has been promoted!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:46, 22 November 2012 (EST)
-:Thank you! Great to be back.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 13:48, 22 November 2012 (EST)
-== Epistle to the Hebrews ==
+Please check your email so I can ask some questions about these.--[[User:ChrisB00|ChrisB00]] 17:16, 19 February 2014 (EST)
-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. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:49, 22 November 2012 (EST)
+Also, I don't know why this posted three times.--[[User:ChrisB00|ChrisB00]] 17:18, 19 February 2014 (EST)
-:You know the rules of the meritocracy; until the issue is decided the senior-most editor gets precedence.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 14:51, 22 November 2012 (EST)
+:I deleted the extra sections. Responded to your email - feel free to ask any questions. Just so everyone knows what I sent/to clarify:  Username policy is that you use your first name and last initial; you might see a few users who don't fit under that policy (Conservative, Karajou - even I use the opposite (although your first initial last name would also be okay)), but that is because those users predate the policy.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 18:11, 19 February 2014 (EST)
-::No Biblical scholar shares Andrew Schalfly's insight - there is nothing plausible about it. This is a fact that must be stressed. --[[User:AugustO|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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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. --[[User:AugustO|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. --<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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. --[[User:JohanZ|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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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.  --[[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)
-:[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)
-::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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:14, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Difference between revisions of "User talk:Iduan"

Latest revision as of 16:38, February 20, 2014

Contents

Thoughts on clarifying some username policies.

Navigation menu

Search