User talk:Iduan

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DamianJohn (Talk | contribs) at 16:10, 22 November 2012. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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






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 impeachable one. --DamianJohn 16:10, 22 November 2012 (EST)