Template talk:Mesopotamian mythology/Archive

really pointless infobox, with bad info

This template is just rather poor... it doesn't have much organization, brings (or brought, since I killed most of it off) up totally irrelevant articles, misses important figures like Nergal... it's just plain poor. We're better off with a simply link to the appropriate mythology article so people can click links there.

I remove this template and its sister one on any article I deal with on a regular basis, withour a major revamp I don't think it should go anywhere, really. DreamGuy 02:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Good, you have admitted it. Blanking half a page randomly is inappropriate. This page is a record of that. The real issue was already under investigation anyway. This was your first edit to the page, so a dispute with me or this template and the pages it effects is not an issue here. For example, had you visited Mesopotamian mythology pages before, you would have known were Nergal is. Castanea dentata 03:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Better work on your reading skills. I said I remove this template from articles when I run across it because I find it useless and wholly inappropriate, which is not the same thing as admitting "blanking". The edits to this template were to remove things that had nothing to do with Mesopotamian mythology, linked things inappropriately, had false information, and so forth. Asking about Nergal was the point that you put weird and bizarre things in the template but didn't even cover the most basic aspects of this culture's mythology. The whole template needs to be completely redone, with a better graphic, better organization instead of some haphazard collection of terms thrown together, and so forth.

Let's look at what you used to have in the template (and I see Elonka restored... Personal attack removed

First up, you list gods and then just tack something onto the end on the line that makes no sense. "Ishtar and the planet Venus", OK, great, Ishtar is right, and she is linked to the planet Venus, but the Venus article has nothing to do with Mesopotamian mythology. "Annunaki and astronauts" let me repeat that "Annunaki and astronauts". This is just absurd. Astronauts? And you link that to ancient astronauts. You are placing some incredibly bizarre modern fringe conspiracy theory onto what is supposed to be a mythology template. Zu the lion eagle, lion eagle goes to griffin, OK, but, Zu is not a griffin, the griffin article has nothing to do with Mesopotamiam mythology... And why is the format even in a LINK TO NAME OF MESOPOTAMIAN MYTHOLOGY CHARACTER plus LINK TO SOMETHING ELSE I JUST SORT OF THOUGHT UP? Why isn't it just a list of, you know, the gods and heroes and monsters like ti says? And the summaries provided after the names just aren't correct a lot of the time.

I could go on here, but the point is that this whole template (and the slew of other similar ones created by you that have minor modifications), is just a mess from beginning to end. It doesn;t try to have comprehensive links to the most important articles, half the links have nothing to do with anything, the descriptions are wrong... it's a disgrace. It needs to be totally redone from scratch, but the edits I made were just to remove most of the nonsense now instead of waiting. It'd also be nice if someone who has a better grasp of Meopotamian mythology put it together, instead of someone claiming Kutha was the underworld and so forth. DreamGuy 13:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, regarding the personal attack personal attack removed, it is quite incorrect. You have no knowledge of what I do and don't know -- just because I do not participate frequently in the mythology discussions on Wikipedia, do not assume that this is an area in which I do not have expertise. There are actually verifiable references that I do, such as the fact that I was Executive Producer of a mythology-related MMORPG.[1]. Please be more careful about these kinds of assumptions in the future. Elonka 17:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks removed

Original comment and reply to that

Good, you have admitted vandalism. Blanking half a page randomly is vandalism. I guess you'll have to blank this talk page to conceal the act. You and your sockpuppets are under investigation anyway. Castanea dentata 03:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no vandalism, and, no, no sockpuppets. I did not blank half a page randomly, I removed bad info and completely irrelevant links, and if you were familiar with the topic you would know that. No "sockpuppets" are under investigation, it's just you and Elonka making all sorts of bizarre and patenyl untrue claims, like that anyone who ever left a Barnstar on my page is really a sockpuppet and etc. The point here, Dentata, is that making edits to improve the information in this encyclopedia (yes, that's what we are trying to do here, not just have petty schollyard fights and conspiracy theories) is in no way vandalism (I already pointed you to the Vandalism policy, you should specifically see the What vandalism is not section), and a group of admins telling you and/or Elonka that you are out of line do not sockpuppets make.DreamGuy 13:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Start over

How about everyone takes a deep breath and re-reads assume good faith and WP:CIVIL please. Words like "pointless", "poor", "irrelevant", "vandalism" and "sockpuppets" are not conducive to a civil discussion. Can you please try to start over and talk about the template? Elonka 03:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

(followup) Thanks for changing your comments, Castanea, that shows a mark of maturity. DreamGuy, do you think you would be willing to do the same? It would go a long way towards showing that you're willing to engage in a good faith discussion about the template (and other things). Elonka 05:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, you've been trying to file a bogus <nothing but offense removed> RFC full of false claims about me. It's pretty ridiculous for you to be trying to show up here claiming to be the voice of restraint when you've yelled at admins trying to get comments in good faith removed just because the portray you in a less than positive light. Showing up here to try to create new conflict is not a good idea. Admins already warned you about harassing me, this certainly does nothing to help your case. DreamGuy 13:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to prove that any of the claims at User:Elonka/DreamGuy dispute are false, as well as the "yelling at admins" charge. I assume you're referring to this section of Android79's talk page. Interested parties are welcome to read your personal attacks and my rebuttal for themselves. As for why I got involved with this particular template, Castanea came and specifically asked me to take a look[2]. Upon further investigation, it would seem that your change to this page may have been a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment, specifically "Wikistalking" -- Castanea came and posted a message of support on my talk page, and an hour later you were doing wholesale deletion of Castanea's edits, and engaging in a revert war. If, however, there is a prior history of dispute between you and Castanea, I would be interested in seeing it. As for whether or not I'm taking Castanea's side, I have already stated that Castanea's own behavior is this matter was inappropriate. I would also point out that I have no history of reverting your changes (to my knowledge this is the only time I have ever gotten involved in such a matter), so charging harassment is incorrect since there is no pattern. I have the right to engage in edits on pages that you have participated in, just like any other editor.

Regarding the RfC/RfAr information that I am gathering, I will repeat that if you would like me to stop gathering information for an RfC, all you have to do is apologize for your personal attacks and false claims about me. However, this is not a longterm offer. The more information that I gather about your behavior, the more I realize that it is a serious problem which Wikipedia is going to have to address. I may soon retract the "apologize and it's over" offer, so I would recommend that you give careful thought to whether or not you would like to apologize on the relevant pages immediately.

In summary, it is my sincere request that if the two of you disagree about the content of this template, that you engage in a good faith discussion about it, rather than a revert war. Elonka 17:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks removed

Well, somewhere in there among the insults I'm going to try and assume good faith and acknowledge that at least this is communication, so okay, let's proceed. Can you please give an example of where you believe that I have "done far worse attacks on you"? Elonka 19:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks removed