User talk:Avanu/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Avanu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Edit warring nb
Dude, I have deleted your report, its malformed and , just not required, boomerang might get ya if ya insist on going down that windy road - I recommend you leave it and get back to a little discussion later or tomorrow. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
Thanks for ending that discussion before it escalated. And thanks for the coke. Now to find some JD to go with... FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks, I think it just got off on the wrong foot, but looks like its doing better now. -- Avanu (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this armistice might not hold. I just noticed the first 'collapse' was reverted by Dream Focus with a comment about 'not getting your way'. But whatever, hopefully we can all just play nice. -- Avanu (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Collapse
Good move, thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Can you deal with the whole civility thing with dream focus after we get done with these changes? It's indeed an issue that may need working out, but it'll be better to do it later.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, I was typing this out before I even noticed Okip's suggestion to do so, haha.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh it can be put off just fine. I was just getting tired of trying to hat the inflammatory stuff and him reverting it. If it helps things improve, I'll do whatever needs to be done. By the way, Wikiquette Alerts is not a punishment, it is a voluntary process and editors are supposed to help assuage/defuse the situation. Attempts at Dispute Resolution are also a requested step prior to other action. -- Avanu (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, I was typing this out before I even noticed Okip's suggestion to do so, haha.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive invitation
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors
 The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting. This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated. We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
My Apologies
On re-consideration, I would like to extend my apology for the perhaps ill-considered use of "drive-by" to characterize your recent edit. I'm well aware of and appreciate your prior contributions and realize now that my characterization was needlessly provocative. I'll be considerably more circumspect inre prior editorial contributions before utilizing that euphemism in the future. Again, my apologies. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not a problem at all. I think you're doing a good job trying to keep the article in line. -- Avanu (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not a problem at all. I think you're doing a good job trying to keep the article in line. -- Avanu (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
A heads up
I created a Yes-No vote section here regarding our dispute on the first sentence. It includes arguments for and against the revised wording. Unfortunately, I was the one who wrote your arguments, based on what you had said during the discussion, so the argument is probably a little biased towards my revision right now. I thought I'd drop you a note here so you can reword, revise, and clarify your position before the voting gets too far. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You probably noticed
But just in case I replied at Talk:Fee-for-service. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- You might be interested in this article I'm working on: User:Jesanj/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee Jesanj (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I saw a reference to that when I was searching Google a moment ago for information on the FFS article. Sounds like a oligopoly somewhat. -- Avanu (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- FYI I added that WSJ source to FFS and removed the tag. I thought the modifications we made to the lead and that info might fix things. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think this is helping to make the article more balanced. I still think the lead should talk more about the relationship between insurance and FFS. For comparison, if I am selling catering service or shoe repair, I would always want to sell more, when it is FFS. The entire question is clouded by the presence of insurance that pays in a FFS style. But in real life, we don't go to the caterer or shoe repair every day because we don't need it. So the question to me is how do we adaquately determine what part of this is proper use versus overuse, or overtreatment, and how do we determine how people would react if it were actually just market-driven? -- Avanu (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think a section at overutilization which discusses/defines inappropirate care is needed, so I tried to make that clear.[1] Jesanj (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think this is helping to make the article more balanced. I still think the lead should talk more about the relationship between insurance and FFS. For comparison, if I am selling catering service or shoe repair, I would always want to sell more, when it is FFS. The entire question is clouded by the presence of insurance that pays in a FFS style. But in real life, we don't go to the caterer or shoe repair every day because we don't need it. So the question to me is how do we adaquately determine what part of this is proper use versus overuse, or overtreatment, and how do we determine how people would react if it were actually just market-driven? -- Avanu (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- FYI I added that WSJ source to FFS and removed the tag. I thought the modifications we made to the lead and that info might fix things. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I saw a reference to that when I was searching Google a moment ago for information on the FFS article. Sounds like a oligopoly somewhat. -- Avanu (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Gaddafi
Re-adding this commentary, "Except he's not still in power. He's lost all of eastern Libya, and is losing more of the west as we talk.," ain't helpful for the discussion. I only owe the editor an explanation, and I won't put it on a shared IP's talkpage. He can always come to my talkpage if he shows-up from a different IP and asks for details. Also my decision was based on similar commentary on multiple pages, deserving his total contribution to be rolled-back (which I avoided because of one tiny contribution). Thanks for understanding and happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam talk 09:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Liked your January comment on 3rr talk
I agree with your January 2011 comments here in a case where an editor on a 1rr page clearly reverted a bunch of old material that he knew would be contested and within 24 hours reverted my revert. I'm going to try to use that reasoning in appropriate place (3rrN said go to Arbitratio enforcement) - but it would be nice if the language in the policy was more specific and and as I comment there I'll come up with some after this situation done. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the fairness in your gesture, I must politely say that in cases of BLP, we do have a bit more latitude, and I realize that Gaddafi might not be the most well-liked guy on the planet, but we still need to factor BLP considerations into our edits there. Screwball23 was given a warning by me as well to stop messing about with the language regarding Gaddafi's title. He needs to reach a true consensus, not just say, "this is what I think the sources say, so I'm changing it". The language indicating Gaddafi's control of Libya has been in place since the beginning of the article, and while I do agree that the present situation makes it harder to determine who to look at as the proper leader of Libya, we do not need to get into a marathon trying to keep up with each tiny move in the wind. That is what the news media is for, and while people do turn to Wikipedia for information, it isn't considered a newspaper, so an outdated item isn't the end of the world, and for the time being, we don't even see a general recognition that its out of date now. -- Avanu (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously, I was going to remove it today and let you know that it was just to cool him down. No-one is involved in edit-warring alone, so I can't give him a warning an not you (even tho my summary was clear :p). It worked out well and the conversation is going ;). Sorry tho.. take care ~ AdvertAdam talk 16:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Re closing comments?
Avanu, I have no qualms whatsoever as to your further expression of opinion on the question you unhatted to facilitate that expression. However, you (and everyone else) have been both solicited and had every opportunity to offer suggestions, pro or con, as to this process towards consensus. May I suggest that you consider refactoring your comment to the discussion area on the "vulgar" question which is still open for comment and allow me to close the question with the obvious consensus "No" response so that we can progress to what may be the heart of the matter? Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. Just for accuracy sake, the question wasn't "hatted", it was "collapsed" ( {{cot}} ). JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The "and"
I noticed your post on James Cantor's talk page. Hope you don't mind my commenting here. I'm pretty sure he'd mind if I commented there.
Thanks for trying to build a common ground. Bicycle_gearing might be a better example, after we re-title it "internal and external bicycle gearing" for discussion. Internal and external gearing are similar in some ways - they both move bicycles. It is elegant to present them in the same article, even though none of the gears are interchangeable.
As a matter of credit-where-credit-is-due, I should point out I'm not the one who came up with it being all about the "and." I too initially thought the debate had something to do with the notability of androphilia and gynephilia, but caught on that I was wrong. Now I'm just the one who is trying to keep the AFD debate focused on the original issue: To quote James Cantor, "There are indeed RS's about androphilia, and there are RS's about gynephilia. But there are no references about androphilia and gynephilia as a topic unto itself.".
I'd be a lot more supportive if James Cantor presented reasons why they should be separate articles. Something positive, instead of just negatively arguing against others.
If went to Bicycle_gearing, filed an AFD and demanded RS's to support some relationship between internal and external bicycle gearing, what kind of response do you think I'd get? BitterGrey (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
how come
how come you can be so logical on dr but on a page like kingston university you start vandalising for no apparent reason 174.89.54.246 (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I've never touched the Kingston page, so I have no answer for you. -- Avanu (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- then you have a serious breach of security[2], you have to change your password because someone's spoofing your account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.54.246 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I hardly see how that edit is vandalism, but ok. Now that you have reminded me of that, I do recall editing that minor part. If I recall, the dispute was about people in some fees argument, and looking at the edit I made, it seems I'm simply asking for more sourcing. -- Avanu (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- that's strange, anyways you could have asked for that without defacing the article. see we were discussing it on talk. consensus indicates that the sources weren't considered unreliable. the opinion of controversial or not was the real issue there.174.89.55.175 (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I hardly see how that edit is vandalism, but ok. Now that you have reminded me of that, I do recall editing that minor part. If I recall, the dispute was about people in some fees argument, and looking at the edit I made, it seems I'm simply asking for more sourcing. -- Avanu (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- then you have a serious breach of security[2], you have to change your password because someone's spoofing your account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.54.246 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your support of my user page. Such strong support from an editor I don't really know goes a long way to strengthening my faith in the project. --Surturz (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. Please don't get in trouble on my behalf, it's not worth it :-)
AdminWatch MfD
As for my marital status, I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion. I would also appreciate it if you would refrain from associating my position with offensive, hetero-normative color commentary. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't a real question (it was rhetorical). For me, marriage was an excellent opportunity to learn how to 'do' relationships better, and I was simply equating that relationships take work, not commenting on you personally. I'm not sure why you seem so uptight. Also, referencing your diff, look here instead of at me. -- Avanu (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- It struck me as odd, which was why I raised it here and not at the MfD. And no, I'm not uptight, but I have no patience for misogynist attitudes exemplified by comments like "man up/stop being a pussy" (the underlying point of which is that someone is less of a person if they behave "like a woman"), and I would very much rather not being associated with such nonsense. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for the poor arrangement of wording that conflates those concepts and seems like it might imply you said the 'man up' portion of that. I'm on an iPhone at the moment and will change it ASAP to reflect things better and place you in the correct light. I realize we have some disagreement on the page, but it's not my intention at all to bring things into a personal attack. -- Avanu (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Awww dude, I've been editing on an iPhone lately too! So painful. Is there an app for editing WP, or is Safari the only option? --Surturz (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Avanu. I don't take it as an attack, I just don't like words being put in my mouth, especially ones I find to be particularly offensive. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Awww dude, I've been editing on an iPhone lately too! So painful. Is there an app for editing WP, or is Safari the only option? --Surturz (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for the poor arrangement of wording that conflates those concepts and seems like it might imply you said the 'man up' portion of that. I'm on an iPhone at the moment and will change it ASAP to reflect things better and place you in the correct light. I realize we have some disagreement on the page, but it's not my intention at all to bring things into a personal attack. -- Avanu (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Refactoring At AN
We can't do that. If you disagree with what he wrote, you need to address it with him and ask him to strike or remove it. Doc talk 02:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have done so now. I guess I'm a little short today with snipey sorts of comments that don't explain their rationale. They are not civil. It would be like walking into a room, making a passing insult and walking out. If Sarek needs to make a point, he ought to pay the the rest of us enough respect to explain his reasoning, rather than just sniping. -- Avanu (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's always best to address it by asking them first. You should never strike or remove another editor's comments from any talk page excepting your own talk page unless they are 1) blatant vandalism or 2) from a banned user. Refactoring comments in any way from editors in good standing is very strongly looked down upon (for good reason) and hopefully you understand why. We've all edited when angry and made "knee-jerk" reactions (I am certainly guilty of that). Cheers :> Doc talk 02:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Its understandable, I felt by simply striking it, it would be better than outright removal, but honestly I was a bit miffed that the first words out of an admin's keyboard were simply a smear, not a direct address of whatever the issues were. I would have been fine if he said "Forumshopping because you already were told xxxxx and yyyyy at zzzzzz, but to simply say "Forumshopping!" and walk off just annoys me. -- Avanu (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's always best to address it by asking them first. You should never strike or remove another editor's comments from any talk page excepting your own talk page unless they are 1) blatant vandalism or 2) from a banned user. Refactoring comments in any way from editors in good standing is very strongly looked down upon (for good reason) and hopefully you understand why. We've all edited when angry and made "knee-jerk" reactions (I am certainly guilty of that). Cheers :> Doc talk 02:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for being rude and diving in-here like this, but I'm having a hard time balencing between what happened in the ANI and this comment a couple weeks ago. I guess you probably haven't read the editor's suggestion, whom you were replying after on my talkpage. ~ AdvertAdam talk 05:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm Avanuuuu!!!!! Doc talk 05:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I considered that given the length of the comment, a collapse box would draw overwhelming attention to the comment, and create an ungainly box directly below the complaintant's comments. Given that it was the *only* content in that section, I felt a strike of clearly non-AGF material was less visually intrusive, and since I had told Sarek exactly what the issue was via the edit summary, he could easily unstrike it and add his reasoning without the flow being interrupted.
- I know this sounds like a lot of thinking for such a minor thing, but the option to collapse did cross my mind initially, but since his comment was first and so short and *only* contained the accusation of forum shopping and nothing else, I decided a strike was appropriate; in future though, I'll just comment below. Just another learning experience. -- Avanu (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a comment from your friendly neighborhood editor, aka me
Recently, I have had a chance to experience an interesting turn of events, with some very surprising developments. Generally, I'm pretty laid back at Wikipedia. This isn't my job, it isn't my life, and it doesn't pay anything, so while I take it seriously in one sense, for example, the idea of "getting things right", its also just a hobby to me.
In this recent debate over the ability to criticize admins, I noticed a lot of people taking things far more seriously than I would expect. They readily toss out invectives and insults, and throw in words that have emotional baggage all over them. I sit and ponder this and think, what is this place? It doesn't sound or act like Wikipedia. So I have to ask, why the thin-skin on some things? Some random guy thinks a couple of admins did badly and half the force turns out to say the guy is whiny, needs to man up, is holding personal grudges, and more. This sounds a lot like what is described as 'contempt of cop' in the real world.
To be fair, a lot of people have been thoughtful, and not every comment was mean spirited. But far too many have been for me to assume that this is a fair way to resolve things. I've personally witnessed how atrocious the Administrators Noticeboard can treat people in times past, and if we are to truly say we have a pillar of Civility here, I think we need to have admins who take it seriously. After all, that is what they're 'charging' the guy with. Violation of "POLEMIC". Its essentially an offshoot of the civility pillar. Yet these same editors have no problem with not assuming good faith, with calling names, or with saying he's holding grudges. Hello pot, meet rest of the kitchen.
I'm not sure what the proper answer is. After all, these types of lists ("shitlists") could become just spewing mounds of vitriol, full of rancor and resentment. If I saw that here, I would completely agree with the deletion of it. But this guy barely posted anything and he's gotten so much rancor from people who don't even know him. Emotional responses like that don't come from what he did, but some weird "gotta get even" Internet mentality. And that's just not civil. So what is the answer? Well, if you read this, and have something constructive in mind, I'm all ears. Until then, I'll just look on this and sigh, and hope I don't ever violate the Lese Majeste rules. -- Avanu (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, except about the part "doesn't pay anything" -- I was told we'd all be getting paid but I keep going to my mailbox and I have not yet seen a check. It's been two years people.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Penny for your thoughts? I started this as the more I thought about it the more I realized there is a need for review of administrator actions but you have to go about it in exactly the right way. As a free speech and accountability advocate I'd be interested in your input. Crazynas t 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've asked some experienced editors involved in ArbCom for their opinions on how one can draw the line appropriately, like the "I told you so" guy in the debate said, without some clarification, almost any criticism can be described as polemic. While I'm not eager to be critical of most admins, only 2 of them (out of 1,545) can I recall ever gave me enough grief to even begin to want to write a record of their ongoing actions. I'm generally a lot more relaxed about Wikipedia than that however. I can see that there definitely needs to be a legitimate way to privately and personally complain, and journaling seems to have support in the psychological community as a tool to help people work through adversity (see here). If we simply shut people down, rather than taking the time to help change their attitudes or help them work past one bad actor or act, we simply lose the opportunity we might have had to change an annoyance into a star editor. -- Avanu (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there's definitely RFC/U and ANI for complaints. In theory, they should work very well. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Have you... been to AN/I? :O Crazynas t 20:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Your request for rollback
Hi Avanu. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
- Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Salvio, I'll do my best. -- Avanu (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
WKQX and your edit summary
A couple of things to consider, re: WKQX:
1. I am not edit warring. My edits were - a CSD tag, improper rationale applied, followed by me reverting myself and retagging with the proper rationale. Then, I reverted you twice, supported by policy and two previous administrative actions. I don't appreciate the bit of a heavy-handed statement accusing me of something that I am not guilty of.
2. The WKQX call letters were assigned, almost immediately, after being relinquished by the 101.1 frequency in Chicago, to a 95.9 licensed to Watseka, Illinois. As the current holder of those calls, any use of WKQX on Wikipedia should point there, not the former WKQX in Chicago. This is well within the definition of a non-controversial / housekeeping CSD action. Those who are raising a scene to have the redirect appear to be strong fans of the former WKQX and/or the Alternative music format, desperately trying to hold on to the past. It's not uncommon. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 02:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- What seems heavy-handed to me, is reverting when another editor has provided a reasonable rationale to counter the use of speedy, and you immediately revert them. I have really no concern whatsoever if this redirect continues to exist, but saying it shouldn't redirect because it points to a non-existent or silent station that can't meet the general notability guideline, while an existing station clearly does (and did), seems to be counter to the guidelines in Wikipedia. In addition, speedy is a shortcut for the heavy-lifting of an AfD, but is not an excuse to avoid the 'normal' process if someone asks for it, and as you can see in the post I left on your page, it is actually the proper next step if someone provides a valid challenge to your speedy request. -- Avanu (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- If someone provides a valid challenge to your speedy request - which not one person has done, yet. Stating that something is "the most ridiculous thing that I've seen on this site" is not a valid challenge, in the least bit. Also, as I explained on the Policy Pump thread about this subject, any licensed radio station - silent or otherwise - is generally notable. The WKQX calls have been reassigned; it's time that the fans of the former WKQX and/or of Alternative music let that go. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 02:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- What seems heavy-handed to me, is reverting when another editor has provided a reasonable rationale to counter the use of speedy, and you immediately revert them. I have really no concern whatsoever if this redirect continues to exist, but saying it shouldn't redirect because it points to a non-existent or silent station that can't meet the general notability guideline, while an existing station clearly does (and did), seems to be counter to the guidelines in Wikipedia. In addition, speedy is a shortcut for the heavy-lifting of an AfD, but is not an excuse to avoid the 'normal' process if someone asks for it, and as you can see in the post I left on your page, it is actually the proper next step if someone provides a valid challenge to your speedy request. -- Avanu (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Your argument is that it is reserved for a non-notable entity and therefore can't/shouldn't be used for the "new" station. According to sources, the callsign is intentionally being protected by the company that bought the Chicago station, via a swap, and as yet we have no idea when or if this other 'station' will begin broadcasting.
- The WWWN-FM call letters were most recently associated with a small Watseka, IL radio station that isn't even operating currently. That little station just happens to be owned by Radioactive LLC. Radioactive LLC happens to be wholly owned by Randy Michaels. Randy Michaels also just so happens to be the CEO of Merlin Media LLC, who is the new operator of 101.1 FM in Chicago. At the start of this year, the Watseka radio station used the call letters of WMLF-FM, but Radioactive LLC requested they be changed to WWWN-FM last month, in anticipation of the WKQX-FM take over. The WKQX-FM call letters now belong to the small, dark station in Watseka.
- -- Avanu (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- And? Any properly licensed radio station is generally assumed to be notable under GNG, transmitting or otherwise. The call letters are now in Watseka. Open and shut, really. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 03:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Took me a minute to find the proper page (Wikipedia:Notability (media)), but I don't see any evidence that we have met this requirement for the little station: "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming."
- -- Avanu (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- And? Any properly licensed radio station is generally assumed to be notable under GNG, transmitting or otherwise. The call letters are now in Watseka. Open and shut, really. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 03:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Delayed Responses
Since I have been away for the last two weeks I'm just dropping you a note to let you know I have now responded to your comment on my talk page - in case you have stopped watching for the reply. Spartaz Humbug! 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your revet of my edit, you will find the section was added two days ago with this edit. Mtking (edits) 17:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you, I was just looking through the page history to see how long it had been in place. It seems like completely reasonable language to me, and I assumed, having just referred to the page the other day and relying on that specific advice, that it was a long-standing bit of wording. I don't see a {{hangon}} tag referenced anymore, and so it seems the only prescribed recourse at this point is to just add something to the Talk page and hope the admin looks at it. -- Avanu (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
gaddafi - condoleeza connection
sorry I didn't realize it was in, and there's no sense in having it twice. I don't subscribe to any type of whitewashing on this page, and I will remind you that you are not here to censor or delete based on a perception of "creepy". Other than that, I'm happy with it as is.--Screwball23 talk 15:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't consider it whitewashing to present material in a factual way. However, when unconnected material is presented in a biased way, we need to preserve an encyclopedic point of view. That's why the Adolph Hitler article lead doesn't say "This guy was was a crazy murdering lunatic rat bastard." An album of pictures of Condi Rice were found in 2011. The unconnected pieces are the rest of the sentences that essentially paint a picture of an unhealthy fascination with Condi Rice. We have no basis for the conclusion, but our encyclopedia is repeating the imagery without seeing any basis for it. We are allowed to look at the sources and toss out bias and problematic material without having to throw out the entire baby (with the bathwater). -- Avanu (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Re the discussion here.. I know nothing about the content and I'm not sure which is the right name for the base/field but the thing is, Expose's edit turned a blue link into red [3]. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! --CutOffTies (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
03:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Stop trolling on that policy, please. It is a core content policy, which people rely on for stability. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Slim, it isn't trolling to ask you to stop acting as if you are the owner of the page and request that you stop edit warring. Not one person is asking for a change in policy substance, merely phrasing. Namecalling is out of line. -- Avanu (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Since you seem to be intent on removing the notice I left for the Wikiquette alert, I will also post a reminder here, in case you have this page on your watchlist. I am becoming rapidly very disappointed and dismayed by the way you've handled these interactions, and frankly I would hope I could expect more from someone in your position. -- Avanu (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Avanu, you've been here long enough to know that your approach won't work. SV will get you on behavior and your desired outcome will be lost to the wind. How many editors have followed in your footsteps? The only way to get what you want is to change your approach. You have popular support for you position, even if others tell you otherwise. But you will have to avoid attacking other editors and focus solely on using process and procedures to get from A to B. Good luck; you'll need it. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Funny thing here, is that honestly I am completely happy with leaving the wording as is. So I don't have a big emotional investment in the outcome. I simply think these other editors have made a reasonable case for improvement, even his founderness Jimbo agrees that it could be improved. I'm not pleased with my attempts to communicate with SlimVirgin personally, which were met simply with "go to the WT:V page" and then silence. User talk pages are supposed to be for collaboration, and the WT:V page is not supposed to be 'run' like it is being run currently without a real consensus. I can see that things got out of hand and they are trying to wrangle it back, but I think Slim and Unscintillating might want to try working this out a little differently. Otherwise, we will continue having disputes that distract from the actual goal, and this dumb debate will go on for another 6 months. -- Avanu (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- SV should not have accused you of trolling. Beyond that, I would just ignore her behavior and focus on improving your arguments. It would help if you would talk with other editors about how to do this. You may get some more ideas that will help you refine your argument. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you're being absolutely reasonable, and I'd be a heel to ignore your advice, so I'll drop the Wikiquette thing in the interest of peace and such. I've got hope that if people can simply stay on target, they can work this out fairly well and fast. -- Avanu (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- SV should not have accused you of trolling. Beyond that, I would just ignore her behavior and focus on improving your arguments. It would help if you would talk with other editors about how to do this. You may get some more ideas that will help you refine your argument. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Funny thing here, is that honestly I am completely happy with leaving the wording as is. So I don't have a big emotional investment in the outcome. I simply think these other editors have made a reasonable case for improvement, even his founderness Jimbo agrees that it could be improved. I'm not pleased with my attempts to communicate with SlimVirgin personally, which were met simply with "go to the WT:V page" and then silence. User talk pages are supposed to be for collaboration, and the WT:V page is not supposed to be 'run' like it is being run currently without a real consensus. I can see that things got out of hand and they are trying to wrangle it back, but I think Slim and Unscintillating might want to try working this out a little differently. Otherwise, we will continue having disputes that distract from the actual goal, and this dumb debate will go on for another 6 months. -- Avanu (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Avanu, you've been here long enough to know that your approach won't work. SV will get you on behavior and your desired outcome will be lost to the wind. How many editors have followed in your footsteps? The only way to get what you want is to change your approach. You have popular support for you position, even if others tell you otherwise. But you will have to avoid attacking other editors and focus solely on using process and procedures to get from A to B. Good luck; you'll need it. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Since you seem to be intent on removing the notice I left for the Wikiquette alert, I will also post a reminder here, in case you have this page on your watchlist. I am becoming rapidly very disappointed and dismayed by the way you've handled these interactions, and frankly I would hope I could expect more from someone in your position. -- Avanu (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
This 2007 run in I had with SV might interest you. Note that she makes the argument that something is so obviously true that it does not need references ("It seems a little WP:POINT-ish to ask for references for claims that are so obviously correct."). My memory is that she edit warred to get her way back then too, though eventually they found refs. (Looks like the editors supporting me back then turned out later to be socks though :-P ). Could be there is a pattern of behaviour here. Worth ANI? --Surturz (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Surturz, you've been here since 2006. You know by now, or at least I hope you know, that an ANI report filed with evidence from 2007 will be shut down in a matter of seconds to minutes. ANI focuses on problems that require immediate administrator attention, and they tend to ignore anything older than a week. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why would I know? IIRC I went to ANI for the very first time only in the last couple of months. I don't think it is on my watchlist. Anyway, the point is not that SV was edit warring and misrepresenting WP:V in 2007, it is that she is (possibly) still doing the same four years later in 2011 --Surturz (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- There are ownership issues to be sure, but beyond that you would have a very tough time proving anything. At this point, it is best to participate in the discussion rather than to go after other editors. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why would I know? IIRC I went to ANI for the very first time only in the last couple of months. I don't think it is on my watchlist. Anyway, the point is not that SV was edit warring and misrepresenting WP:V in 2007, it is that she is (possibly) still doing the same four years later in 2011 --Surturz (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I was told by another user, WifiOne, that SlimVirgin has contributed a lot to the improvement of policy pages. I'm willing to accept that she might be a valuable and helpful contributor, but I'm not pleased that she feels that her own Talk page isn't a valid forum for one-on-one discussion of an issue, just because some other people elsewhere are discussing it. I have found in many cases that personal interactions help a lot more and lead to a better understanding of the other editor and their perspective than the hustle and bustle of a busy Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- You are preaching to the choir. I all but gave up on the policy and guideline pages due to the problems you've described. What is problematic, is that the same dispute—a conflict lasting years and years—is still going on. The process for describing the dispute and resolving it needs to be streamlined. It can not be allowed to continue for years on end, especially when it concerns the use of one single word, a word that most editors think should be removed. This is why I am more concerned with how the process works rather than how editors can manipulate the process. We can discuss editorial behavior all day, but the common denominator in all of this is the failure of process. The word should be removed and Jimbo's version should be added in its place. This is neither difficult nor controversial, and the process should be made to work in favor of resolution rather than as a weapon to filibuster and stonewall. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Status Quo has a built-in advantage, but I'm fine with the wording either way. I like what Jimbo wrote and I also like what's already there. I'm going to do my best to keep the page discussions on target if I can. -- Avanu (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- You are preaching to the choir. I all but gave up on the policy and guideline pages due to the problems you've described. What is problematic, is that the same dispute—a conflict lasting years and years—is still going on. The process for describing the dispute and resolving it needs to be streamlined. It can not be allowed to continue for years on end, especially when it concerns the use of one single word, a word that most editors think should be removed. This is why I am more concerned with how the process works rather than how editors can manipulate the process. We can discuss editorial behavior all day, but the common denominator in all of this is the failure of process. The word should be removed and Jimbo's version should be added in its place. This is neither difficult nor controversial, and the process should be made to work in favor of resolution rather than as a weapon to filibuster and stonewall. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Self published source? Where?
Can you identify the self published source in the edit you reverted? The Times and The Guardian are very high profile newspapers and the sources come from their news coverage. The book 'Wikileaks' published by Guardian Books is a mass selling book published by a major publisher. I think you may have erred somewhere ... Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
avanu
that stuff about 'i'm sure you can find some rather dull and mindlss subject to work on ' I found that a bit rude tbh - you stupid tosser. it 'wont come along on its own' - anyhow - fuck off . Sayerslle (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know you found it to be "a bit rude". I was actually hoping in that specific case for it to be quite rude. It is a sad thing to see the topic of a name change brought up again and again just so people can feel better about having gotten their chosen name up in lights. The titles have been fine, and time will provide a name naturally, there is no need to push and rush it, unless, you have nothing better to do. -- Avanu (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- yes but 'find some rather dull and mindless subject' isn't arguing your case its going out of your way to be abusive - and then you finish with another snide remark. anyway - i just think you're a bitter right wing fucker. rant over. but really. Sayerslle (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you're very entertaining at least. :) I hope the rest of your day is better. -- Avanu (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- yes but 'find some rather dull and mindless subject' isn't arguing your case its going out of your way to be abusive - and then you finish with another snide remark. anyway - i just think you're a bitter right wing fucker. rant over. but really. Sayerslle (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your input
Wow! What was that all about? Anyway, I was hoping I could persuade you to hop over to the Joseph Smith talk page and offer your input as a neutral non-Mormon editor, who knows a little about Mormonism. I got myself into making changes to the lead ( again )-: and I'm doing everything I can to avoid polarizing the discussion between Mormons and non-Mormons. Anyway, I think that the number of non-Mormons who don't have strong opinions on the subject is pretty small, which is why I think your opinions would be valuable. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Kingston University
Hi,
Yes I removed as neither had own WP articles. Mtking (edits) 00:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Unless you guys have a special policy at the Kingston University article, that isn't normally a reason to leave something out of a list within an article. -- Avanu (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- It appears to be accepted practice, have a read of WP:NLIST. Mtking (edits) 01:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP:NLIST, they have to have sufficient notability that they could be 'able' to have an article, but need not actually have one. Based on the biography of those two, I would expect they probably have sufficient notability. The question centers around notability because you are including a list of notable alumni. But a list of presidents of the college, the office alone would need to have notability, not the list of people within it. For purposes of this article, I think those two people seem to have the notability required, but it would be helpful to find a source or two. -- Avanu (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- It appears common practice else ware that you create the article first then add the link, that way the notability of the subject can be judged at the subjects article (via WP:AfD if needed), with the presumption that if the article on the subject exists they should be included in a list of alumni. Otherwise you get a fragmented discussion. I think these should be removed until they have there own article, also I should point out that the person who added them is likely to have a WP:COI given their other edits. (esp. this one) Mtking (edits) 01:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the self revert, I intend to post at WT:UNI and ask for a formal position on this one. Mtking (edits) 03:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- It appears common practice else ware that you create the article first then add the link, that way the notability of the subject can be judged at the subjects article (via WP:AfD if needed), with the presumption that if the article on the subject exists they should be included in a list of alumni. Otherwise you get a fragmented discussion. I think these should be removed until they have there own article, also I should point out that the person who added them is likely to have a WP:COI given their other edits. (esp. this one) Mtking (edits) 01:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP:NLIST, they have to have sufficient notability that they could be 'able' to have an article, but need not actually have one. Based on the biography of those two, I would expect they probably have sufficient notability. The question centers around notability because you are including a list of notable alumni. But a list of presidents of the college, the office alone would need to have notability, not the list of people within it. For purposes of this article, I think those two people seem to have the notability required, but it would be helpful to find a source or two. -- Avanu (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- It appears to be accepted practice, have a read of WP:NLIST. Mtking (edits) 01:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
An Olive Branch
|
An Olive Branch |
| An olive branch in the hopes we may both find our own dry ground. Please accept my apologies for past incivility. Canadiandy talk 06:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC) |
Are you serious?
Avanu. I would like to assume good faith, but how is it that when I become involved at a new article you suddenly appear to criticize my input? You will probably want to hop in at "Free Presbyterian (North America)" where I dare to suggest they be linked as a Christian denomination. You are doing your past credibility a real disservice.--Canadiandy talk 15:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Dude, seriously give it a rest. You are a VERY biased editor and I have a lot of pages on my watchlist. It isn't a coincidence or wikistalking you, it is that I have a wide range of interests and for some reason you can't be just an editor, you have to be there to endlessly push your very weird point of view. The only comment I made was very short and for you to explain how the current wording is not WP:NPOV and not WP:DUE. If you weren't so consistently pushing your own point of view, you might actually just answer the question instead of getting defensive. -- Avanu (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I answered your question (and have now done so twice) at the article's discussion page. I will restate it here a third time. The article's identifying that to be a Christian one must be monotheistic is an absolute which is insensitive to others (not just Mormons) who may see themselves as not necessarily monotheistic. All I suggested was that the qualifier 'generally' be added to leave a little wiggle room so that these other groups aren't definitively excluded as being Christian. And then you showed up almost immediately accusing me publicly of having a "problem," "starting arguments," being "tiresome, unwelcome, and unhelpful," and that I "want a lot of weird exceptions." If by "very weird point of view" you mean a religious belief that you disagree with, I remain unapologetic. I would pray nobody ever heard me speak of another's personal beliefs as "very weird" or in the same tone and manner you have referred to mine.--Canadiandy talk 05:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the people who identify as Mormon at the various pages you visit don't even identify with your points of view. Your modus operandi is typically to show up at a page, make a strange argument that some well settled issue needs to be immediately revisited, and then toss around how insensitive and awful people have been for not having fixed whatever it is much sooner. I see you as a troublemaker more than a productive editor and while I deeply respect each person's right to believe how they choose, I do not support the sort of approaches you take to pushing for change. It is consistently pushing for YOUR point of view, rather than seeking to follow sources and consensus. More people than you know have lost patience with it, but I'm one of the few who is willing to tell you honestly how it is. -- Avanu (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not confuse the remaining Mormons at WP with the majority of Mormons. If you are referring to COgden and others whose theories reflect his, I can tell you those positions are definitely not common within our general faith group. He even makes the point that he is a "Liberal Mormon." While I respect his right to his beliefs, his views would be best described as unorthodox. It may be they are right and I am wrong in doctrinal position, but my point is not my disagreement with him but that somehow the common belief of Church members is not represented when we are pushed out by cynics and academics. It may be a bad stereotype, but most Mormons I know walk away from fights because they have better things to do, and so what is left is not a good representative sample. Please keep that in mind. I will offer you are right that I do have a POV. I find it unfair to be accused of pushing it, but that's beside the point. While I have honestly tried to present it in a fair and neutral way, the problem I see I have made is becoming involved in LDS articles. I had assumed I should start with things I know about, and I know quite a bit about my faith. I see now, thanks to your candor, that while that may seem an intuitive approach, for some reason it does not work at WP because it can lead to some emotional frustration. I will take your point that I did not follow my sources often enough (didn't always know where to look) and accept consensus (didn't want to leave the false impression that Mormons might be in agreement with the compromise position) and offer an olive branch in parting, but request that if we cross paths again you simply drop me a line at my talk page so I can save us both the hassle of the back and forth and I will bow out.--Canadiandy talk 06:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I know a LOT of Mormons, Andy. What I have seen of your beliefs do not seem to coincide with what I have seen from them and their actions and statements. I've even asked them occasionally to review the things you post to get their opinions on these things and while some of the things you say are supportable if you stretch definitions, they are not strictly realistic beliefs of most Mormons. While I think your olive branch gesture is a kind thing and it is nice, I don't see how it will prevent me from just asking you to reasonably support your proposals and additions to Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I know a few Mormons too. But I'll accept that the ones you know may be right and I and the ones I know may be wrong. You won't need to ask again. I'm going to (as graciously as I can) bow out. It was, after all, just after Noah received his olive branch that he left the ark.--Canadiandy talk 00:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- I know a LOT of Mormons, Andy. What I have seen of your beliefs do not seem to coincide with what I have seen from them and their actions and statements. I've even asked them occasionally to review the things you post to get their opinions on these things and while some of the things you say are supportable if you stretch definitions, they are not strictly realistic beliefs of most Mormons. While I think your olive branch gesture is a kind thing and it is nice, I don't see how it will prevent me from just asking you to reasonably support your proposals and additions to Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not confuse the remaining Mormons at WP with the majority of Mormons. If you are referring to COgden and others whose theories reflect his, I can tell you those positions are definitely not common within our general faith group. He even makes the point that he is a "Liberal Mormon." While I respect his right to his beliefs, his views would be best described as unorthodox. It may be they are right and I am wrong in doctrinal position, but my point is not my disagreement with him but that somehow the common belief of Church members is not represented when we are pushed out by cynics and academics. It may be a bad stereotype, but most Mormons I know walk away from fights because they have better things to do, and so what is left is not a good representative sample. Please keep that in mind. I will offer you are right that I do have a POV. I find it unfair to be accused of pushing it, but that's beside the point. While I have honestly tried to present it in a fair and neutral way, the problem I see I have made is becoming involved in LDS articles. I had assumed I should start with things I know about, and I know quite a bit about my faith. I see now, thanks to your candor, that while that may seem an intuitive approach, for some reason it does not work at WP because it can lead to some emotional frustration. I will take your point that I did not follow my sources often enough (didn't always know where to look) and accept consensus (didn't want to leave the false impression that Mormons might be in agreement with the compromise position) and offer an olive branch in parting, but request that if we cross paths again you simply drop me a line at my talk page so I can save us both the hassle of the back and forth and I will bow out.--Canadiandy talk 06:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the people who identify as Mormon at the various pages you visit don't even identify with your points of view. Your modus operandi is typically to show up at a page, make a strange argument that some well settled issue needs to be immediately revisited, and then toss around how insensitive and awful people have been for not having fixed whatever it is much sooner. I see you as a troublemaker more than a productive editor and while I deeply respect each person's right to believe how they choose, I do not support the sort of approaches you take to pushing for change. It is consistently pushing for YOUR point of view, rather than seeking to follow sources and consensus. More people than you know have lost patience with it, but I'm one of the few who is willing to tell you honestly how it is. -- Avanu (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I answered your question (and have now done so twice) at the article's discussion page. I will restate it here a third time. The article's identifying that to be a Christian one must be monotheistic is an absolute which is insensitive to others (not just Mormons) who may see themselves as not necessarily monotheistic. All I suggested was that the qualifier 'generally' be added to leave a little wiggle room so that these other groups aren't definitively excluded as being Christian. And then you showed up almost immediately accusing me publicly of having a "problem," "starting arguments," being "tiresome, unwelcome, and unhelpful," and that I "want a lot of weird exceptions." If by "very weird point of view" you mean a religious belief that you disagree with, I remain unapologetic. I would pray nobody ever heard me speak of another's personal beliefs as "very weird" or in the same tone and manner you have referred to mine.--Canadiandy talk 05:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)