User talk:Dylan Flaherty/Archive 0

Larsson Duplication

Duh... I was the one who wrote that and added it into the article orignally. I forgot I did that, so I put it there again a few days ago :D ValenShephard (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Best thing about Wikipedia is that we're so far away from 1.0. :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Brandon Rios

I'm sure that Rios did fight out of the Garden City Gym. Victor Ortiz is from the same gym and now those two hate each because of what happened during thier amateur careers. You're right, I just can't find a citation so lets keep it off the Article for now. Thanks for staying on it.--Polvo (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Authorship of the books of the Christian Bible

Suggest: (a) change title to "Authorship of books of the bible"; (b) use Hebrew (Jewish) order of books, since they invented it; (c) re-write contents to reflect genuine scholarship. If you're interested... PiCo (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, thanks for your advice. I've come to the conclusion that RomanHistorian has committed the fatal scholarly error of relying entirely on a single book instead of a broader understanding. Worse, the book he chose has a strong POV that amounts to fringe biblical maximalism of the conservative protestant sort. I've looked at some of the changes he made, and they are consistent in adding this POV, often while editing and even deleting mainstream views. I've done my best to clean up some of the mess, and I see that you have, too. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But I'm willing to try to engage him in dialogue rather than treat him with hostility. Let's see what comes of it. PiCo (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my frustration with his single-mindedness is manifesting as hostility. I will be glad to back off and let cooler minds engage. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, by all means engage with him. I'll suggest to him that he restrict himself to one of two articles to avoid starting major conflicts - personally I don't have any interest at all in the NT, and pretty narrow interests in the OT. I'll suggest he take up the Bible Authors and Joshua. PiCo (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but I will do my best to be civil. As for topics, I suspect I might have more interest in the NT than you do.

I've given it some consideration, and I think his best bet if he actually wants his changes kept at all is to make them slowly, in moderation, and to accept corrections. When he changes an entire article, the best I can do sometimes is just revert it wholesale. If he changes a paragraph or two at a time, I might still have objections, but I probably won't just revert. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It always helps to you know, post on the talk page why you are reverting. Give the other editor more detailed rationale for your objections, and then you can both work together to find a compromise you can both agree to (assuming one cannot convince the other outright of their position). At least 3 or 4 articles where you have been engaged in edit warring, you have made no effort to dialog with the other party. I'd encourage you now to join these discussions, and focus on what the article can be, then working block outright new addition via reverting. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR

It appears you are engaged in edit warring. Not just on a single article, but on multiple articles targeting one user in particular. On Wikipedia, we have a strong policy against edit warring, WP:3RR. We consider edit warring, no matter who may be "right" (except in cases of blatant vandalism or copyright violations), to be destructive, and thus we block user who edit war on a continuing basis. Please read up on our edit warring policy, and consider this a warning. You need to find ways to work with and compromise with other editors, and work our your differences on the talk page. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but I believe the fire has been put out. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Genesis

Thank you. "best" makes more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendroche (talk • contribs) 03:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you too. I think the commitment to mainstream scholarship is something we share. Anyway, glad to have met you and worked with you. PiCo (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the offer of support. At the moment I'm satisfied with they way this is being handled, since the admins involved seem to be fair and dispassionate. If everyone involved can accept the outcomes and avoid getting emotional we should be able to resolve it with a minimum of pain Happy editing - have you looked at Authorship of the Bible lately? I added a list of deuterocanonical books, which I hope is sufficient. PiCo (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I did look and I saw, and thanks. PiCo, whatever our disagreements, I never thought for a minute that would be capable of the sort of narrow-mindedness required to exclude these books. I hope you are right about the dispute resolution process, as there does seem to be a long-term pattern of fringe non-mainstream Biblical views being imposed upon Wikipedia. It would be nice if the matter were resolved with some permanence. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Support for behavior identified as traditional or moral such as discipline and religious commitment" @ Family values

I removed this section because it's a meaningless politico-religious catchphrase. Discipline of what sort? Religious commitment to what? Of course they identify it as moral, that's why they support it! Of course they identify it as traditional, they're conservative! I suggest clarification if you're going to want it to stay. Roscelese (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, so I fixed it. I agreed that it was vague, so I looked at the citations for anything more detailed. What I found didn't even support what was there. Thank you for catching this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gospel of John. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JJB 07:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already reported RomanHistorian. Wait until it blows over. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, it seems to me that you broke WP:3RR at Gospel of John per the edits which I have listed at WP:AN3#User:Dylan Flaherty reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: ). There may still be time for you to avoid sanctions if you will promise to avoid this article, and anything related to the Bible, for seven days. You may still participate on talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I'm taking a break from those articles, regardless. I'm going to give RomanHistorian, JJB and HardyPlants a week to do what they like with those articles, without my interference. If the end result is an improvement, great. If not, I'll revert them all the way back to yesterday.

Really, what they should be doing is making a few small changes, waiting to see if there are any objections, then moving on to the next round. This way, at least the uncontroversial suggestions, such as spelling and grammar improvements, will get through. But they want to be bold, so that's going to lead to bold reverts. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed, after a false report after I edited Battle of Jericho, I'm extending my week-long vacation to all Bible-related articles, not just articles about the Bible. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a promise to edit war more, instead constructively working together. Hardyplants (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

HardyPlants, it takes at least two to edit war. What are you promising? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you did not read my commnet, it says "constructively working together" which up to this point you have not done.Hardyplants (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That was my point: are you going to constructively work together with me or are you going to go off and make really bad changes that will only wind up reverted? Think about it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for telling us this, Dylan. This is all being logged. I will keep monitoring your behavior and will report you again the next time you edit war. Edit warring is edit warring, even if it is across multiple articles. RomanHistorian (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to apologize for stalking those articles and reverting perfectly good changes just to make a point? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and keep up your behavior. This will make it easier to get you banned from Wikipedia in the future. I am glad that my reversions to Gospel of John finally pushed you over the edge and exposed you for what you are:) RomanHistorian (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you are unrepentant. You damaged a half dozen articles out of rage, and yet you pretend to have the moral high ground. None are so blind as those who will not see! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You both need a break, when your editing become personal nothing good can come from it. Hardyplants (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal, like calling for a permanent block? Or personal like wikistalking and reverting perfectly good changes? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus

I was simply reverting the weasel wording. We can't make generalizations unless the sources themselves make those generalizations. What you need to do is find reliable sources that indicate that historians are apathetic and put that into the article rather than remove the wording. If the sources discuss historians then that that can be used in the article. This article is highly contentious as seen by its protection so what I would advise is that you take these discussions to the talk page. Unilateral edits are going to rub someone the wrong way, and its great to remember Wikipedia is collaborative. I'm going to revert my edit largely because I don't have the time to pursue this, but you can expect any editor who comes along to remove that weasel wording. Take the discussion to the talk page and you'll save yourself a lot of trouble.(olive (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

That's good advice. We do have a reliable source about historians that would preclude their mention in that sentence. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh more evidence. Thank you olive:) RomanHistorian (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Dylan.Take that information to the talk page. I'd better not revert myself since it looks like what you changed was the consensus version. The best advice Is to take your time and discuss these concerns and changes on the talk page. A consensus version means most everyone is agreeing. Even if they're wrong, you can't change the article with out creating a ruckus, that's the nature of collaboration. Discuss, discuss, discuss. I see you're a pretty new editor so it takes a while to get the hang of the difference between what's in the sources and even the most educated opinion. I'm still working on it. Its an encyclopedia not a research paper, and that's a big difference. Good luck. (olive (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)) \

Thanks again for the advice. I'm just going to take a week off from Biblical topics, so we'll let the current version stand. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian: I don't know what you're babbling on about, but I'm going to have to ask you not to comment on my talk page unless it's something urgent. Why are you even here? Don't you have some false reports to file somewhere? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Consider this your warning: if you keep reverting my edits I will keep pursing this and will have you banned.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What edit have I reverted? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As soon as you revert more than a couple of my edits, I will file another edit warring complaint against you. You have been warned, and I am not the only one who holds this view about you.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh and just to clarify, I don't care if you revert all of my changes at once or over a period of time. I will still report you. You might as well take longer since it will give me more time to build up a stronger case against you. You are building up a nice history, and getting everyone to turn against you as it is. This is going to be fun!RomanHistorian (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your glee shows that you are acting out of malice, and that this is a blatant attempt to intimidate me. There is absolutely no rule against reverting bad changes, so your threats are empty. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and make your mass reversions. We can see what the moderators and other editors think about the legitimacy of your changes and of your actions. Probably about the same as they have thought so far. Everything you can do to build your history of edit warring will make me happy. Plus, as EdJohnston noted, it is pretty obvious you are a sockpuppet, so that is another avenue I can follow as well.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What's pretty obvious is that I caught you in a lie, and none of the wild accusations you toss out can distract from that. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Carl

LOL, I know, it was the best I could do in a few minutes... I don't know. it's still a bit, off. I9834 (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

At least he's no longer a member of the living dead. Then again, with his characteristic bluntness and unpopular social views, he might as well be dead, at least politically. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.[1] Rklawton (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Trash talk

(The following was dumped here from User_talk:RomanHistorian. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling my edits "trash" is not civil. Neither is erasing my comments here without acknowledging them.

There is indeed "nothing that can be done about" me because I am not the one who's violating the rules; you are. And I am absolutely going to post on this page again if I need to inform you about rule violations on your part, so keeping me away from this page is not an option. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I said stay away from meRomanHistorian (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Although you have stalked and bad-mouthed me, I will not do that to you. However, I will also not "stay away" from you. If you break the rules, I will certainly notify you, and if appropriate, I will report your violations. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Cameron and parenting

Did Paul Cameron write anything on LGBT parenting? He would be an easy and uncontestable example of misrepresentation of research, unlike Schumm, to whom only few have paid attention to either way. Mentioning Schumm even as fringe example seems WP:UNDUE, because he isn't notable among the fringe. (I wonder if Schumm just writes papers for their shock value, e.g. [2]. It seems more plausible that he has an agenda: [3] [4])Tijfo098 (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and he's much more famous for this sort of thing than Schumm. He's the one who said "there is a strong, disproportionate association between child molestation and homosexuality", but couldn't back it up with evidence. There's more in his article and the links from it. My favorite sentence is:

Cameron was quoted in Rolling Stone as saying that homosexual sex was more pleasurable than most heterosexual sex, and as a result, if homosexuality were tolerated then it would become predominant within a few generations.

While I admire his willingness to do first-hand research, so to speak, my suspicion is that he's either doing heterosexual sex wrong or he's himself is not at all heterosexual.

Schumm's agenda is entirely transparent, due to his public admissions: rather than do honest science, he wants to make the science conform to his religion. I find this deeply offensive, not only because of the dishonesty, but because he's buying into the idea of science as the arbiter of morality, making him guilty of scientism. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

talk page deletion

Hello Dylan, I'm sure this was an accident, but it appears you've deleted my edit on the TPM talk page. [5]. Could you please undo your edit? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It was indeed an accident -- there were multiple edit conflicts as I tried to respond. But I can't find whatever it is you wrote, so I would appreciate it if you would restore it yourself. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you please remove this edit? Thanks.[6].Malke 2010 (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with it? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is something that might be misconstrued by others and in the spirit of working together I'd appreciate it if you would remove it. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd really rather not. It's not insulting or even uncivil. It's simply a brief statement to explain why I an unable to discuss the topic with you further. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'd prefer that you did as I am not comfortable being the subject of a new thread on an article talk page. The best place to make a comment would be on my talk page, because when you think about it, the other editors on the article talk page are not there to mediate or assist in your dealings with other editors. The only one who can help there would be the other editor, in this case, me. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but it probably doesn't belong on the article talk page. You should put it on her talk page, or request dispute resolution. She even has a mentor you could contact. We try to avoid interpersonal conflicts on the article talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to move it, but not to remove it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse

I've notified Juggalobrink that continuing to call edits in a content dispute vandalism is inappropriate, however, please don't edit war. If you're not able to reach a consensus on the talk page, please use some other dispute resolution methods to get outside opinions and find a solution. Shell ^babelfish 21:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Shell. At this time, I will limit myself to two reversions in any 24 period on that article. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm, that's really missing the point. You need to work out the problem you have on the ICP article rather than revert at all. Shell ^babelfish 23:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that this avoids an edit war. I've already discussed the content issue on the talk page, so there's nothing more to be done there until there are replies. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your warning has been removed with the request that you stop the disruptive edits, especially the likes of the Miracles (Insane Clown Posse song) edit which was unsourced and, more importantly, trivial. If you would like me to explain exactly what I mean by trivial, I'll gladly do so. I've also brought up the Christianity Today article at the Insane Clown Posse Noticeboard. Please add your stance on the subject.Juggalobrink (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not burned out, thanks. I just think long-running battles like this create an unfriendly environment for other editors. The bits we're obsessing over are a very small part of the larger article. NillaGoon (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not wrong about that. I'd like very much to move past these disagreements so that the article can go back to normal. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Dennett

You're right. gf.org is obviously not a bad source, although bigthink appeared to be. Since Sci Amer is a good neutral source of the same info, gf.org seemed unnecessary, esp. since it requires the reader to take another step (i.e., search) to find the info presumably being referenced. Cloonmore (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I don't dispute that SciAm is a good source, so I'm fine with it being used. I just wanted to understand why you rejected gf.org, but this clears it up.

Thanks for working on this. I've done my best to source the remaining two awards. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility

• Regain your credibility by being honest...

I know that it's frustrating dealing with other editors who don't seem to be on the same level. But we must both assume good faith and avoid incivility. Accusing other editors of lying, or strongly implying it, violates both policies. Please try to keep your comments collegial and it'll be easier for everyone.   Will Beback  talk  04:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I've had problems with this particular editor before -- just scroll up -- but that's no excuse for incivility. If I understand correctly, the right thing to do now is to go redact my original statement. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making that edit.   Will Beback  talk  05:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, User:Arthur Rubin has much Edit warring without any comments, a common tactic; just look at his edits over the past year: Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin. He particularly abuses IP Users (regardless of Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal) by POV. Note: I attempted to put this comment on his talk page, but my contributions were blocked (Edit conflict). Best Wishes ... wp:tea. 99.54.139.253 (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Merciline Jayakody

Dear friend , could you please assists me to solve Problem of this Article Talk:Merciline Jayakody/Temp--Wipeouting (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Tea party / constitution

I agree that if possible, the lead should state specifically what their interpretation of the constitution is, if such a citation can be found. My concern was that, on it's own, "their interpretation" had something of the scare quotes about it. It's a matter of opinion, at any rate. I'll check out the talk page. ---Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page warnings

Editors can delete these, that's acceptable. Dougweller (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It is acceptable to move them to the talk page of the editor who left them? And, when the warning is legitimate, is it acceptable to ignore the warning and continue to violate rules? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete them off your page if you don't like them.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your "Tags Clean-up"

Dylan I've already spoken twice to your concern, within the discussion section you've created. I wrote:

The specific tags in question will remain until their respective debates have ended. However I'm not going to entertain your questions in this section in every instance that a tag is prematurely removed and needs to be restored. If the tags bug you, then you can participate in the discussions to speed them to conclusion.

Do you understand what that means? -Digiphi (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It means you think your name is Jimbo. It turns out that nobody else sees things your way, which is why other editors keep removing your excessive tags. I can't stop them, and neither can you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of those tags were mine, rather that Digiphi's. But there is no consensus for your view of tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed this on the article talk page. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You had not, as of 5 minutes ago. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why they say patience is a virtue. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, it means that the article doesn't need your blessing to contain the tags that people have added to indicate that content is controverted. It also means that neither I nor any other editor needs to ask your permission to maintain the tags that people have added to indicate that content is controverted, and I won't. If you want for something to cease being controverted, then you may participate in its discussion section on the talk page. If you are unhappy with the direction a discussion has taken, you may not subvert the process by making edits anyway, or by trying to duplicate an ongoing discussion in a new section because you feel that your way is simply superior. You have complained in the past when I've quoted policy to demonstrate the wrongness of your actions, and claimed that you've already read all policies and guides. Therefore you know what tags are for and why they are put in articles. Tags attached to objects in the article which are controverted will remain until those objects are not disputed in ongoing discussions on the talk page. You need to make peace with that. If you don't like that process (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT) then you should petition Admins, pursue RfC or perhaps check out the noticeboards. I strongly encourage you to explain your feelings to whoever you want. Please do so. Otherwise remember that I am not a cop, and you have the right to remain silent. -Digiphi (Talk) 16:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I explained on the appropriate page, it's not a matter of personal challenges. Whoever puts up a tag absolutely must be able to explain their objection, otherwise the tag is removed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My "RSN" comment over at SSM

Just a quick note--I do agree that the document is a fine source for the scientific consensus on that question. My comment about "take it to RSN" was, I hope, a way of bringing that question to a broader audience if those who disagree with you (and I for that matter) think that the source isn't reliable enough for the statement. Sorry if my comment came off any other way, it wasn't intended as disagreement. Cheers! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I understood it just fine. If anything, it was my response that could have been clearer. We're on the same page here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rockin'.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 22:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

~~~ has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~

--j⚛e decker^talk 00:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Joe, make sure to order a round for yourself. You came up with the compromise that broke down the stalemate. Together, we turned an edit war and a week-long protection into a quick resolution. I'd call that a good day's work. :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My pint is already on the table and frosty, thanks! Cheers! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Not minor!

Sorry about any inconvenience I performed on that page. I don't have the equipment to take back my minor tagging I believe, so should I change the tag or something? I wouldn't have tagged it if I didn't find a problem with the article's vocabulary. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't sweat it: I fixed the error. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your help on the gospel pages

It's nice to have backup. Leadwind (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You can always count on me to try to do the right thing. However, I will not edit-war or even come close to it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Golden rule

It's best to treat other editors as you would like to be treated. Uncivil remarks directed towards other editors not only hurts them, it coarsens the entire discussion. This is not a Sunday morning talk show where commentators hurl insults at each other to boost the ratings. This is a serious effort to write an encyclopedia. We don't have to make friends with everyone we meet but we must be civil towards all, regardless of the topic. That's not just a recommendation, it's a policy. Please carefully read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF before making any more talk page contributions. Going forward, I expect you to follow those core policies closely.   Will Beback  talk  09:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your recent comments on the TPM talk page. Please read and follow the policies I listed above. This is serious. Editors get blocked because of personal attacks.   Will Beback  talk  13:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There's been quite a bit of conflict on that page. That's why I'm wondering if you could point at something specific. For example, if there's a sentence that's too harsh, I can redact it. I'm not sure what to do with general advice other than generally agree. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Final warning. If you make another comment like this I will make a formal complaint.[7] Again, please read the policies, then re-read them. If you have any questions about this please clear them up before making further talk page postings.   Will Beback  talk  13:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, thank you for pointing out a concrete issue. I have redacted it. If you feel it's still too harsh, please let me know. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, while you certainly have the right to make a formal complaint at any time, I suspect you'll get better results by just asking. It's not my intent to violate any rules, so pointing out potential violations is usually enough. In any case, thanks for helping me correct this error. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been to this page too often in this regard. I have asked you several times to read the relevant policies, but you haven't said if you've done so or if you have any questions. Pointing out errors a few times is OK, but by now you should know for yourself how to avoid them. I assume you're working in good faith but if you naturally have a confrontational style then you have to find a new style for Wikipedia work. Anyway, feel free to call or write if you aren't sure of something.   Will Beback  talk  09:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, I won't belabor the point, but context is king. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

review of Guthrie

I'm not sure what you wanted me to say. I've seen the first page of the Guthrie review and wish I could read the whole thing. Leadwind (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear, but I was trying not to bias you. Mostly, I was wondering if you could provide a sanity check of my interpretation. Am I reading much more into this than it actually says? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been away for a few days. Getting tired of wikipedia to tell the truth - not so much an encyclopedia as an argument in a pub. PiCo (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I can sympathize. Let's just leave it at that. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Dylan Flaherty‎ edit warring with another user on that user's talk page. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Malke: Please disengage

In order to put an end to the endless noticeboard reports and reinforce the advice that you have been given multiple times, agreed to follow and then ignored: please do disengage completely from Malke, and do so right now. What this means is:

• If you talk to her,
• If you talk about her,
• If you ascribe motives to her,
• If you allude to her,
• If you respond to an argument she made with so much as beginning to qualify her edit,
• In short, if you do anything beyond merely discussing the substance of an argument, anything that can be construed by even the flimsiest reading as a comment about the person, you will be blocked for harassment.

The same warning will be posted to Malke, and in the interest of putting an end to the waste of time your mutual disagreement has already imposed upon the community, I suggest you act, as of now, as if Malke didn't exist at all. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am more than willing to drop this and walk away. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it (again), and looking forward to seeing it. Have a nice day. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have undone your most recent AN/I post, as it's possible you didn't see this warning before posting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, you are correct. I am ok with that post being removed, as that would be part of the disengaging. My only concern is that it was my detailed defense against an ANI probe, so I would hate to get blocked simply because I appeared to be unwilling to explain myself. :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you can explain yourself in such a way that it's only commenting on yourself and not Malke, feel free. Or you could just say something to the effect of "In the interests of deescalating this, I think I'll just leave it at this point." or "I maded you a defens, but MLauba eated it." :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol, it's been a long time since I've heard a variation of the old dog-ate-my-homework excuse. Actually, MLauba just moved to close it, so I won't need to further defend myself. I'm still going to have some issues regarding Tea Party movement and the mediation there, but I will do my best to follow the rules of disengagement. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was a variant on this. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So when I said "lol", I was only partly right. :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

I'd like to avoid a misunderstanding: the charge of WP:CANVAS violation is leveled solely at Roman. Tom has done nothing wrong in this regard. He cannot be held accountable for Roman's actions; only Roman can. 04:09, Dylan Flaherty9 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind is now introducing his POV into Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew, using the same destructive edit warring method he used on Gospel of Luke. Yet again, he deletes a lot of sources from scholars who are personally religious. Not only that, but he adds liberal scholars and then suggests they represent the mainstream. One of his changes modified a sentence that stated liberal scholar Bart Ehrman's opinion and restated it as though it represented consensus.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, it does represent consensus. Your repeated inclusion of fringe sectarian views is a violation of consensus, not to mention WP:RS. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomHennell"

Dylan, Roman; I have already asked you once; I would be very grateful if you conducted your disputes outside of my discussion page. If it helps, I am clarifying my own views;

- Wikipedia articles are intended to be contually edited and improved; and improved; in particular through having scholarly references added in to statements that as yet lack them; and also in improving existing scholarly references by including the published views of scholars with high standing in the specific field covered by the article in replacement for those of popularisers or of recognised scholars who are nevertheless not specialists in the field in question. So long as the updated reference does not materially redirect the point being made in the article, such changes need no prior notification on talk pages. If the changed references also changes the thrust of the article, that should be discussed and agreed on the relevant talk page.

- The only criterion is current public academic standing, not confessional or ideological labelling. In particular, in relation to biblical subjects, most recongised authorities are likely to be Christian or Jewish believers, and many will also have written apologetic works. That in no way should count against them. Equally, there are many recognised authorities who are agnostic or non-believers; and the same point applies. Hence it would be proper - in my view - to include a reference on the Synoptics to JD Crossan (who is an acknowleged authority) and excise a counterpart reference to the Jesus Seminar (who as a collective body are not an acknowledged authority). It would be equally be proper on Mark to include a reference to Morna Hooker (a current authority on Mark) and excise one to Dennis Nineham (formerly an authority, but no longer active in the field).

- As I understand it, what Leadwind is claiming to do accords with what I myself would consider legitimate. I would only consider it proper to enter into any consequent debate where I regarded by own (albeint partial) knowledge of current academic standing to be potentially helpful to resolve disputes.

(copied to Leadwind) TomHennell (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not thrilled that you tossed this here, I do appreciate your reasoned and reasonable response. Thank you.

And since you would rather that I avoid posting on your talk page, I will do my best to honor that request, although I may need to contact you under some circumstances. If I do, it will drop a brief note -- which you can erase immediately -- asking you to look for a message on my talk page. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediator found

User:Hipocrite has agreed to mediate Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-12/History of ancient Israel and Judah. As a listed party, please indicate whether or not you will join this mediation as an active party at that page. I am informing each of you that if you do not reply there within 48 hours of your next edit, I will interpret that as disinterest in taking an active position in Biblical-authorship articles. Thank you for your consideration. JJB 17:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement

Hello. I have signed on to mediate this case. Please make your opening statements at this time. Thank you! Hamtechperson 00:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hamtechperson 18:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

New message on my page Hamtechperson 14:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This edit was epic win. Nice job! Hamtechperson 02:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested block

You requested I block you for an hour. Would you like that to be at a certain time of day? Or would you prefer an honorary block of one second? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll need to check my schedule and get back to you on that. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of John

Hello. RH and another editor keep changing "currently most critical scholars dispute the traditional authorship" to "critical scholars such as Harris and Anderson dispute the traditional authorship". I keep explaining that the sources state the scholarly opinions not the opinions of the authors and yet they keep methodically reverting them with no reason other them "biased wording". 24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice this. I just reported Roman for edit-warring, but if blocks go out, then you are likely to face one. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Revert to restore BRD

Just to let you know, it doesn't work that way [8]. If another editor violates BRD, and frequently, then you file a complaint about this editor, but you discuss the edits in the meantime without reverting.

Have you noticed that most of your mainspace edits are reverts, and that most of your talkpage edits are requests to stop being obnoxious? Where there is smoke, there is a fire. Maybe you can tell me what that fire is so I don't have to explain it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And, sometimes, where you think there's smoke, there's only fog, so no amount of searching will ever find a fire.

Taking your points in reverse order, I don't think it's unusual to revert overly bold and/or just plain bad changes, or even outright vandalism, nor does it seem to be unusual to leave warnings of various kinds. If I differ from the average, it would be due to my willingness to tackle controversial topics and my tendency to actually write customized warnings instead of using templates. I consider both of these to be strengths.

I realize that you're concerned about the general pattern, but I would suggest that the specifics overrule the generalities. For example, you expressed concern about reverting, yet many of my reversions are selective, and even a "cold" reversion isn't necessarily a problem, particularly when it's of a small but unsalvageable change and a comprehensive comment is left. Moreover, I've often found my reversions immediately endorsed by other editors. In short, I don't think there's any fire to explain. Fire would come in the form of genuine edit-warring, and it's really hard to light such a fire without exceeding 2RR!

Moving on to the issue of reporting BRD violations, I suspect this would be pointless. While I can and do encourage editors to follow it, it's only an essay, and it's designed not to be enforceable: "BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." Even if it were an enforceable rule, I would not have any excess confidence in it being consistently enforced. While I'm still willing to go through the trouble of reporting editors, particularly for egregious violations, my experiences have been mixed. I think you know what I'm talking about here.

When I've been forced to revert a change and have requested a discussion, some editors take the hint and follow BRD. Others revert back to their preferred version. Once this happens, whether I bother reverting one more time depends on two factors: 1) Is the change so bad that it should not stay for any period of time and 2) Based on previous experience, can I expect their willingness to discuss their changes to be increased by not having them be the current version. I suppose you could argue that a second reversion is not in the spirit of BRD, but I'm not convinced BRD works all that well when only one editor follows it.

The bottom line is that I stay within the letter and spirit of Wikipedia rules. My edits are constructive, I do not edit war, and I am always willing to discuss why I believe the article should be in one form and not another. While I genuinely appreciate your concern, I want to reassure you that all is in order. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Proudly touting "2RR" as proof of "not" edit warring is considered "gaming the system" behavior by most: see the introduction of WP:EDITWAR, which explains the broader concept of edit warring in a more complete manner than simply the 3RR subsection. Just because one doesn't technically break the 3RR rule within a 24-hour period certainly does not mean one is not edit warring. Some of your "custom" warning templates are far more "bitey" than the actual warning templates that should be used: most editors don't need to be talked down to like bad, stupid children in order to make them understand something. The template warnings are there for a reason. And kicking editors in the teeth in a lecturing and taunting tone like this[9] after the fact is quite obnoxious, and neither warranted nor helpful: sone might even say its "baiting". This account isn't even two months old, but you often speak as if you have nothing left to learn here. I've been quietly observing the "Dylan & Roman" show ever since this was brought up at a WQA a bit ago and I got involved (sigh): and it ain't getting much prettier, so I'm breaking my silence again now. Dylan, as I've told you before: there are a lot of very intelligent people on this project, and acting as though you are superior through your comments is a really bad way to get along with others here (which you should do, as it's a community project). Try to be nice to editors as much as possible, don't misquote policy and guidelines ("preventative" vs "punitive" is a far more widely understood and quoted concept than "defensive"), don't threaten and talk down to others: and a lot fewer will get on your case for being "dickish", I'd imagine. Cheers... Doc talk 08:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Roman has made similar baiting and taunting comments towards you (as diffs will show) and is certainly no angel, and I'll say again that there is no clearly defined "bad guy" between the two of you. Who wants to be the "better" guy? Hopefully both of you. Doc talk 08:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Doc, interesting page; thanks for showing it to me. I would say that skating the very edge of 3RR by waiting until the 24th hour passes before that 4th reversion, or teaming up with a fellow zealot to double-team some poor sucker into crossing the 3RR border are both apt examples of gaming. On the other hand, staying far, far away from that edge by always limiting myself to 2RR is the opposite of "playing to win". Rather, it reflects a blanket refusal to "play" Wikipedia as if it were just a MMORPG with terrible graphics. As explained above, I mostly stick to BRD and 1RR, which is even further away from gaming to win by edit-warring. This isn't just because I want to have the moral high ground; it's a very effective defense against false charges, of which I've gotten more than my share.

I don't think my role here is to be the smartest guy in the room. I'm hardly blessed with superior intelligence or an unerring sense of truth. What I am blessed with is a sense of fairness and very thick skin. I'm willing to wade into articles that smarter people avoid, and I can live with people like you calling me a dick. Honest, I've been called worse. In real life, I've succeeded most by helping smarter people succeed, by taking their lumps so they can keep working. That's what I've been doing with PiCo, for example. If I had his depth of knowledge with regard to the material, I'd be the one making those well-cited, informative edits. Alas, that's not my lot in life. But I have studied the material formally and know enough to recognize genuine scholarship when I see it.

Now, to be frank, my problem with RomanHistorian is that he tries to steamroll over more moderate editors with unending waves of edits that do nothing but cast fringe ideas as mainstream. He doesn't play fair and I have not detected any signs of a conscience. I've caught him canvassing at least half a dozen times, warning him over and over again, but he is totally unrepentant. He's stalked, he's falsely accused, and he's edit-warred, all without any sign of regrets. So what I do is drop personalized notes on his talk page, and he deletes them. Every so often, I write him up for an egregious violation, but when it comes to enforcement, it's essentially the luck of the draw; you roll the dice and take your chances.

In light of this, I'm not sure what to make of your well-intentioned suggestions. For example, I don't see how paraphrasing "preventative" as "defensive" is either misleading or harmful. I'm also not sure whether it's possible to warn frequent offenders without having some people take it as my "threaten[ing] and talk[ing] down to" them. As Magog said, I tell people to stop being obnoxious, and I sometimes warn them about rules that are (however occasionally and inconsistently) enforced. I could probably avoid some of the problem by resorting to these templates that everyone seems so fond of, but the plain truth is that I never quite figured out how to use them. On a good day, I can get "collapse" to work on the third or fourth try, so I find it easier to just type out my complaint. The flip side is that my treatment of people who are even newer than I is often quite gentle. A good example is that 24 IP on Gospel of John.

Having said all this, I'm not really happy with the dynamics of the situation. When it comes to the Bible articles, it seems as though there are two camps, and I'm squarely in the middle of the more modern group, trying to keep the articles from sliding off into the fringes of literalism. I have seen a pack mentality form, with insane amounts of mudslinging at the drop of a hat. I've seen articles Protected for weeks, and one-word changes disputed for even longer. It's unpleasant, but I'm not sure how to escape it. The mediation effort was stillborn and is even now stalled. Dealing with rule violations on a case-by-case basis is perhaps necessary, but doesn't move us forward. I understand that there are deeper forms of dispute resolution, but I don't understand the process well enough to figure out even where to start. And, if we're going to be honest, I'm not sure if the required effort would be rewarded with results. I work slowly; it took me over 15 minutes to put together a simple 3RR report.

I could go on, but I hope I've made my point. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I, too, think there may be something of a fire there. Please understand: this is feedback. It's not an accusation; it's not something you need to respond to in any way. It's raw data from a fellow wayfarer (and WP noob) with no axe to grind, offered for your private consideration. We've disagreed on a couple of things, but as far as I'm concerned we've never had any personal conflict. I'm writing this because you're a smart and organized thinker who will remain a great asset to Wikipedia -- provided that you don't get bitter, burned out, or banned, all futures that seem plausible to me at this point.

I'll be blunt, not because I'm venting my personal spleen but because I know you like to engage directly. You are a drama magnet. Many people with whom you have differences of opinion emerge from their encounters bearing a personal animus against you. I know you have thick skin and can take it; however, I think that in some sense it's incumbent on you to internalize more of the social cost that this wake of bad karma imposes on the community. Much of your WP time is soaked up by drama management, and there's a similar cost for everyone else involved, for the administrators that get pulled in, for the innocent bystanders who have to navigate through war zones as they go about their business. You shouldn't be here only to build the best possible encyclopedia. You should also be here to build the best possible encyclopedia-building community, and that means one where people enjoy spending time and where they feel their time is spent on useful work rather than wheel-spinning.

"But why should I have to mollycoddle these jerkwads?" As Judge Learned Hand (almost) said, being a jerkwad is a state of mind, one that's accessible to anyone. Your scorched-earth approach to conflict resolution creates these jerkwads. Yet you don't seem to have much awareness of the way that your own behavior contributes to the dramas you're constantly embroiled in. Hence, me piling on to say "yes, I see that too".

I haven't read this book yet, but it's definitely on my list. It sounds like a good resource for anyone on Wikipedia. On a more obscure note, I loved this novel (despite the mixed reviews on Amazon), and I think there's something of a vague parallel contained therein. I can't be more specific without spoiling the book, but it's an analogy I often see in day to day life.

Please feel free to delete this after reading. I would have sent it privately if I could. Best regards. NillaGoon (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nilla, while I don't always agree with you, and that includes some of what you said now, I never imagined for a moment that you were being anything but fair. I think it might be better not to attempt to refute your arguments at this time. As for deleting what you wrote, I see no reason to do so. Thank you for caring enough to comment. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Nilla, I have too much respect for you to argue with you, but I'd like to tell you about a discussion I had today that might explain a bit about the fire you see. I suspect the connection won't be obvious at the start, but I assure you that you'll see it if you're patient with my long-winded analogies.

I know a young woman who is a deadly serious World of Warcraft player. She's passionate, knowledgeable and highly accomplished, and this extends to her hobby: she runs a top-ranked raiding guild. She has a talent for sharing her infectious enthusiasm, illuminating otherwise boring topics with her vivid interest and deep understanding. This is probably a good thing, since one of her little foibles is that she'll launch into long, though interesting, monologues about "the game" at the drop of a hat. Any hat, anytime. So, today, I made the mistake of mentioning the idea of Wikipedia as a crude MMORPG and was rewarded with a speech that wound up covering some basics that I hadn't been aware of.

I already knew that players chose specific races (she's a Blood Elf) and classes (she's a Paladin), but I didn't realize that these are distinct from their 'roles' in a raid. Naturally, the most common role is Damage; hurting the enemy. Every class has some ability to fill this role, though some are more specialized than others. However, if everyone just did damage, failure would be guaranteed. It turns out that most characters are, in her words, "glass cannons"; they can dish it out but they can't take it. To keep them alive, players of certain classes can take the role of Healer, doing no damage to the enemy but negating it in their allies. This helps, but it's still not enough, because a typical character can die in the time it takes to cast a healing spell on them. The solution is for one or two players whose class allows heavy armor to take the role of Tank.

A tank does a bit of damage, but it's really incidental to their main goal of getting the enemy angry enough at them to focus their fire. To this end, tanks are equipped with "hate-enhancing" abilities that have names like Taunt, Growl, Blood Aspect or Righteous Fury, allowing them to "maintain aggro" by ensuring that they're the ones that receive the brunt of the damage. Naturally, they need the brunt of the healing in order to keep on standing, but their shields, magic and heavy armor all do their part to let them shrug off blows that would decapitate a typical character. But neither toughness nor being loud and annoying are enough; they also need to be thinkers and organizers. A tank, by virtue of their role, has to lead the raid by deciding what strategy will be followed, when it's time to "pull" the enemy into combat, and how everyone will be positioned. In other words, besides being a dumb "meat shield" that willingly takes the beatings because it can, a tank must look at the big picture and keep things moving forward. Sure, they can get input from others and form a consensus, but the group looks to them to bark out the marching orders when the time comes to act.

The first thing that came to mind is that, when I play the real-life role of manager, I act as a Tank. On the one hand, I lead the team, setting goals and directions, though without getting involved in any more detail than is actually necessary. On the other, I am the public face of the team for the rest of the organization, and it is my job to protect my team from distractions, demands and doofiness. Whenever an outside manager directly approaches a team member, I lure them into my office and find a way to satisfy reasonable requests without compromising on our other commitments, while politely shrugging off other types of requests. I learned the hard way, early on, that it was best to trust those who have shown themselves worthy and delegate as much of my authority as possible, lest I interfere by micro-managing. Instead, the better job I do in protecting my people so that they can do their jobs, the better they make me look when they succeed. In the end, my main job to "take one for the team", again and again.

Now, I would be the first to admit that Wikipedia is not Warcraft, any more than the office is, but there are strange and perhaps enlightening parallels. The enemy here is the text itself; we have to beat these dragon-sized mounds of words into submission, conforming them to our will. The closest equivalent of Damage is constructive editing; adding to and rewriting articles based on our research skills and knowledge of the subject matter. Just as every Warcraft character can do damage, every Wikipedia editor can edit constructively, and most do to some extent. However, there are also distractions that interfere with such editing, including content disputes, personality mismatches and just plain obnoxious behavior. In the face of such an onslaught, editors eventually get "bitter, burned out, or banned". Most commonly, they just lose heart because their hard work is casually destroyed, but sometimes they stick around long enough to be worn down by endless debates, or they get baited and tricked into receiving long blocks. Either way, their morale is crushed and they depart.

This leaves open a role akin to that of a Tank; someone who makes defensive edits, not necessarily contributing heavily to improving the article, but doing everything they can to keep it from getting degraded. The Wikipedia tank needs thick skin so that they can engage in protracted debates without serious injury to their morale. They need to be ready to revert undesirable changes in whole or in part, without allowing it to devolve into edit-warring. They look for subtle vandalism and the insertion of bias, fixing it and adding protective citations. They leave annoying little messages asking people to be less obnoxious. More than anything, they have to be visible targets for those who would interfere with constructive editing.

The role needs endurance as much as strength or intelligence, because tanks take a great deal of damage. You can see it on their user talk page, which accumulates warnings, threats and insults. They get called dicks by admins, they get accused of violating the rules, they even get their user page vandalized. Tanks stick out because they have to, and because they are relatively uncommon. Just as in a raid group, not everyone is capable of playing the tank, and even if they are, we need most people focusing on Damage most of the time. As a result, the Wikipedia tank is not likely to be popular, particularly among admins, and will gather opponents over time.

It should be clear by now that, as in real life, I take a tank role in Wikipedia. But, just as Warcraft tanks sometimes "off-heal" by casting a few, quick healing spells in between ducking blows, I sometimes play the Wikipedia role of Healer. In Wikipedia terms, this refers to doing what is necessary to keep other editors alive when they've taken damage. For example, when an IP newbie got bitten hard by an edit warrior who then got the page partially protected, I tried to stave off a block, remove the unequal protection and educate the new user. The sort of editing done in the healing role is neither constructive nor defensive, as it is largely confined to article talk pages and pages within the Wikipedia namespace. Still, while some tanks can heal themselves and others, they need as much healing as they can get. They need the support of editors who are willing to do their part to keep the tank standing in the face of the constant stream of beatings.

That's the role you took on Insane Clown Posse, and continued in Tea Party movement mediation, and I appreciate it. Now you're saying that you think there might be fire where there's smoke, but I'm telling you that it's just the glint coming off my bloody shield. You're right when you say that, as things stand, I am on a course of destruction, but like any good tank, I can keep on standing for a long time if I have enough healing, and when the time comes, I can always switch off to another role. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A note...

...per your request. I decided to address the issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And it looks like you have it well in hand. As soon as it's relisted, I'll be glad to chime in with solid reasons for keeping it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Not at all. Just when I tried it the link didn't work. Perhaps I hadn't copied the link properly. I meant no offense. :-) Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

None taken: I assumed good faith so I just asked you. Someone else has already reverted you, so it's all settled. Dylan Flaherty 00:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Koch

Four separate editors agree that there is an NPOV problem with the article. I will seek a topic ban for you if you continue to refuse to collaborate on editing and continue to improperly edit-war by removing the tag again without consensus. Read WP:NPOVD. THF (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If they believe it exists, it is incumbent upon them to reveal these flaws. Otherwise, it really doesn't matter how many people are unhappy.

As I said in my comment, the right way to proceed is to report this at WP:BLPN, which is the correct format for disputes about neutrality of biographies. Unfortunately, instead of dealing with the meat of the content dispute, you threaten me with personal sanctions. This is hardly productive and will be held against you in any dispute-resolution forum. Dylan Flaherty 13:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_10#A_source.3F_Cover_Story_of_Sojourners_November_2010_.22The_Theology_of_the_Tea_Party:_Can_libertarianism_be_reconciled_with_Christian_faith.3F.22_by_Jim_Wallis_... Did you look into the Sojourners articles to see if any fit in the Tea Party movement? 99.52.150.183 (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise you to look carefully before adding any. The anon has an extreme POV, and frequently misinterprets sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin is an Edit warring Cyberbully, see http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Arthur+Rubin&blocks=true (for Global "Contributions") and Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin (in en.Wikipedia), and User:Arthur_Rubin makes "hit-lists": User:Arthur_Rubin/watch. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rubin is a pegasus, and we should happy to bask in his glory, however indirectly. Please redact your incivil but factually accurate insinuations. Dylan Flaherty 00:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

CPCs...again

Care to comment on whether we should describe CPCs as "typically Christian" or "typically affiliated with a Christian organization"?

Cloonmore argues that we can only describe them as Christian if they proselytize ("Christian" as a stand-alone modifier connotes that the primary or significant purpose of a center is to proselytize or evangelize), and Schrandit argues that we don't really know what "Christian" means so we can't use it (The definition of "Christian" is unfixed and it unclear what is meant by it, and what can be inferred by it). I argue that it's extremely obvious from the many sources cited that the centers' religiosity goes beyond the nebulous "affiliation" and that to suppress that is misrepresenting them, and that Cloomore's and Schrandit's arguments are specious and against both policy and practice (how about we just go with what the sources tell us instead of individual editors' hand-wringing about the true meaning of Christianity?).

-- Roscelese (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we back down?

Hey, I just wanted to drop a note here. I don't know what happened here in our interactions. Obviously, each of us feel like the other has gotten this very wrong, but I would hope that we can embrace the spirit of wikipedia and good faith and try to work constructively. I would suggest that we both try to get a more civil tone on the discussion pages and make fewer direct edits to the page and try to address more on the discussion pages and get consensus. That would be more appropriate for a set of issues like this that have recency problems, etc., anyways. And given how contentious these issues are and that there are WP:BLP issues involved, it would make sense to be very cautious about how the issues are addressed. MBMadmirer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

It's out of my hands at this point. Dylan Flaherty 13:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Your sig

I didn't like that Sugar brought up what I read, apparently falsely, as out-of-place personal stuff. Anyway, FYI, I've noticed that your signature font has appeared differently for me on different networks, like my office, some publics, and as well between browsers. Sometimes it's the cursive, just yesterday it was the standard. No kidding. Color remains stable. Go figure. But it is a little weird. Maybe something strange with the Wiki works? -Digiphi (Talk) 04:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My best guess is that some of the machines you use don't have Script MT Bold. Dylan Flaherty 04:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Digiphi, I asked around for advice and was informed that the right answer is to list "cursive" as a back-up font. Please let me know if you see the following signature as cursive while seeing the above one as regular. Dylan Flaherty 19:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

CPC's

Thanks for the friendly comment on my talk page. I'd appreciate it next time if you'd refrain from issuing vague threats of "ugliness." It tends not to inspire cooperative efforts and warm fellow-feeling. Anyhow, what's indisputably ugly is the Crisis pregnancy center article. The edit of which you complain removed a POV sentence that was unsupported by your cites (all of which remain elsewhere in the article, I believe) and inappropriate for the lead. Your insertion of that sentence circumvented ongoing discussion on the article's Talk page, in which you were a participant. Cloonmore (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Having been part of two Dispute Resolutions, I can tell you with great certainty that the process is ugly and unlikely to leave anyone happy.

As it turns out, you are mistaken about the details. The sentence that you object to was in the article all along; I just moved it up, as John Carter suggested. In the process, I cleaned it up, and then Roscelese tweaked it.

Let's be very frank: there is absolutely no question that Care Net makes false medical claims about abortion: I verified it myself, and anyone else can, too. That alone is sufficient basis to restore the sentence. But we also have 11 other citations, none of which you've addressed with anything more substantial as a hand wave.

Bottom line: the deletion will not stand. It violates our rules and contradicts our sources. I am giving you a chance to revert it so that nobody has to revert it for you. Dylan Flaherty 03:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, friend, but if you think that the sentence you removed from the text is the same as the sentence that you added to the lead, then you're delusional. Cloonmore (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, just to be clear, I have no objection if you wish to restore the original sentence to its original placement in the body of the article, pending discussion on the Talk page. Cloonmore (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody who calls me delusional is my friend, so you're going to have to tone down your language unless you want to be reported to WP:WQA. If you had a single reliable source stating that CPC's are generally accurate with regard to medical claims, you might have a point, but that appears not to be the case. Dylan Flaherty 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Again with the threats. Report whatever you think reportable. The sentences that you think are the same are not the same. You materially changed the sentence when you moved it to the lead. If you still maintain that they're the same, then you're self-deluded. I don't know what else to tell you. It wasn't an insult, more an observation. Cloonmore (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Civility

I know you took my joke earlier amiss, and I apologize- I looked at the cartoons linked from your talk page and thought it would be appropriate. But please let's keep the tone collegial. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I was doing so. If there's anything I said that you feel is insulting, please let me know and I'll redact it. Dylan Flaherty 04:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I meant "Click the text with the underline. It's called a hyperlink." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That was intended to be humorous, not uncivil, but I'll go fix it now. Dylan Flaherty 05:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed! Sorry about that. Maybe I should have used a smiley. Dylan Flaherty 05:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, we both had the same kind of problem with each other in the same day :P BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Guess so. Glad we resolved it without spilling more than a few pints of blood. Dylan Flaherty 05:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Tag removal

Your removals two times of the neutrality tag from Crisis pregnancy center article was improper. As you know, since you were and are a participant, a lengthy discussion was and is ongoing about the article's POV. Per WP:NPOVD and Template:POV, your preemptive removal was improper. Please don't remove the tag until discussion is concluded and consensus reached. Cloonmore (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, you don't get to drop a tag without also starting a discussion. You know this, so the above notice is pretty much meaningless. Dylan Flaherty 20:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Revert to last good version"

Er, that revert restored some of the language we've decided against, specifically with regard to religiosity. As well as the old phrasing of the bit about false medical information, which you'd wanted to change. Roscelese (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I made the change in haste. I'll go correct it now. Thanks for keeping a sharp eye out for my errors. Dylan Flaherty 02:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I made the changes. Please let me know if there's more to do, or feel free to fix things yourself. Dylan Flaherty 02:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the order of the information in the religion section is not optimal, and I'll probably alter that at some point, but I'm working on a couple of other articles at the moment, so it's not urgent. Roscelese (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Same. Thanks again for catching my errors. Dylan Flaherty 02:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What does it take?

Your mistake was in expecting any actual result. Noticeboards are not places to go to get an action performed. They exist more to solicit input. Even then, you're lucky to get one or two replies from outside editors. Further, note that WP:COI is a weak guideline that addresses status. If there are problems with an editors it's better to look at their behavior. COI can lead editors to break core policies, like NPOV, NOR, civility, etc., which are more easily enforceable than the COI guideline.   Will Beback  talk  10:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not out for blood. If I had reported this at WP:ANI with the sort of breathless prose that passes for normal there, the editor may well have been tarred and feathered community blocked or whatever, and that would be overkill.

So, yes, I think you're right, in that I had unrealistic expectations of being able to generate a measured and reasonable response. As always, thanks for your help. Dylan Flaherty 13:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

:)

Also, didn't want to mention this at talk:cpc, since talkpages are not forums, but I think you're pretty cool. :) Roscelese (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to say except that I'm flattered. Dylan Flaherty 23:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Be careful when editing bot settings

When you edited the COI noticeboard you accidentally changed a setting toward the top that broke automatic archiving by the bots (i.e., in adding the 's' to "|minthreadstoarchive = 1". I've taken the liberty to fix it, though, so no worries. :) --slakr^\ talk / 05:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I had no intention whatsoever of changing the bot settings. Thank you for fixing it. Dylan Flaherty 05:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

SP

The guards have spoken. Concensus is impossible. Continued debate will stifle your good humor. Buster Seven Talk 06:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I know what you speak of, but I absolutely reject the notion that a few loud people can ignore all of the rules and WP:OWN Sarah Palin. Despite their words, they cannot have a consensus, and I'm just bored enough to take them all to dispute resolution. You'll note that not a single one is willing to go to WP:BLPN, and there's a reason for that: the truth is not on their side. Dylan Flaherty 06:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd presume no one is "willing to go to WP:BLPN" because it would be the wrong venue. That noticeboard is chiefly for "editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period." If any given editor were to repeatedly (re)add the troublesome material over an extended period, I'm sure one or more editors would be more inclined to bring the matter up at WP:BLPN. The more appropriate venue for you, if you believe it to be critical that the content be included, would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. jæs (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken. If you read carefully, you might notice that it says:

"This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period."

I added the emphasis to make it clear that the second sentence just mentioned two representative examples of the sort of issue that the page is for, not an exhaustive list. I also highlighted that even the incomplete list includes "editing disputes".

While, WP:RFC/BIO is certainly a reasonable alternative, it's lower priority. If you genuinely believe that what I propose would be a BLP violation, the right place to report me and have me slapped down would be WP:BLPN. Good luck with that. Dylan Flaherty 07:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The general structure of Wikipedia provides noticeboards as a place to address acute editing disputes. We've had a content discussion, but I don't see an acute edit war — or a protracted edit dispute — that would justify wasting additional time at WP:BLP/N. I have no desire to "report" you, as I don't think you've done anything "wrong." But you can feel free to continue to poke the dead horse using whatever channel, venue, or process you feel most advantageous to your cause. jæs (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind advice. You can be certain that it will be valued appropriately. Dylan Flaherty 07:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Sarah Palin, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Kelly ^hi! 07:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You got the diff wrong, but I fixed it. I also looked at the reasons why Wikipedia won't report Willow's rant, and none of them apply to her mom's African ignorance. Dylan Flaherty 07:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the brackets, you edit-conflicted me. Yeah, the Willow stuff is unrelated to this. Kelly ^hi! 07:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad, because that means we can stop talking about her. Every time I see her name, I think of Willow, when my kids tell me I should be thinking of Willow. It makes me feel old and out of touch. Dylan Flaherty 08:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, we must be of a similar age, because I always think of the film first, too. Yeah, that ruling on the probation page was a recent one related to a couple of problematic editors at Bristol Palin. The probation goes back a couple of years and sprang from generally problematic editing at the Palin articles and a high admin burnout rate there. It's modeled on the probation at Barack Obama. I hope you weren't bothered by the template. Cheers - Kelly ^hi! 16:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I stopped celebrating my birthday some time ago, so I have no idea what my age is. :-)

Jokes aside, I do see that Sarah Palin is one of those articles. That's exactly why I think it's important to loosen the stranglehold. Of all the things we could add, the report of the Africa gaff is not the most important, but the resistance against it is very important. Dylan Flaherty 19:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll stop celebrating my birthdays too! Speaking of those articles, I imagine you would get a similar reaction if you tried to insert "57 states", "country of Europe", or other Obama gaffes into the Barack Obama article. Kelly ^hi! 20:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but if they're well-cited and relevant, I would not oppose their inclusion.

The Africa line is both. The key here is not the nature of the error but the way we found out about it and what it says about those involved. Dylan Flaherty 01:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

LGBT Parenting

Dylan, after reading your reprimand on my talk page in regard to supposedly unhelpful editing (which I responded to on my page), I was a bit surprised to see that you reverted a total of ten (10) edits I made on LGBT Parenting and described them all as "Bold." Some of them were simple proofreading edits. I am guessing that there is once sentence that you took issue with, so I have removed that one sentence and taken it to the talk page (though I doubt that will result in anything resembling a rational dialogue). Why zap every single other edit I made? Do you really have an issue with my correcting punctuation and capitalization? Talk about unproductive editing! Physician, heal thyself.184.74.22.161 (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The boldness refers to WP:BRD, as I already explained on your talk page. As for the changes, some of them were indeed proofreading, though some of those were not productive. Others, however, removed cited content, added unreliable sources, or generally violated WP:NPOV. I have made some effort to find the good changes mixed in with the bad so that they can be preserved, but my general philosophy is that the bad outweighs the good, because anyone can proofread. Dylan Flaherty 06:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. I must say that I'd be much more open to your suggestions if you actually pinpointed what you believed the problem was. Your previous comment at least provides a few hints, which is a start. As I just said on the LGBT Parenting page, I will make every effort to resolve legitimate issues that you point out that we can work toward a consensus and a better article.184.74.22.161 (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Start by reverting to the last acceptable version, then we'll talk. Dylan Flaherty 07:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

how to most easily handle stuff like that

Hi. If someone asks you not to post to their talk page, by far the most helpful and peaceful thing to do is, don't. See also WP:Don't template the regulars. That said, you could post the same kind of thing (not with a template) on the article talk page. You could also ask for more editor input through WP:Third opinion or a content WP:RFC. Moreover, you can always ask an experienced editor or an admin for help. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, I don't disagree. I've asked certain people not to post on my page, and I've generally been willing to honor these requests from others. In his case, I am much less willing to do so than normal because of his behavior.

There will be cases where I need to post on their user page. However, you're right: there are other things I can try first. Thanks for your help. Dylan Flaherty 12:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't post there anymore, it's not worth it and can be taken as a kind of WP:Hounding, please ask for help instead. Likewise if you find yourself wanting to ask an editor not to post on your talk page, or someone's asking that of you, it means something somewhere's amiss and that asking someone else for help is the next step. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Where would the right place be to ask for help? Dylan Flaherty 12:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any experienced editor whom you trust, any admin, me, as you please. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was half-expecting you to suggest I consult clergy, which in my case would be a terrible idea. :-)

Ok, do you have any specific advice here, other than not touching his user talk page? Dylan Flaherty 13:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, maybe clergy can help now and then, as to dealing with the teeth gnashing that goes on at an openly edited website like this one. That aside, I thought I answered that in the first post to this thread? If it's a content dispute, use the article talk page, follow WP:DR. If there are behaviour worries, tell an admin? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

He's a sweet old man, but he thinks the internet is found on the center line of a tennis court.

Ok, I'll follow that menu and see how it goes. Thanks again. Dylan Flaherty 13:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new about worries like that here. See also Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground, lots of editors have been through this kind of thing. Keep your cool, cite sources, don't get drawn into back and forth editing in the article space. Find other articles to edit (if you like) whilst dispute resolution plays out. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try. Dylan Flaherty 13:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Gwen Gale is a quality source for editor mediation. She has been a fair and impartial go-between in past dealings with certain petulant editors. Collecting adversaries is troublesome and stressfull. Dis-engage. Buster Seven Talk 16:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. My goal is not to fill my rogues gallery, but to improve some articles that have stalled. Dylan Flaherty 20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Haflinger Horses

A group of Haflinger horses from a new featured article. Mentioned as "best of the week" in the new Signpost. Note the similarities in color and profile. Amazingly, no inbreeding is evidenced. Haflingers were first transported to Belgium in 1966. I think the last one is deaf. I don't see any ears.Buster Seven Talk 04:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the link for you. Somehow, I suspect that article has fewer controversies than some of the others we've dealt with as of late. Dylan Flaherty 04:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Julian Assange

Edits like this are freaking me out. This sourcing isn't remotely good enough for an article on a living person, so what is the point of raising them in talk? --John (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to freak you out; trying to understand what's going on. I think the sourcing on that item is actually quite strong, but I'm not particularly clear on how it would fit into the article. Dylan Flaherty 07:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Sarah Palin. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Apologies for the template, but please do not continue down this road. Kelly ^hi! 08:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about the other user's comment, I suggest WP:WQA or WP:ANI. Kelly ^hi! 08:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• You can't do this. You're very close to being blocked for edit warring on talk pages. You should take this as a last warning: Don't refactor posts to talk pages, don't edit war on talk pages. If you need help with something on a talk page, ask for it (you've already been told the many ways you can do this). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that I have the right to refactor uncivil comments addressed to me anywhere on Wikipedia. Since you asked, I'm going to report this to WP:WQA. Let's see what comes of it. Dylan Flaherty 08:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Calling something sophistry is on the very mild end of uncivil and truth be told, wontedly says more about the one who posts it than anyone else. "Refactoring" here would mean "redacting," or removing the uncivil bit and leaving behind something like "[redacted]" but until you understand the policy more, you should ask someone else to look at and handle such things for you. Swapping out words in posts is never allowed. Edit warring over it is even worse. You should know this by now. Don't change talk page posts and don't edit war over talk page posts. Leave them be. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not agree that it was mild, particularly in context.

If the issue was the way I redacted it, then Kelly would have been quite free to alter that. For example, I would have been fine with "sophistry arguments", or "[arguments]".

In any case, I was about to revert my last edit to restore the original version, but Kelly beat me to it. Now that I've lodged a complaint at WQA, I'm leaving it alone. Dylan Flaherty 09:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

On en.Wikipedia, nobody but the poster can swap out (or add) words in talk page posts. Words are only redacted, or posts removed altogether, when things go way beyond the pale. Meanwhile, snarky posts tend to do the most harm to those who post them. WP:WQA will at least give you more input on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Dylan Flaherty 09:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To "hat" a comment like that[10] is not the way to go about this - we don't attempt to "silence" others. Please refrain from that - everyone is free to comment on that board. Doc talk 11:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe he was being extremely counterproductive, and given his extensive history, it would not shock me if it was intentional. Dylan Flaherty 11:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But for you to do that looks bad on your part. Rising above things is the best approach... Doc talk 11:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my view is that hatting it is a compromise between removing it (which would not be justifiable) and pretending it has any merit whatsoever (which would likewise not be justifiable). Dylan Flaherty 12:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Let other editors have their input on something like that. As I said earlier, most incivility of that kind harms the poster more than anyone else. Hatting is a kind of refactoring, you shouldn't hat comments yourself, which have to do with you, moreover on noticeboard or other project pages. You've already been warned, so let's put it this way for now, please stop looking for ways to refactor other editors' comments. Leave them be. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Dylan Flaherty 12:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As to what sophistry means, I've commented here. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, I've responded in more detail [11]. Dylan Flaherty 12:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Don't mind me on the edit summary on the Talk:Glenn Beck. I was just a little out of it from yesterday. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, while it was good advice for everyone, the comment was was largely due to the ongoing personal conflict between Deliciousgrapefruit and Cptnono. I'd like both of them to drop their sticks and put on proper boxing gloves. :-) Dylan Flaherty 19:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I hear you! That would be nice. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's why I think I'm right

Consider the following hypothetical quote:

Writing for NARAL in 2003, Kate Michelman identified the National Right to Life Committee as one of twenty-three organizations which take bigoted and sexist ideas that originated in misogynist writings of the patriarchal past and try to make them socially acceptable.

Not, I think, a very encyclopedic way to enter this information. Unless he actually reads the source, the reader doesn't know if it's the editor or Michelman who is using buzz words such as bigoted, sexist, and misogynist to describe what the National right to Life Committee is doing. That's why either so-called scare quotes, or something like "according to Michelman" should be used after the word "which." Regards Badmintonhist (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Incident noticeboard

I have raised an issue regarding your recent editing at the administrators' noticeboard. I'm required to notify you, but I think it may be helpful for you to respond there if you wish to do so. jæs (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"It would be very easy to find pro-Palin quotes from you." Please do so and share them here or else strike your comment. (Just before you try to fire those particular blanks again, you should know that I disagree with her on practically every "current" political issue and I don't belong to her party (or movement), but I make a point of not disparaging or praising living people on Wikipedia. I also make a point of doing my best to defend vulnerable biographies, like hers, from editors who come with a clear ax to grind, one way or another. I'm sure you'll also find it fascinating to note that I was the first person to criticize the fluffing of her article that went on leading up to her being announced as the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008. Not that any of this will make a difference to you, since you want to show she's "ignorant," our policies and consensus be damned.) jæs (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to inform you that very little of what you've just said is true. In particular, you are wildly incorrect about my motives, and you are clearly violating WP:AGF in order to arrive at that incorrect conclusion. Essentially, I would have to be intentionally lying, since I have stated clearly that those are not my motives.

I would also add that coming here to demand that I strike out my statements from WP:AN/I smacks of intimidation. Therefore, I am going to politely ask you to refrain from posting anything on my talk page. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty 07:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And I'll ask you again to provide proof here, or anywhere, of your assertion that "it would be very easy to find pro-Palin quotes from [me]." jæs (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

banned from Sarah Palin for two weeks

Sarah Palin is a high traffic, political BLP which is under sanctions (Talk:Sarah_Palin/Article_probation). Owing to your ongoing disruption of the talk page, which has now spilled over onto ANI, I am banning you from making edits to any Sarah Palin topic or its talk page, broadly construed. This means you shouldn't make any edits having to do with Sarah Palin anywhere on this website, for two weeks. If you breach this sanction, you'll be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but stopping me from defending myself in the middle of an AN/I is not even remotely fair. I will therefore protest this block. Oh, and please do not post on my talk page again. Dylan Flaherty 11:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just drop the stick before you get hit by the boomerang please? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you won't answer my question, I'm also going to politely ask you not to post on my page. Thank you and goodbye. Dylan Flaherty 11:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:BAN, WP:BLOCK, and WP:RESTRICT (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason."

It doesn't look like you can stop me from appealing the ban, so I am continuing to do so. Dylan Flaherty 11:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You may discuss the topic ban - and how to improve your Wikipedia editing - with Gwen Gale directly on her talkpage. See my talkpage for details. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)