User talk:Ilkali/Archive 2008

about signs

I hope you remember about me and my signs. If somebody else will read my story and make a paper about this will I be able to claim the paternity of this idea? Signs
Raffethefirst (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an authority on intellectual property. I'd imagine the only way to guarantee that the idea is firmly attributed to you is to publish it yourself. Regarding Wikipedia, though, you should be aware that astrology is rightly considered pseudoscience, and so it's difficult to identify a source that's both favorable to the topic and reliable. There's no guarantee that having material published on this topic will merit said material's inclusion in Wikipedia. Ilkali (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Having this theory written on Wikipedia is not the same as publishing it anyway else ? Can I say: I am the first that had this idea. I wrote it on Wikipedia. Or can you tell me if is somebody that is a specialist on intellectual property and can answer? Thanks.

Raffethefirst (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Having this theory written on Wikipedia is not the same as publishing it anyway" - Correct.

"can you tell me if is somebody that is a specialist on intellectual property and can answer?" - Sorry, I don't know anyone who could help you. Ilkali (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok so the data base of Wikipedia is a reliable source of trust and I can say anytime that this theory is my and I have firs published on Wikipedia. Great!! So if I ever see this idea published on signs section on Wikipedia what do I do? I link it to my page where I wrote it first as a citation? :)

Raffethefirst (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ok so the data base of Wikipedia is a reliable source of trust and I can say anytime that this theory is my and I have firs published on Wikipedia" - That's not even remotely like what I said. You haven't published it on Wikipedia, and I am skeptical to whether describing it on Wikipedia, as you did in your user page, legally makes it your intellectual property.

"So if I ever see this idea published on signs section on Wikipedia what do I do?" - It will never be "published" in Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not publish. It delivers information published elsewhere. If you see your claims on Wikipedia and they are not cited, you should remove them. If they are cited and appropriate to the article they appear in, you should leave them. Ilkali (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please

Stop reverting my edits that I make to Template:God. It's not pointless and the first was reverted without further detail.--Angel David (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the first for reasons I thought obvious: the image presented a view of God that is not universally held. Justify your edits on the talk page before making them. Ilkali (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you stop erasing every edit I make. I don't care how porly written or useless they are just leave them be. Please, stop erasing them.--Angel David (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"I don't care how porly written or useless they are just leave them be". You don't really get Wikipedia, do you?

I think the only edit of yours that I've recently reverted is the one about Greek mythology in Devil, and I stand by that. The fact that Cronus rebelled against Zeus isn't sufficient to call him a Devil character, nor is Ares' penchant for war. Hades comes closer, but, as you yourself wrote, he's not evil. If you want to put that section back, be prepared to source it. Ilkali (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Ilkali, please take another look at WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Your accusation that I have not been reading the discussion or attempting to genuinely participate in it is not only incorrect, but inflammatory. Direct your comments toward the arguments made, not the editors who make them. Nick Graves (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Proper Nouns

First you say they don't capitlize and now you say they do?--Angel David ^{Commune with Heaven}My Angelic gifts 01:20, 3 May , 2008 (User Talker Contributor)

No, I'm fairly sure I've never said they don't. Can you source that? Ilkali (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how do you want to handle the "mythical" Angel Gabriel?

You've reverted twice at ‎Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). This is a pretty clear WP:NPOV issue to me; I'm not a religious person myself, but I regard the "mythical Gabriel" an unnecessary and pointless slap at some Christians, Jews and Muslims, since the second dictionary definition is "fictitious". Using Gabriel as an example isn't necessary in a paragraph that discusses fairies and Tolkien's fictional characters; they are sufficient. We could talk about this at either WP:Third opinion or WP:POVN if you like. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel

Ilkali, I think we got off on the wrong foot, and if that is my fault I apologize. I wanted to step back and clarify a couple of things. I do not disagree that Gabriel is a mythical character from Abrahamic religious narratives, but Gabriel is also more than a "mythical character" from Abrahamic religious narratives, and there's the rub. I think the guideline is there to treat similar types of entities no matter how they are considered, by whom they are being considered and/or within what context (whether academic or popular) they are framed. That really is my only point. These types of figures may all be considered "mythical" within some contexts, or "religious", "sacred", "divine" or what have you within other contexts. I don't think living religions get to hold a trump card saying that their narratives can never be referred to as myths because people still truly believe them. In fact some definitions of myth presuppose that all myths were so "truly believed in" at some point in time. That said I know that there are academic contexts within which the angel Gabriel, and similar figures, are named without the framing of mythology or the specific notion of mythical narratives, and I also know that there are many religious people who, perhaps because they cannot divorce popular notions of myth from academic ones, will always take offense to having their sacred characters and stories related to myth. These are in fact good reasons to be explicit about the breadth of category and not make it seem like these types of beings are only "mythical". Sometimes it is more appropriate to call them "religious". Anyway, I'm sure I've not told you anything new, but I hope at least my tone seems different. I don't think we actually disagree on all that much. Best.PelleSmith (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning(s)

(the following is a merging of three sections opened in quick succession by User:Alastair Haines. Ilkali (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

Warning

After tolerating personal attacks for some time, I am now warning you that editing other user's posts on talk pages is unacceptable behaviour.

You can demonstrate good faith by improving your participation in the project in the following ways:

1. ceasing personal attacks
2. not editing other user's talk page postings
3. learning reflective listening techniques
4. learning strategies for gaining consensus
5. considering the difference between Wiki lawyering and constructive contribution to discussion.

Please feel free to ask for clarification if the policies or suggestions are not clear. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't edit your post, I removed it. Removing inappropriate posts is not inappropriate behaviour. You need to grow up, Alastair. That's how you can improve your participation in the project. Ilkali (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't edit your post, I removed it. Wikilawyering.

Removing inappropriate posts is not inappropriate behaviour. Insisting on removing after they are restored without providing an argument is inappropriate.

No further discussion from me in this thread. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Second warning

(Posted after Ilkali removed post a second time, after warning, and without discussion.) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reply to the first warning includes a personal attack. If you remove my reply to Andowney again. I'll have to take this further. There is no precedent at Wiki for anyone to unilaterally remove posts from other people's discussion. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Your reply to the first warning includes a personal attack". My bad! I should've advised you to learn maturity optimisation techniques. Then it'd be constructive criticism, right?

"There is no precedent at Wiki for anyone to unilaterally remove posts from other people's discussion". {{notaforum}} is included in almost 1000 pages. WP:TALK: "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal". No precedent?

Part of growing up is accepting that you can be wrong. Ilkali (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant discussions. Explain perichoresis in your own words Ilkali. Name three scholars who are widely cited on the topic. I assume you can do this and thereby are competant to judge what is relevant.

Part of growing up is accepting that you can be wrong. Indirect personal attack. How many times have you admitted error Ilkali?

End of my comment in this thread. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You have now reverted my reply to Andowney three times, with no attempt to seek compromise or support from third parties. You are sabotaging a very long standing discussion that is coming close to resolution.

Actions:

1. restoring my reply to Andowney
2. reporting you for uncivil editing
3. final notice to you for 3RR

You can avoid the 3RR report and risk of blocking by refraining from further reversions; and by instead attempting to make a case, explaining why you have not removed previous discussion, and how my reply to the last post fails to interact with the current issues. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"You have now reverted my reply to Andowney three times, with no attempt to seek compromise or support from third parties". You have now reverted my removal of your off-topic post three times, with no attempt to seek compromise or support from third parties.

"and by instead attempting to make a case, explaining why you have not removed previous discussion,". I didn't deem previous discussion to be as blatantly off-topic. If you'd like to argue that it was, I'm all ears. Ilkali (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't deem. Sorry Ilkali, I will not accept my posts being subject to your unilateral judgement. I'm happy to hear arguments. If you pursuade me, I'll edit them myself. So far, despite being asked, you have not engaged with the content of what you deleted, to show how it is irrelevant. If you did engage, it would be immediately evident that the text is relevant. Describe how three issues from foregoing discussion are relevant to the article (since you accept they are).

On second thoughts, don't bother, I don't have time to go into irrelevant tangents defending how my comments are relevant. Engage with the content of my comments as they bear on the topic. If you can't see how they apply, leave the discussion to those who can.

End of troll feeding.

I'm not going to spend time continuing a discussion that you've already declared over. Ilkali (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

---

WP:Wikiquette alerts#Personal attacks and deletion of talk page postings

I note you have left the comment in place now. Thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

---

As a personal policy, I try not to say things behind people's backs unless I say them face-to-face first.

I also try to discover if I'm the only one who reads things the way I do.

I have asked User talk:Nick Graves#User:Ilkali to comment on my perceptions of your approach to editing Ilkali. I have left identical comments at the talk pages of other users I see from your talk page you have been co-operating with on various projects.

From what I can gather, you have a sharp mind and a fair bit of energy. I'd love for you to enjoy using that within the Wiki community. I am quite serious about reflective listening and consensus building. Reflective listening is easy. Consensus building is much harder. Wiki is a good forum for developing both. I know no-one who is perfect at either skill.

Unless you are interested in gender or God, I'm not quite sure why you are involved with this article. I haven't actually heard you express an opinion on either topic as yet. All I've heard is your comments regarding MoS or other guideline issues. Thanks for your concern, but Andowney and I are pretty up on a range of style and Wiki policies, so we're pretty set on that score. I know there are articles screaming for copy-edits. Jainism and related articles are fascinating, give a bit of an opportunity to refine Sanskrit skills, and really need working over for basic English expression, let alone MoS. One of the main reasons I don't want to waste time arguing about details at Gender of God is I'd rather help out Jainism. You could do this too. There are lots of places to employ your skills.

If you want to defeat me personally in some area related to language, I wouldn't choose ancient languages, diachronic linguistics or the semantics of natural language as the battlefields of choice. Especially if the content is theological. I started studying Greek and Latin at 12, Sanskrit at 16, Arabic at 20 and have since added Hebrew, Sumerian and various other languages. I am now 42. You could probably whallop me in Khoisan, Caucasian and Amerind families and any number of modern languages, but why bother? It'd be hard anyway, because I don't contribute that far out of my own fields of interest. Please consider applying your knowledge of sources to any of the considerable gaps in Wiki.

Have a nice day. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"I am quite serious about reflective listening and consensus building. Reflective listening is easy. Consensus building is much harder". The lack of self-awareness that you're demonstrating is a large part of why I say you need to grow up. When we clashed over the lead of Gender of God, you made no attempt to converge on an amicable solution. You wilfully ignored the majority of what I said and stonewalled any proposed changes while being patronising and dismissive. If you have any listening or consensus-building skills, you didn't demonstrate them.

"If you want to defeat me personally in some area related to language [...]". I've no interest in 'defeating' you. I'd rather you just get out of the way. Ilkali (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Theism

I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist on a response from you at Talk:Theism; specifically an elucidation of your remarkable presumptions of "consensus" and "resistance", and an explanation why self-contradictory cruft has to be preserved, and why that should be done despite also being in violation of OR, RS, V and NOT. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I guarantee you a response within 24 hours. Ilkali (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

References to Burke's articles

Coming back to the matter we discussed, you have not yet replied to mine of May 24, posted on my talk page (where you first began our discussion.It would be good to hear from you; if I don't, I'll probably make the entries suggested in my 7 and 8.Finisklin (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've created a Wikiquette alert about the issue here. Ilkali (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave my talk page posts alone

You are wrong, you are not in line with policy. I will restore my posts until someone presents me with a polite request and a good reason.

I've warned you personally about trolling already. Until you start showing courtesy, I shall continue to deal with you the way your behaviour deserves. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The good reason has been given by two separate people now: Your edit is clearly discussion of the topic rather than of the article, and is therefore in violation of WP:TALK. As for politeness: It is childish in the extreme to refuse to play by the rules until asked nicely.

"I've warned you personally about trolling already". You've accused me of trolling without ever providing any rationale for the accusation. Until you can do at least that much, I ask that you assume good faith.

"Until you start showing courtesy, I shall continue to deal with you the way your behaviour deserves". Excellent idea. Why not open a WQA and then ignore the results when they turn against you? Ilkali (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My edit is clearly discussion of improvement to the article, and part of a much longer discussion. Since no-one has actually discussed the issues with me, I doubt they can evaluate that properly, and have certainly not borught any discussion to consensus, if they haven't interacted with one of the parties involved.

But leaving the unresolved issue of the talk page aside, a thought crossed my mind for a constructive way forward. An editor who makes substantial contributions to an article (rather than just seeking to provide what seem to that editor to be corrections) is in a much stronger position. The article as it stands is woeful. Several religions have little content or sourcing, some religions are left out altogether. From memory, Islam and Mormonism need serious attention. Sikhism could be improved. If you could find a good source and write it up neutrally, it would be great for the article, and would incidently prove me wrong in my assessment of you.

It's a simple enough idea. There's plenty of room to build the article without quibbling over details. In fact, in the course of doing so, you might even discover that some of the points I make actually make sense. Alternatively, you might find evidence from reliable sources that I'm wrong about some things after all. The bottom line at Wiki is that sources are king, not editors. One source beats any number of editors, or Wiki could never be trusted. Wiki's all about copying sources into articles, not about editors debating what articles should say. The latter does need to happen, but try bringing some sources to the article if you want to participate in the debate. Believe me, it'll change everything. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Special treatment of creation myths

Hi,

How are you? This is about the "Creation myth" page, and you undoing my thing at 07:40, 11 June 2008. I do not agree with you that the Judaism/Cristianity entry should contain a paragraph with a caveat that commentators do not take the story literally, while the other entries do not have such a part. Treat them all as equal! The wiki is just a list of stories, not a religious discussion. Cheers, Stutters (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI

When you discuss a user's actions on ANI, it's generally expected that you will notify them of the discussion by leaving a note about it on their talk page. Not doing so can be considered less than forthright. I've notified Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) of your ANI discussion about that editor. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Continued attempts to revert an article to a disputed revision is edit-warring. Please propose specific changes for consensus before reverting away from a stable version of that article. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You are edit-warring against consensus, Alastair. Given that you were already blocked for precisely that, I find it laughable that you are now here to "warn" me. Ilkali (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was blocked because an admin failed to see that I was defending against edit-warrers. The usual procedure is to block everyone. Your approach to asserting misinformation on talk pages works, but only for so long. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You were blocked because other people's definitions of edit warring don't include an "unless you're Alastair Haines" clause. Ilkali (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page headers

(note: Alastair brought this topic here from his own talk page, where I made the following comment: [1]. Ilkali (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

I'd like to accomodate you regarding starting talk page sections, but in two years of doing it, no one else has ever commented, and I don't find it a problem when others do it. You're the only "political" kind of editor I've met, who lobbies and works talk pages. I don't feel particularly inclined to oblige, but I'll try; I am, however, a creature of habit, so I don't know if I'll remember.

I am warning you, yet again about personal attacks, though. There's nothing "misleading" about starting new sections within others, since they display clearly on the page. In this case, though, at least I can read you charitably as meaning you assume headings will be added in a certain way, and are surprised when other methods are used, without implying anything about motives. So, I'll make nothing of it. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"I am warning you, yet again about personal attacks, though". I'm speechless. It's a testament to your ability to interpret anything even remotely critical as a personal attack that you assumed I was accusing you of being deliberately misleading, when I so clearly meant that the false impressions were a simple, unintended artefact of how you make comments.

"I'd like to accomodate you regarding starting talk page sections, but in two years of doing it, no one else has ever commented". Like I said, it's not a big deal. But since the way I described is at least as easy, and it makes the edit history more readable, I thought it was worth mentioning. I made an entirely neutral, helpful suggestion, and it would behoove you to take it with some dignity. Ilkali (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, on this particular occasion, I can indeed easily accept your claim of good faith. However, yet again, there's the implication that I might not be responding with "dignity". You just don't seem to be able to say anything to me without some kind of "putting me in my place". I just don't get it. From my perspective, it feels like you're talking to someone else. Regarding dignity, I'll let that one pass me by, I don't aim for dignity anyway. I would accuse myself of perhaps being ungracious, and that actually concerns me. I strive to be gracious, whatever the barbs, but I just can't work you out. I feel something was eating you before ever you visited Gender of God, perhaps I'm wrong, but perhaps I'm right but I'll never know what. People interest me far more than "presenting issues". Alastair Haines (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"As I said, on this particular occasion, I can indeed easily accept your claim of good faith". And yet: "I am warning you, yet again about personal attacks". I can't say a single word to you, on any topic, without you regurgitating the same old vehement accusations. You need to accept that you're being needlessly hostile, ask yourself why, and move the hell past it. Ilkali (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gender of God. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 02:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Atheism

Ilkali, I just had a quick question regarding your revert of my addition here.

1) You said it borders on ungrammatical yet I found it in two reputable places on the web, Dictionary.com and Britannica.com. The wording is slightly different so I would be more than willing to modify it so that it more closely matches the referenced documents.

2) You say it violates MoS but I read through the document and found references to "God" yet no explicit or implicit prohibitions, just guidance on capitalization. Is there another part I'm missing?

3) The reason I made the distinction is that there are people who believe in only one God and therefore they also deny the existence of "gods", as that is explicitly plural. Then on the other hand, there are those who deny that there is just one God, pagans come to mind, so they implicitly deny the existence of "God" in the singular.

I'm open to your thoughts though I'd like to get some consensus from the page as well. I'll won't restore until there seems to be a definite idea one way or the other. I'm going to post these comments on the board as well to that end. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are hereby granted this Barnstar for your recent edit within the Jehovah's Witnesses article --Fcsuper (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Link

Teach me how to link--Buster7 (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See here and here. Ilkali (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You--Buster7 (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Credible author

Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Alastair Haines

If there are still issues, I would check with Wikiquette Alerts (WP:WQA) and try to get a few more conduct opinions there and try and see if that would help. If it still doesn't Arbitration would be the only other step, which I don't think would be accepted "just yet", as a bit more dispute resolution would need to take place first, hence my suggestion of WQA. Wizardman 11:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 02:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

I'll include this in my research. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.Tim (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Indent Info

I appreciate the information. Many of the previous larger articles that I had "conversations" on would "point" to the editor being responded to with "@" and then just keep indenting till about the middle of the page and then just start at the left. Sometimes it went too far to the right. But, it seemed to work. thanks again--Buster7 (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

God or god

Hi, Ilkali! I hope this finds you well.
I'm writing because I've noticed that you've been changing the word God to god in articles, such as in this edit: [2]. I'm not entirely sure if this conforms to the manual of style, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Feel free to reply to here or on my talk page. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi L'Aquatique. There are (roughly) two words in English pronounced as /gɒd/. One is the proper noun God, which references the subject of the article God, and the other is the common noun god, which denotes all deities. In a sentence like God is a god, the first noun is the proper noun and the latter is the common. The MoS says that the former should be capitalised and the latter shouldn't, but people tend not to grasp the distinction and instead capitalise all instances of either word. I decapitalise the common nouns per the MoS. Ilkali (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, seems straightforward enough to me. Thanks for your time, have an awesome weekend! L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 04:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity

Don't let my zealous nature scare you away; discuss with me anything that does not seem neutral to you. Gabr-el 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Editors Alastair Haines, L'Aquatique LisaLiel and Ilkali are subject to editing restrictions for one year: a limitation to one revert per page per week and a general parole against disruptive editing. Alastair Haines is further placed on civility parole for that period.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I had erroneously substituted LisaLiel's username with L'aquatique's in the message above. — Coren ^(talk) 01:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi, I don't know if you're familiar with WP:3RR rule but please stop reverts in Atheism, you provided no reference to wikipedia rules or reliable sources to support them. Using talk page would more conform to wikipedia rules. --windyhead (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edits worsen the article. I've reverted two distinct changes and am nowhere near in danger of violating 3RR, either in word or in spirit. You should argue for these changes on the talk page after they have met resistance rather than assuming they should be incorporated by default. Ilkali (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You have, however, violated the 1RR restriction the Arbitration Committee has placed you under. You are allowed exactly one revert per page, per week. I am not going to enforce the restriction this time because I suppose you had not understood the limitation; but you should consider yourself warned. — Coren ^(talk) 18:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I thought that was regarding any single content issue, since the alternative is just plain stupid. I'm supposed to mentally track whether and when I've reverted for every item on my watchlist? Given that most of my activity on Wikipedia revolves around maintaining rather than creating, they might as well have just banned me. Ilkali (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The easiest way to avoid tripping up against the restriction is to avoid reverting other editors' changes altogether. If you see someone doing an edit you feel is problematic, bring it up to the talk page. If the edit is really egregious, I'm sure some other editor will be willing to do the edit; or you might simply work it out with the original editor with whom you had disagreed. — Coren ^(talk) 20:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This sanction serves no purpose. The fact that a person can just about contribute while it is in effect is irrelevant if it takes away all interest in doing so. Ilkali (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, "Your edits worsen the article" is disputable and depends on what POV you have. In fact you add false claims with your revert [3] : source does say different. --windyhead (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, but it's not my problem anymore. I'm withdrawing from the issue. Ilkali (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Gender of God

What you are doing at Gender of God is edit warring- stop now. Per the arbitration ruling I could block both of you right now, but I'm a nice person, I'm giving you a chance to stop. Consider yourself warned. L'Aquatique[talk] 08:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Per the arbitration ruling I could block both of you right now". On what ground? "Ilkali is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page". I've reverted once and I've discussed the reversion on the talk page. Ilkali (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You reverted once, true. But it is exactly the same material everyone has edit warred over in the past. If history is any indicator you would have continued. Thus, my warning. L'Aquatique[talk] 19:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The warning is understandable (though unnecessary). What I object to is your claim "I could block both of you right now". Ilkali (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend case

I have initiated a request to amend the Alastair case, hoping to introduce some new measures which will prevent further flare ups. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Indentation guidelines

Hi. Thanks for your advice. I am familiar with the indentation guidelines, and the single-line examples on the guidelines page are all very clear. However, when there is a need to respond to various aspects of a lengthy multi-paragraph and multi-tangent comment, the context is lost if the response to all of those paragraphs are shoved down the bottom rather than relative to the specific statements being addressed without employing much circumlocution. If you have a suggestion for responding to lengthy multi-paragraph posts only at the end of the entire block without having to retype half of the previous editor's comments to re-establish the context of exactly which component is being dealt with, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise, I'm sorry if it complicates matters for you or anyone else.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"the context is lost if the response to all of those paragraphs are shoved down the bottom rather than relative to the specific statements being addressed". The vast majority of forums don't let people insert their comments inside others', and most people seem to cope pretty well with that. In my experience, there's rarely a situation where you need more than a couple of lines of quotation to establish context. Anyway, I don't think you've done it to my comments so I'm not really complaining - I'm just pointing out that some people will object to it. Ilkali (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

I know this is a pretty small, and quite possibly dumb, question, but I can't figure out how to get the little info boxes on my user page. How do I do that?Prussian725 (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's done with templates. Check out the Wikisource of my page - look at the expressions in curly brackets. You can get detailed information at WP:USERBOX. Ilkali (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

Newyorkbrad told us to close it. And at 1-5, the other motion would not have passed. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)