User talk:Riferimento/Archive2

Pacifism

Thanks for your comment on my talk page and your input regarding this article. Addhoc 00:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your edits to Marriage

I thought you were mostly on the right track there, although I haven't commented much as most of my wiki time is taken up with other things. I would encourage you to keep yourself in the game if you can stand it. He wants to focus on dictionary definitions? Well, if you know or can learn about the history of "marriage" you'll find that it's not an institution but a phenomenon, something that can be described, but not defined. Focus on description for a while until it becomes clear by the weight of the article that the "definition" approach falls short. That would be my advice to you, if you have the desire to continue. If not, no worries! :) You done good already. — coelacan talk — 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does look pretty crazy over there. One of those editors I asked to just try to assume good faith and they flailed at me with a sort of "but but but the gay pov pushers!" I'm glad to hear that you're not demoralized though. I did follow you over to Trinitarian Universalism from this talk page. Interesting discussion there. — coelacan talk — 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinitarian Universalism

Thanks for your thought provoking questions and lively interaction. Caroline1008 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wait for Caroline's opinion on the move before getting started. She's put a lot of work into that article as it is so her perspective is important. — coelacan talk — 03:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's been patrolling the talk page pretty regularly. I figured to just wait for her to come around to it but if you think it'd be more polite to ask her upfront, it's your call. — coelacan talk — 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put up one last explanation to Caroline for why I think it is best to move the article. I've explained my rationale the best I can, and if she says no then she says no, and we'll start on a fork. But if she does say yes, it means that we will "move" the current article, which lets us keep all of its old edit history (very useful). In order to do that, however, there needs to be no article at the destination Universalism in Christianity. So, in order that we can work on what may become our fork, I've copied that page to User:Coelacan/Universalism in Christianity for the time being, and we can do whatever with it there. Can you put up this template: {{db-userreq}} on the page you just made, and that will get it deleted so it will be open for moving to just in case? — coelacan talk — 02:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that made sense. Please get back to me on my talk page whether you do or don't understand what I mean. — coelacan talk — 02:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pssst are you there? — coelacan talk — 02:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, see I don't want to delete our page, I just want to move it out of the way for the moment. She didn't totally create that TU thing, her points about Barth are valid and there are other sources for it (but they are sparrrse). I'm not going to take it any further than this last request, but... if she does come through I would like to preserve her page in the larger one. The reason I'm asking you to put up the db-userreq template is because it has to applied by the user who created the page, and if i touch the page it will no longer work... it only works if only one person has touched it. I'm copying your new edits over to my subpage at User:Coelacan/Universalism in Christianity, I do think that it's best to continue there for just one more day or so. Plus it'll be out of mainspace so nobody but us will mess with it while it's "incubating" as it were. — coelacan talk — 02:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the right template. Okay, meet me over at this talk page, User talk:Coelacan/Universalism in Christianity and we'll cook up a direction for the early stage of editing. See you there in about five minutes. — coelacan talk — 02:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's fine to ahead and put it in the wild. I haven't had time to add the stuff I wanted to, but that's no excuse for me to delay it further. Lots of good work there on your part, by the way! Take it to Universalism in Christianity whenever you're ready. — coelacan talk — 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think copy and paste is fine. The move tool is for when you want to preserve the edit history, but that page's edit history is just you and I, so we won't be depriving anyone else of credit for their work. I say paste. The edit history will still be at my subpage for a while in case we need to consult it (but I don't think we accidentally lost anything along the way). — coelacan talk — 00:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the dispute at talk:marriage

Hi GMS. The user Nkras has alredy stated refusal to work to consensus. See this edit. What that means is that for the purposes of that talk page, we shouldn't feel like it's necessary to further address that user's complaints. Declaring one's own POV to be above consensus is equivalent to removing one's self from the discussion. That user may keep talking, but there's no need to respond. You may, if you wish, but I suspect that we are just "feeding the troll" now, and ignoring is probably best for now.

After I respond to some other users on that talk page, I am going to open a formal "request for comment" on the article, to start the outside dispute resolution process that will very likely end up with a well-balanced article. When that begins, it will be a matter of presenting to the disinterested larger community our own positive arguments on what the article needs. It won't be necessary to respond directly to Nkras but just to argue the merits of our proposals. I think that will help in reducing some of the direct clashes that are occuring right now. Feel free to take a cake break until the "request for comment" begins. I'll message you again when that comes up. Peace, — coelacan talk — 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. The "traditional marriage" article appears to be the POV-fork of "marriage" that Nkras was begging for. It's going to be nominated for WP:AFD within the next handful of days, where it'll be voted into deletion and that'll be the end of it. It's such a blatant POV-fork that it doesn't stand a snowball's chance. No worries =) — coelacan talk — 03:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See? I told you "somebody" would nominate it for AFD. =p The article will be there for approximately one more week while the AFD discussion pans out, but it won't survive. It's a "dead man walking" now. — coelacan talk — 16:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get that smug grin off your faces. If Traditional Marriage is a fork, so is Same-sex marriage. See my advisory on Talk:Marriage. Nkras 06:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hush, Nkras, someone might think you're WP:HARASSing GMS508. Come yell at me on my talk page if you must. I'm the one who AfD'd your precious fork. GMS, I'm keeping a close eye on Nkras. But if you get any other problems that I don't notice, let me know asap. — coelacan talk — 06:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I think it's both. I think he really does want what he's advocating for, and he also pretty much understands that he's not going to get it, so instead he's going to settle for lashing out and trying to make other editors angry or miserable. One thing he'd enjoy would be getting someone blocked for violating WP:NPA, so the important thing is for everybody to stay cool. I'm going to be out of town today so if you're online, and if you see him targetting anyone for frustration games, just reach out and remind them that they've got support and he really doesn't. Textorus and Jeffpw know the game too, and they've both been helpful when I'm on edge, so tap them too if you or anybody else are being targetted. — coelacan talk — 17:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional Marriage passes, which looks extremely likely, the article will be deleted, probably around 5 January. Changes you've made in the meantime will be gone with it. If you anticipate wanting to keep the work you did, save a backup copy to your hard drive. Just a heads-up. — coelacan talk — 03:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]