User talk:Vanished user fijtji34toksdcknqrjn54yoimascj/Archive 3

Following procedure

Given that the relevant sections on the NPOV/FAQ and WTA were both inserted by you without consultation or consensus; given your continued attempts to block discussion on the section in the NPOV/FAQ and given other supporting evidence, I believe I would be wholly justified in taking you to the ANI. I do not wish to do that as I believe it would only cause a further deterioration in relations. I have to believe that the situation can be resolved by discussion. However, if you follow through your threat to unilaterally archive the discussion then I will have no hesitation but to report your actions.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Do what you need to do. Ben (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Ben Tillman--FimusTauri (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Single purpose puppets?

Any idea who's single purpose sock- or meat puppets would be at work here?

See Mattymatterson, Til_Eulenspiegel, Tflave, Jcm813, HIScouter, Devotionmandir, 216.40.67.218, 216.40.67.107, 216.40.67.76, 72.73.168.96, 71.131.19.159, 66.240.59.217, 65.7.164.172, Wiki09Wiki09, Fabricadoenespania, Carlos68, 76.185.148.157, 65.4.53.232, 24.84.209.94, Quartus81.

Perhaps time for a checkuser request?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DVdm (talk • contribs)

I can't believe Til would jeopardise his account so easily, though it is the only established account in the list and it was odd that he appeared moments after the page was protected. I guess we can see what happens? Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the procedure. I tried and it did't seem to work. Looks like the description is made a bit unclear to avoid abuse of the request. Whatever. We'll see... DVdm (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning on Noah's Ark

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Noah's Ark. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use of "myth" in religious articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration #Use of "myth" in religious articles--FimusTauri (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your comments would be appreciated

Hi, Ben. I got your message. I don't think that my input will move that discussion forward one inch. For one thing, I've already made all the major points I wanted to make, and Til and Fimus will simply reject them if I make them again. Second, I'm beginning to think that Fimus has a point, at least when it comes to the nonexistence of a single "official" definition of myth. I agree with you that the existence of multiple academic definitions shouldn't by itself make a word inadmissible; your example of the word "theory" is a case in point. However, no one on WP is currently complaining about the word "theory". In contrast, whether rightly or wrongly, the current question regarding "myth" has been opened up, and we can't close it simply by appealing to "the" academic definition (which doesn't exist).

I can see only one ray of hope for resolving this conflict: we should fix up Christian mythology so that all reasonable parties are satisfied. This shouldn't be too hard if we stick with something like the proposal I made earlier. Fimus is right to point out that our decisions regarding Christian mythology shouldn't form some kind of universal template for the use of the word "myth" in religion articles. However, succeeding in Christian mythology will at least achieve the following:

• Reestablishing a sense of good faith and good will among editors
• Prove to even apparently "anti-myth" editors that the word "myth" can be used appropriately in connection with living religions
• Provide some basis for the broader debate over the word "myth" in religious articles

Given my schedule, I will be able to start serious work on Christian mythology next week.

Also, it would be useful to fix up the Mythology article so that people new to the myth-debate don't completely balk when we say, "Check out Mythology to see the academic definition." To see my complaints about the article's current state, go to Talk:Mythology. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also, I guess I would prefer if you replied to my reply on my own talk page. Thanks. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution

I think that the one thing we both can agree on is that we are never going to agree on the issue of "myth". It would appear that ArbCom are going to decide that this is a "content dispute" and thus dodge the issue. If that happens then all I can foresee is you and me (and others like us) wasting megabytes of text rehashing the issue over again. I have proposed a solution here that I believe could settle this issue once and for all. If you can give this solution your backing (or some variant of it - details are far from finalised) then it has some chance of working and maybe we can all get on with doing what we became editors to do. I have said before that all I want is consensus. If the community decides I am an idiot then I will accept that.

For the record, I have at no time questioned your intent. I certainly do not believe that you are part of some "atheist conspiracy". Whilst I have found some of your "tactics" distasteful, I actually believe that they are mostly born of desperation/exasperation (because you are convinced you are right and cannot understand my position - I can assure you that the reverse is true), rather than some co-ordinated effort. I certainly stand by my comment that you are capable of intelligent, rational discussion and it is for this reason that I am seeking your assistance here.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a reasoned response to my proposal. Whilst I believe it is unfortunate that you have not endorsed the proposal, you have at least reaffirmed my belief that you are capable of intelligent, rational discussion.

I do believe that discussions on Mythology may go some way towards resolving the issue and am willing to engage in that. The problem with that is that some editors appear to be of the opinion that everything I try to do on Wikipedia is all about getting "myth" removed from Noah's Ark. That is nonsense. There is something I would like you to consider, as it may provide a means by which the "myth" issue can be resolved in some places. If there is a statement that reads "The Battle of Armageddon is a Myth", you can guarantee that many, many editors (myself included) would take exception. Consider instead "The Battle of Armageddon is an Eschatological myth." Some editors might still object, but I certainly wouldn't. The subtle, but significant, difference is that the word "myth" is tied into a phrase. For one thing, a reader who believes he knows what a myth is would never click Myth, but the same reader is very unlikely to know what Eschatological myth is and would almost be forced to click the link to find out. Hence, they get a fuller explanation. (The reader who knows what the term means would never be a problem.) This is actually a very simple way of providing the sort of explanation I have been asking for. It would not work in every situation, but I believe that there are many articles where specifying the type of myth (Flood myth, Creation myth, Etiological myth etc), rather than simply saying "myth" would be appropriate. Whilst this does not "resolve" our differences, it may be a suitable way to work around those differences in some circumstances. (Some of the relevent linked articles may need a little work). I offer this here for your consideration, since going to any of the various forums and presenting it there may be seen by some as attempting to announce some new proposal for changing policy. It is not; it is simply an idea that may be workable in some situations. Please consider it on its own merits.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I presume you're also ok with 'mythology of x' and 'x mythology', which in many instances are going to be the only feasible phrases? Ben (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As a caveat to what follows, I should stress that what I have said above will only apply in some situations, by no means all. I can only say that I may be ok with such phrases; I would really have to see it in context. It is probable that such a construct would be preferable to "its a myth" kind of statements and there are certainly situations where I would advocate using that kind of preferable construct as a "place-holder" until a better phrasing can be worked out.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a very woolly answer. I may be ok with it? Do you see that I'm left to assume that this is a 'personal feelings on the matter' type of response, and doesn't really answer my question? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but please characterise your feelings on this (succinctly). Otherwise, you leave me nothing to work with. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am honestly and in good faith trying to find a way that we can work together. I recognise that we will probably never agree on certain issues, but I wholly agree with you that there are ways in which we can maybe "work around" the problem. If we can find ways to "fix" other issues, then the core of our disagreement will become ever less significant. Please try to assume that I am not using "personal feelings" (it may be hard for you to accept, but I never do [with the rare exceptions of remarks typed in anger]). Yes, my answer is woolly; unfortunately, until I see the phrase in context, I cannot be more certain. My suggestions above are actually quite woolly, too, because I realise that you would have to see them in context. This is intended as a "starting point" that we may be able to develop; I was assuming that your suggestion was intended the same way.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fimus, I'm not having a go at you, I was just trying to explain my perspective on your answer. You left with me with a few things I wanted to clarify (the first of which I asked immediately), but I liked the way you worded your first suggestion. Boiling down part of it, you asked 'Can we call blah an Eschatological myth'. Well, of course you can, you just need to find some reliable sources that describe it that way (perhaps not using precisely that term, but giving enough of a description to infer it), which shouldn't be hard, and then you can go for it. That answer doesn't depend on me or how I feel, it depends on reliable sources (and that position is completely consistent with my edit to NPOV/FAQ by the way). Oh, and I would prefer the term link to mythology, and the mythology article discuss the term, since Eschatological is modifying myth. Ben (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent] Thank you. I am sure you understand that with our history it can be all too easy to question motives in discussions like these. I am trying to avoid that and it would seem that you are also. I agree that reliable sources should be the litmus test of which term is used. The source could even just use "myth" if it is clear that the term is used in the sense of, for example, eschatological myth. If the link is to go to the mythology article, then an eschatological myth article shouldn't exist (it doesn't - the link above goes to Eschatology, which is not appropriate). I would also expect that any discussion of eschatological myths on mythology would have its own sub-header and that "eschatological myths" redirect specifically to that sub-section.

It would appear from your most recent comment at ArbCom, along with those at talk: Mythology that you accept that there is, to some degree, a problem with the varied definitions of myth. Without wishing to prejudice your position (or prejudge it), if this is correct then there is certainly an area in which we can go a long way to addressing the issue.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't there is a problem with varied definitions any more than there is a problem with varied definitions of the word theory. The respective articles mythology and theory should discuss differences, but we shouldn't bog down with those details every article that uses the term. With respect to the 'eschatological myth' link, if you can pull enough material together to develop an article then go for it, I would prefer that to a link to mythology. In general, if a modifier of the term myth is appropriate with respect to reliable sources, then I have no issues with using that modifier and linking to an article discussing the term (eg. creation myth) or linking to mythology where the term is mentioned. In many cases it won't be appropriate to modify the term myth to describe what we're talking about, in which case we may need to refer the the 'mythology of x', or 'x mythology', or 'myths of x religion', and so on, none of which stop short at the word myth (note I have religious articles in mind when writing this, there are perhaps other classes of articles where we can be a little more lax). Ben (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You suggested at ArbCom that a "cooling off" period might be a good idea. I am increasingly inclined to accede to that. If it means we can manage to work together then I would certainly favour it. Inevitably, there will be places where the issue crosses over into other discussion, but would you be willing, in principle, to agree to assume that, when I begin a new discussion, my motive is not actually to try and "forum shop" for the previous dispute, in return for my agreeing to try and avoid opening threads that could be perceived in that way? A sort of informal "terms of ceasefire", if you will.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you avoid opening threads that could be perceived as forum shopping, then of course I won't accuse you of forum shopping. I meant what I said in the arbcom case, I really think some article space time, be it mythology or (thanks to Vassyana) Noah's Ark or something entirely different, will do everyone involved some good. At the very least, no-one is likely to change their mind or entertain swaths of new ideas while they're this strung out on discussion. With that in mind, feel like getting some sources together for, and pruning / rewriting portions of, Noah's Ark? I'd hate to see it lose its FA star. I've just tidied the see also and external links section, and crudely trimmed the literalist section. Ben (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

For reasons I won't go into here I no longer have access to the kind of library I used to have, so gathering sources can be a problem at times. (It may seem ridiculous, but my original reason for becoming an editor was the appalling standard of English on many articles - I was actually only going to be "tidying up" until I could get my library back together). That is also why you may have noticed that I tend stay out of debates about RS and verifiability. In the near future I will have better access to sources, so for now I will tend to concentrate on issues of style and neutrality (avoiding "myth" where possible). That way, the lack of a library is a slight hindrance, rather than a handicap.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You may recall that Carcharoth‎ suggested setting up a working group to examine the issues raised in the ArbCom request. I have asked him/her how to go about doing this. This is not an attempt at raising the issue in another forum; rather, as Carcharoth‎ has said, such a mechanism may take months to find a resolution. Given that fact, it means that I (and anyone else if they wish) can step back from arguing the issue in the various forums where it is currently raised for an extended period. Also, I would like to see any such group's mandate extended to possibly find ways to plug the "hole" in dispute resolution by finding a means by which disputes such as the myth issue can be resolved.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So, not counting your usual weekend break, you lasted less than a day before seeking out new forums. Heh, unbelievable. And before you repeat your last comment, forum shopping isn't dependant on how long the threads live, or who participates in those threads. For the third time, do what you need to do. For the hive!! Ben (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Believe me or not, I will be laying off the issue elsewhere. If that working group gets underway then I will be laying off the issue until that group reaches its conclusion - and don't forget: the group may well decide that you are right after all. I still stand by all that I have said above.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of believing what you're saying, it's a matter of evaluating your actions. In this case, textbook forum shopping. Oh, and forum shopping isn't dependant on where you shop either. Ben (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I never stated that I was simply going to drop the issue; only that I would give it a break. Such a working group may never get going; it will take time to set up if it does, and it will take a long time to reach any conclusions. In the meantime, I will lay off the issue elsewhere. Further, I simply do not understand why you have always been so opposed to attempts to sort this out. It is patently obvious that there is no consensus either way; it is clear that the issue is going to keep on raising its head. I have stated that I will abide by consensus. If you are so right on the issue, then you should welcome any initiative aimed at finally resolving it, because, were you to be proved right, the rest of us would have to shut up about it. --FimusTauri (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(←) I feel consensus is on my side. Please don't confuse consensus for a vote, or more generally, any appeal to numbers. And I'm not opposed to sorting this out (remember I was happy to participate in your village pump thread), I'm opposed to mindlessly repeating myself as you trawl Wikipedia for support. Just do what you need to do Fimus. Ben (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You threw me for a second. Made me think I had completely misunderstood the word "consensus", so I looked it up:

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

Now explain how you "have consensus" - cos neither definition fits the current situation.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You looked it up in the wrong place. Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus_is_not_in_numbers. Ben (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No doubt their next target. DVdm (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

From WP:WHATISCONSENSUS (which I would have thought is pretty definitive): Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions. (my italics)

There is absolutely no way that the current situation matches the sentence in italics. Quite the opposite, in fact, because editors such as yourself continually block attempts to move forward by claiming "forum shopping". The issue is certainly not "settled" - except in your mind.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent"" => Then also remember, the root of "censorship" is the Latin "censere" which means "to give an opinion", so there is nothing wrong with censorship, right? DVdm (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

DVdm. The above is quoted from wikipedia policy. If you think that means it justifies censorship, then take it up on the policy page.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To Ben: sorry, couldn't resist polluting your talk page a bit :-) I'll leave it to you now. - Cheers, DVdm (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's ok, I learned something about the word censorship. Ben (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

<-Ben, actually read the sentence "While these beliefs and stories may not be a literal account of actual events..." What does it actually say? Think about it and, when you realise what the answer is, you will realise just how unnecessary your edit was. You are still reacting to what you perceive to be my motives. This is compromising your abilities as a Wikipedian. I note that another editor has now come along and changed it to say what you seem to think I had written. Had you paused and read it correctly, you would have realised that it actually says "these stories are not a literal account". --FimusTauri (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark FAR

I have nominated Noah's Ark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Vassyana (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah's ark

guess what? you make one more revert noah's ark, and you break the 3 revert rule in 24 hours. i only have two, so i have one more :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.22.141 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Do what you need to do. Ben (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

i'm confuesd

you don't think that some think that creation in genesis is literal and some think it's myth? Swift as an Eagle (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

for example: i believe it to be literal. you believe it to be mythical.... Swift as an Eagle (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To take away your confusion, try a dictionary. If you believe it to be literal, and I believe it to be a fairytale, we can both call it mythical. DVdm (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that some people consider it literally, and most consider it a myth. But there is no relationship between the two terms; certainly not as your edit suggested. You can't place literal interpretations and mythical classifications on some sort of spectrum. It just doesn't make sense. I suggest you check out what the word myth actually means (as DVdm suggested). You'll quickly see that the definition does not depend on how one interprets a work. Ben (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

:: ok, then. i took the dictionaries def of myth (ie. "ficticious, invented tale" and replaced the word "myth" with it. now everyone should be happy. i'm not here to argue "myth" i'm just placing this important fact into the lead. Swift as an Eagle (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

in fact, i was part of this argument in this article last fall and put "myth" in here to begin with. i took my undergrad in ancient myht, and I know how scholars use it. Swift as an Eagle (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the English language, context is often vital. In the context of religious studies, you've chosen the wrong definition of the term myth. You should probably work on that skill, since just about every word in the English language carries multiple definitions. Perhaps you can take an English unit next? Ben (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

??? why the extreme sarcasm? wow! last fall you were fine to work with, but now... ?? Swift as an Eagle (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because you gave me the impression you were choosing one definition of the term myth and discarding all others for no apparent reason. The point of the sarcasm was to highlight why that approach is wrong. Ben (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

La conspiration est moi

In light of recent humorous discussions on Talk:Noah's Ark, you may find this (recently created) userbox amusing: User:Hrafn/userbox the conspiracy is me. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Ben (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories on your draft

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I modified your draft of an article about Philippa Garrett Fawcett. I put colons in the category links so that the page would not appear (in its draft form) in categories such as Category:Women mathematicians.

Thanks for all of your work on Wikipedia! -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I'm posting this on your (and other members of the Maths Wikiproject) talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_uninvolved_admin_request.

Thankyou. Exxolon (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment on identity

I see that you first added this identity to the article Improper integral. Please comment at Talk:Improper integral regarding the appropriateness for the article. Thanks, 71.182.247.220 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis

If you object to the edits I made, explain why on the talk page. Don't just revert them. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And please don't simply remove NPOV tags because you disagree with them. It's a valid dispute, and it needs to be subject of community discussion, not just be discarded by one user. Not to sound bitey, but have you ever read WP:OWNERSHIP? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tillman, I don't want an adversarial editing relationship with you, and I'm not the enemy. My goal is to improve this article, and its lack of neutrality. I am unaware of any instance where seeking consensus on multiple edits to an article has gotten anywhere. I'm going with WP:Bold and hoping for WP:Civility. How about working with me for a change, with constructive suggestions? Afaprof01 (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sarah palin signature.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sarah palin signature.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaGa^talk 17:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Creationism, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. That comment was not vandalism, off-topic chat, or a personal attack, it was a legitimate attempt to discuss rather than revert war on this topic, which is exactly what talk pages are for. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, I know it wasn't, and didn't consider it to be, vandalism, off-topic chat, or a personal attack. Why are you stating the obvious as if I'm an idiot? Given the two topics above that section, it seemed to me to be disruptive editing, which is not considered a "legitimate" editing practise, and I said as much. Ben (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I listed those three items because those are the only legitimate reasons to remove someone else's talk page comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was such a definitive list, but fair enough. A question though, if a user consistently attempts to "gain consensus" for a position when it is clear that consensus is against that position, are we to 'vote' (I use the term carefully, but that's all this new thread will amount to given the previous two threads) endlessly? Ben (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a few approaches to take in such a situation, but I personally prefer ignoring them. If they get no support or opposition, it is likely to become clear to them that they are flogging a dead horse. Another route is to solicit wider opinion via requests for comment. Removing their comments is far more likely to inflame the situation than resolve it. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your "handy links"

Found them useful - I am not an experienced wikipedia contributor. Toneron2 (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Vanished user fijtji34toksdcknqrjn54yoimascj. You have new messages at Hajatvrc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Mary Jane's Relaxing Soda

The article Mary Jane's Relaxing Soda has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable product.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis

Hi, you reported edit warring here, but seem to have accepted an excuse on Afaprof01's talk page. Given that Afaprof01 has already been blocked for edit warring, a repeat block would seem to be in order – do you want to withdraw your report? . . dave souza, talk 22:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Can you clarify? Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's unclear what you mean by this. Since the 3RR issue now looks rather stale and appears to have been superseded by more recent work on the article, do you want to pursue the complaint? If not, please say so at WP:ANEW. . . dave souza, talk 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that his latest revert occurs after my above comment, and so I consider the issue ongoing. Ben (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For your info, another admin closed it as stale. . dave souza, talk 09:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me?

How dare you leave that message on my profile,you are not a mod,what gives you the authority to do that?I am not putting my own POV into the article an admin or mod could confirm that for you.I am making the article less inflammatory.If you disagree I suggest you talk to a moderator.Sheodred (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD and the notes I left on the article talk page. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok,I will seek consensus amongst others.Good daySheodred (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for rewording and improving my warning on Talk:Earth; it is now much less awkward and more concise. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 16:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Also note that good faith edits should not be described as vandalism.--agr (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're terribly clever. Ben (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha... I got the same thing. On another related note good job with finding the "Mainstream Use" source! Bravo Nefariousski (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's from a highly respected scholar in the field too, so I'm a little bit confused about why the discussion continues. Ahh well. Ben (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war warning again

You seem to be engaging in an open edit war. Please do not insert POV statements by reverting other editors. History2007 (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Grow up, please. Ben (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly ignoring edit war rules. Period. History2007 (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is SPARTA!! (edit: in case anyone else reads this, please check both our edit histories before worrying about why I'm not taking these comments too seriously) Ben (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

Warning on your personal attack on: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war. This type of behavior must stop. History2007 (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're fun. Ben (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

3 revert warning

Please avoid an edit war on Creation according to Genesis. You have had warnings before and now you have done 2 reverts. Your next revert will be the 3rd revert, obviously. Please do not cross the line. Thanks.

3 revert warning again

You have just crossed the 3 revert line. Please stop. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:3RR before quoting it. Ben (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the article for a week in order to try and force a settlement through discussion, but I would have been equally justified in handing you a block. 3RR or not, edit warring is edit warring, and is only acceptable in cases of outright vandalism. You can't create your own "revert on sight " rule and just decide to enforce it, and telling other users to "shoo" in your edit summaries is obviously not helpful either. Please stop treating this article like a battleground. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Are edits that violate Wikipedia's policies not cause for reversion? Ben (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll say it again, edit warring is edit warring, and is only acceptable in cases of outright vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not educating me, I asked a question about edits that violated policy. Ben (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless it violates policy by being outright vandalism, no, 3RR still applies.DaiZengar^{Smite evil} 23:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't asking under what circumstances can one expect an exception to WP:3RR. I was trying to clarify why I was being chastised about saying I would revert an edit that is against policy. It seems like a good enough reason to me. Ben (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh

I'm starting to hate people. What has to happen in someone's life to make them completely incapable of picking up a chain of thought laid down on paper? And furthermore, what makes them, instead of simply walking away, sh#@t all over you for having the gall to say something they don't understand? --King Öomie 01:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Who knows .. though it's weird that you don't normally meet people like that in real life though. Maybe they're allergic to the net? Ben (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, see, On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. --King Öomie 13:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Or more accurately, Penny Arcade's take. --King Öomie 13:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe :) Ahh crap, Penny Arcade procrastination session incoming ... Ben (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Refactor

I took the liberty of restoring my actual suggestion. It was two sentences. Otherwise there is no compromise and we are hopelessly stalemated. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Accidental rollback?

Was this edit accidental or intentional? Gabbe (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, sorry I was just reading the latest comments and I must have accidentally clicked 'rollback' as I was going through diffs. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis FAQ

If you're interested in helping me with the FAQ for this article I'm working off of the following test page Nefariousski (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a really good start. Should comments be added to the talk page there or somewhere else? Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should add the comments to the talk page there so we can all get on the same page before I add it to the article. I want to make sure the FAQ covers all of the major points we've been going over and over for the past month. Thanks for taking the time to help. Nefariousski (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Christmas creation

Hey there. If you'd like to make an attempt, that would be great! I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Since the Genesis link also gives an overview, I think it would be suitable to keep that (as the superior edit, for the reason I stated, ie. Judeo-Christian tradition) for the time being. Hope you're well, Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection of your edit history.... it's always interesting to find self-professed "atheists" who have intense interests in religious subjects. I hope that means something positive! Best of luck. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

While I still think the creation myth article does a better job of clarifying the term 'creation' to a curious editor, I've had a go at including links to both articles. Ben (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit move war regarding Genesis

Recent page moves regarding Genesis creation myth/Creation according to Genesis has been listed at WP:ANI. Gabbe (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I requested the anon IP responsible for the last couple blankings / redirects at creation myth be blocked last night as well. Nefariousski (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user fijtji34toksdcknqrjn54yoimascj. You have new messages at Nefariousski's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nefariousski (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

hahaha

"Here thar be monsters"... I almost had coffee coming out of my nose when I saw that. Bravo.

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For finding ways to make even the most tiresome and tedious discussions entertaining Nefariousski (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 

Cheers :) Ben (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis

Fair enough. I'll restore your edit and post in the spot you suggested. Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ben, not sure why we started on the right foot and proceeded to where we are now. In any case, I've taken a good look at who is participating in the article and what was said in the discussion to change the title. It seems that most of the people contributing to the discussion were in favor of a move, but most of the edits being made are by those not in favor of the move. There are two possible reasons for this: 1) some of those supporting the move are latecomers like myself, or 2) some of those supporting the move are being discouraged from participating either through edit warring, talk page argument, or just the presumptive title itself. My gut feeling is that it's a mixture of both 1 and 2. In any case, rather than ramble on about what I think or try to decipher what others think, I'll ask the squelched side to let me know what they are looking for, and if there is any consensus to their opposition to your own view. I've heard a good deal from you and Nef, and I'm grateful for your input. I think you've made yourself clear. Now I'd like to find out what the other side is thinking. There may yet be an avenue for consensus once everyone feels they've been fairly considered. I'll let you know what I come up with. Don't get discouraged. Although collaboration doesn't mean you'll get your first choice (remember, "myth" was my first choice too), a fair hearing of all sides can encourage great participation from a number of POVs and make an article much more accessible than before.EGMichaels (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would leave it for a few months. This soon after an RFC and two Requested Moves there will be a very low threshold for disruptive behaviour. Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why I'm inviting discussion on my talk page, so that no one's (including yours, mine, or that IP guy) disruptive behavior will interfere with determining just what people want. You are welcome to participate, but on my talk page you won't be able to squelch people into submission, and they won't be able to do it to you either. It's a neutral place.

I really am disinterested in "myth" versus "account." But I AM interested in fostering collaborative editing. NEITHER side is allowed to be disruptive, or to intimidate. That has for the moment failed on the article, and I'm sure you are no more satisfied than they are. Collaboration seems slower, but in the end it's the only way to move forward.EGMichaels (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated accusations of squelching (here, on your talk page and Talk:Genesis creation myth) are an insult to the time I, and many others, have put into discussion at Talk:Genesis creation myth. Ben (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben, you can feel insulted all you like, but collaboration DOES need to occur, and people DO need to be considered in order for it to happen. As I said, I'm just as interested in YOUR view being presented as I am of THEIR view being presented. The inclusion of other editors in collaboration shouldn't be seen as a threat or insult. It's the way things are done here. Don't fret. It will be okay.EGMichaels (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben -- I'm trying to compress months of recurring debate into a clear reference. Assuming you keep your title, you'll be able to point to this whenever the subject keeps coming it. Relax. I'm open to your title too.EGMichaels (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can already point to two requested moves and an RFC. Quit plugging your ears. Ben (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and you didn't collaborate with the other editors, but rather warred against them. How's that working out for you? Again, I'm open to your chosen title and see some positive reasons for it. But you can't just try to "win" some kind of content war. We have to work together at Wikipedia, and you have to make everyone feel included -- just as I'm trying to keep you included here.EGMichaels (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations of warring are clearly disingenuous. Ben (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben, you deleted a summary on a TALK page. If that ain't warring, I don't know what is.EGMichaels (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The latter. Ben (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor Topic Ban

I'm not so sure we should seek an editor topic ban along with the "subject topic ban" quite yet. It opens up doors for damn near everyone on both sides to potentially be called to task (e.g. when we were accused of edit warring with that IP editor months back). If we get a "subject discussion ban" in place first and editors continue to harp on "Creation Myth" or the title then it's a very clear cut case for editor topic banning. Nefariousski (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know the difference, but that sounds fine. The links/evidence I posted should still be useful. Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

They probably will be useful.EGMichaels (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

scratch that. I was in a rush and wasn't thinking clearly. I'll submit to ANI. Nefariousski (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

TL;DR apparently :( I might be worth resubmitting the first couple of paragraphs and a set of relevant diffs in a week or so if the talk page hasn't clamed down by then. Collecting the diffs will be boring, but new examples are constantly being generated so it shouldn't be too hard. Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility

On Talk:Genesis creation myth you dismissed my suggestion of consistent article naming as "nonsense". I understand that the debate in question is controversial and may become heated, and that you have strong views on the topic. However, I find your tone to be an unnacceptably rude way of interacting with a fellow Wikipedia editor, and a breach of our civility policy. I would like you reconsider the tone of your reply and to apologise, either here or on my talk page. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're offended then of course I apologise. However, I disagree with your incivility characterisation: if something does not make sense it is perfectly acceptable to call it nonsense. Ben (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. For future reference, you will cause less offense if you try to phrase your personal opinions in more subjective terms. "That does not make sense to me" or "I do not understand that" or "I do not agree with that" are all perfectly acceptable. My suggestion clearly made complete sense to some other editors. Try to avoid presenting your personal reactions as if they were indisputable facts. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)