Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:15, 8 November 2010

• Please replace {{Misplaced Pages:WikiOgre/topicon}} with {{WikiOgre}}

Archives

Start to June, 2010 June, 2010 to present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Question

Who are you talking about when you say this. The editor warning about misuse of a BLP or the editor whose talk page the discussion is being held at? Check your email for some more interesting names. talk soon, --CrohnieGal 15:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan

Please tell Dylan to stay away from me and to stop posting on my talk page.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, as you can see from his responses, he is not willing to compromise with me. He is just going to revert and thats that. He doesn't see any need to compromise and has promised to edit war even if it results in his getting banned. Are you sure there is nothing I can do about him right now?RomanHistorian (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Not a day has passed, and he's at it again. He comes here to lie about me and insist that I should be blocked. Is this acceptable behavior? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say blocked. I want you to stay away from me.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

He keeps posting on my talk page. I thought we were suppose to avoid each other?RomanHistorian (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this disupte has finally simmered.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As part of the Wikiquette alert, I stated that I would post a warning on your talk page and this was accepted as a reasonable thing to do. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, just want to bring this to your attentions. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 12:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I've been getting zero response on the issue, so we're probably going to have to handle this ourselves. Wouldn't be the first time... Doc talk 17:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"We will establish our estate upon Our eldest, Malcolm, whom we name hereafter The Prince of Cumberland"  ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Stars, hide your fires, Let not light see my black and deep desires..." ;> Doc talk 07:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"All Macbeth has left is his pride, and it is his pride which keeps him fighting"  ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing

An editor named Leadwind has deleted a large amount of cited material from Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke and Gospel of John. Some, though not all, of the deletions he made were of material I added. He dismisses the sources I (and others) used as "fringe", and defines the "mainstream" view on authorship with what a narrow (typically atheist) band of scholars say. He is even quoting things out of context (he used a reference that said Luke wasn't history in the typical sense and skewed it into "Luke isn't reliable history") and makes some pretty sloppy mistakes (claiming the author of Acts of the Apostles didn't think Paul was an apostle, despite the fact that he refers to him as such numerous times and half the book is about Paul). I am outnumbered, so the other (about 2 or 3) editors can back each other up, and keep my legitimate sources deleted. I think many of his deletions were inappropriate, and much of what he has added has been out-of-context. Could you take a look and see what you think?RomanHistorian (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at the sources, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. It might be something for WP:RSN. I must say that if you're feeling "outnumbered", it may well be that your preferred version goes against consensus, and this happens to everyone at some time or another. Consensus can change, of course. Doc talk 07:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

By "outnumbered", there is one other editor backing him up. Please also take a look at Leadwind's new reversions here, here and here and the discussion here. I think his reversions were inapporipriate for the reasons I gave. Please let me know what you think. He restored a claim that is clearly wrong (the author of Acts didn't think Paul was an apostle) as well as my and and tags. He is also claiming the views of one author represents the "consensus" even though that author makes no such claim, in addition to his wholesale deletions of my other sources. Oh and he is also taking several claims from his sources out of context.

My problem is that his editing is going against Misplaced Pages standards (deletion of RS, claiming he represents the "consensus" although is unable to provide evidence, attacking other views as "fringe" or "sectarian", dismissing most sources because they come from publishers he doesn't like, ect). I am willing to work with any views, but when someone deletes all of the sources you use and assumes from the beginning that your position is fringe, there isn't much I can do. Not only do my sources (not least the one by Darrell Bock) show my position is not fringe, but look at the talk page of Gospel of John, in particular the comments of Tom, Hardypants and JJB. They agree with me (even take a stronger view than I do).

That said, I very much appreciate your assistance.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Should I be hurt or flattered? Leadwind (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Doc, he did it again. Again, the source is "sectarian" even though the scholar is a widely published one, making an objective statement about the range of scholarly opinion. I am not going to edit war as he seems more than willing to do. He even restored an out-of-context quote from the online Encyclopedia Britannica.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I am also sick of his condescending attitude towards me.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Doc, Leadwind is on the verge of edit warring. Another editor restored the edit I made (which Leadwind had reverted) and Leadwind reverted this here. Also note the comment of that editor whom Leadwind reverted "I don't think any of these edits are actually legit, but I'm willing to continue to be patient." It is obvious that Leadwind has a view on what "truth" is and is unwilling to accept the legitimacy of views that don't agree with his version of "truth".RomanHistorian (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still looking at it, and there's a lot to look at. I've been preoccupied dealing with a banned sockpuppeteer who can't take "No" for an answer, so I'll have to get back to you on this later. All I can give you is my advice on what I see, and being neutral on this, I don't know yet who is "right or wrong". I'll let you know. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Focus on Gospel of Luke. That seems to be the article where most of the changes have been made. Specifically look at Leadwind's changes and the reversions Dylan has made. He has forced a major POV into the article and all changes I make get reverted.RomanHistorian (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick look there is showing both sides trading "weasel words" in the article, and worse, altering inline citations (which then makes the citations incorrect). Both sides also argue about the validity of each others' sources, which is a whole other issue. This is a long-standing and heated problem, and it's going to take some time to look at properly. Until I can weigh in with a more educated opinion of this, it looks like POV is a problem - and it's two differing POV's. Whatever is best for the article according to WP's standards is where the dispute will eventually end. Doc talk 08:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I'm not sure if this should be be removed as a banned user. I think it should be but I'm throwing it to you because I'm not having a good day. Please check it out when you get a moment. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 12:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

SRQ is blaming JohnBonaccorsi for the edit, but she was right there to respond. Amazing... Doc talk 06:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Another one

Hi, check out the history of my talk page for the newest one I know of, thanks, --CrohnieGal 16:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Very rude, even for her. Unless you know of another editor that ruthlessly stalks your edits, I'm sure it's safe to assume who it is, and that they are not here to improve the encyclopedia. A truly classic sock discovered last night is Lazuli Bunting (talk · contribs), who after editing an obscure article last touched by SRQ, comes off a lengthy "break" to whine about you and Doc#2. I'm getting tired of asking for duck blocks - anyone you know that you're willing to ask? Cheers :> Doc talk 18:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Ducky Dock, you prove yourself to be a complete effing idiotic moron. You want to know who the latest manifestation is really? Check out Brucejenner -- THAT's who the sock is and who it's been all along. Why do I have to keep correcting and doing your "work" for you? oh, yeah...because you're an effing moronic puppet who's inacapable of independent thought, that's why! (also note that BJ was Mister Soup who harassed a certain editor you hate and a certain editor you now love AND uses verizon wireless...hello? get a clue!) 97.135.119.103 (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)