Misplaced Pages

User talk:Hrafn: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:21, 18 October 2011 editStephfo (talk | contribs)1,113 edits initiating a discussion at WP:DRN← Previous edit Revision as of 11:30, 19 October 2011 edit undoDbrodbeck (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,171 edits →Questioning controversial claim designated as disruptive editNext edit →
Line 116: Line 116:
== Questioning controversial claim designated as disruptive edit == == Questioning controversial claim designated as disruptive edit ==
Hello Hrafn, to avoid my further possible blockage due to your accusation of my edit as ], I inevitably had to follow recommendations for ] and initiate a new discussion at ] noticeboard. Since the case concerns your actions, pls. take it kindly into your consideration. I hope we will manage to resolve our dispute in civil manner by using help of 3rd-party editors. I apologize for any inconvenience, thanks for your understanding.--] (]) 23:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Hello Hrafn, to avoid my further possible blockage due to your accusation of my edit as ], I inevitably had to follow recommendations for ] and initiate a new discussion at ] noticeboard. Since the case concerns your actions, pls. take it kindly into your consideration. I hope we will manage to resolve our dispute in civil manner by using help of 3rd-party editors. I apologize for any inconvenience, thanks for your understanding.--] (]) 23:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
:I am sorry for butting in here, but can you just back the hell off Stephfo? Honestly, it is a dead horse, just let it go. ] (]) 11:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:30, 19 October 2011

  • New threads belong at the bottom of talk pages (pressing the 'new section' link at the top, or here, will do this automatically for you). I reserve the right to summarily remove (without responding, and possibly even without reading) any new threads placed here at the top of this talk page.
  • Discussion directly pertaining to a specific article belongs on that article's talkpage. Where such discussion is erroneously posted here, I may move it to article talk (if I'm feeling particularly kind-hearted, or am busting for a good argument), but most likely will simply delete or revert it -- so best to post it where it belongs in the first place.
  • I likewise reserve the right to curtail (by reversion, deletion, archiving or otherwise) any thread on this talkpage that I (on my sole discretion) feel has become, or is is likely to be, unproductive. If you object to such curtailment, then by all means don't post here.
  • This user defines a "regular", perhaps somewhat idiosyncratically, as somebody who can be trusted to observe policy with sufficient regularity that it is not necessary to "template" (or "tag") them on their user talk. This user therefore regards exhortations to WP:Don't template the regulars as an oxymoron (and as such unproductive).
  • Please do not WP:REFACTOR your comments unnecessarily. Doing so may result in an WP:EDITCONFLICT whilst attempting to respond.
  • Talkback:
  1. This user has their preferences set to automatically watchlist all articles they edit, and all pages they comment upon. It is therefore completely unnecessary for you to {{talkback}} this user to tell them that you have replied to a comment.
  2. Further, there is nothing in that template's description suggests it should be used for XfDs or article talk -- so using it for such pages is inappropriate.
  3. I would (fürther fürther) note that I am under no obligation to respond to each and every comment you make (and there will be times that purposefully avoiding responding would appear to be the most politic course of action).
  4. Finally (fürther fürther fürther), if you keep doing it, I'll probably eventually have to find some more coercive way of convincing you to follow good WP:Wikiquette and stop.
Ω. (Don't trip over the møøse on the way out.)
User talk
  • If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hatnotes

Please stop reverting my edits placing the hatnotes at the top of the article. Per Misplaced Pages:Hatnote: Hatnotes are placed at the very top of the article, before any other items such as images, navigational templates and maintenance templates (like the "cleanup", "unreferenced", and "POV" templates). Rreagan007 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this obscure MOS appears to be quite out of touch with actual practice. HrafnStalk(P) 19:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not obscure at all. It is reiterated here: MOS:LEAD#Elements_of_the_lead. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Very few articles place hatnotes before maintenance tags -- for one thing it looks very very ugly and distracting. HrafnStalk(P) 19:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Drrll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This thread is closed as being not even remotely "productive". -- HrafnStalk(P) 08:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm presently working with User:Drrll to help him improve his Misplaced Pages experience and to improve his interaction with the community. Could I ask you to please refrain from making comments like "for somebody who spends so much time whining piteously on WP:WQA, your mud-slinging is contemptibly WP:POT" and to focus only on discussing the topic? It would help greatly if you would show some self-control in this matter. Comment on the contributions under discussion, not on other editors. Viriditas (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


  1. Unless and until you can persuade Drrll to cease and desist WP:STALKing me to make unsubstantiated accusations, no you bloody well may not ask me that.
  2. I would further point out that, based upon our previous interactions, you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO goodwill with me. You may wish to consider how this affects your suitability to mentor a user who appears to make getting in my face one of his main aims on Wikiedpia.

HrafnStalk(P) 06:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are not contingent on controlling the behavior of other editors. All editors are expected to adhere to them. I get the impression that you see Misplaced Pages as a WP:BATTLEFIELD where ideological warfare is the norm. Perhaps you've been fighting too long and you need a break to see the big picture. This is an encyclopedia where editors of all stripes, from every conceivable background, work together to write articles. Take a moment to think about this before you reply. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I have just warned Drrll about stalking you, per your concerns. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


Viriditas:

  1. Neither describing an unsubstantiated accusation as "mud-slinging" nor describing WP:WQA whilst simultaneously making unsubstantiated accusations on article talk as "whining piteously" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. It is rather simply slightly colourful language, of the sort that you'll very commonly see on display on Misplaced Pages talkpages. And suggesting that it falls under WP:NPA is even more of a stretch.
  2. Given that Drrll 'came out swinging' with an unsubstantiated accusation on Talk:William Lane Craig‎, that you accuse me of WP:BATTLEFIELD suggests that you are a considerably less-than-neutral mediator.

Given that you are doing your absolute best to cast everything as 'my fault', rather than making even the slightest attempt to WP:AGF, your intervention here is decidedly unwelcome. HrafnStalk(P) 07:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Drrll's talk page comments merely noted, in his opinion, your "personal dislike of a reliable source". His comment is based on your evaluation of the source and is not a personal attack nor is it a violation of WP:CIVIL. My edits to User talk:Drrll show the opposite of what you claim. You said that you would not AGF with me ("you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO goodwill with me") and then claimed that I did not AGF. I disagree. In any case, it does look like Drrll followed you to the page, and I've asked him to stop. For the record, I have not "intervened" in the article or the talk page in question. I have contacted Drrll and yourself in the hopes that we can create a more civil atmosphere and resolve any outstanding personal disputes. I think it will help greatly if Drrll does not follow you around, and you should do the same. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


  1. "Drrll's talk page comments merely" GROSSLY violated WP:AGF by attributing my doubts over Fox News to "personal dislike" when even its own article suggests reasons why Fox News may not be viewed as a reliable source -- particularly on issues related to the Culture Wars.
  2. "based upon our previous interactions, you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO goodwill with me" summarised the fact that, as far as I can remember, not a single one of our previous interactions has been even remotely positive. You are therefore one of the worst possible editors to act as a mediator between Drrll and myself. Interpreting that as a refusal to WP:AGF is placing the worst possible interpretation on that statement, which is itself a violation of WP:AGF.
  3. You therefore appear to be bending over backward to place the most positive interpretation on Drrll's actions, and the most negative on my own. This gives me even less reason to welcome your intervention.

Both yourself and Drrll are paid-up members of the 'We don't like Hrafn' club -- which maybe should have given you pause before appointing yourself as Drrll's mentor, given his predilection towards seeking conflict with me. I don't see how your continued intervention is even remotely productive, so am strongly tempted to curtail it (per my user talk page headers). HrafnStalk(P) 07:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I respect your interpretation. You say that I don't like you. May I ask, what is it about you that I'm supposed to dislike? I'm genuinely curious, so please let me know. Is there some reason you believe others dislike you? AFAIK, I've only seen complaints about your lack of civility. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas: I don't know you well enough to know why you have an especially negative reaction towards me. I just know that it exists, and engenders a reciprocal reaction towards yourself. That makes an especially poor basis for interaction on behalf of somebody, such as Drrll, who has already (through WP:DEADHORSEd issues dragged through several articles, then several noticeboards) worn goodwill very thin. I don't especially want to be nice to you, I don't especially want to be nice to Drrll. Whilst I do want to obey Misplaced Pages policy (including WP:CIVIL), that makes a rather dry and emotionally-empty rationale -- my head sees why, but my heart isn't really in it. HrafnStalk(P) 08:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
May I please request diffs showing this alleged "negative" reaction? As I have said previously, my reaction to your lack of civility is to note it. You say you don't want to be nice to people, and I'm genuinely confused by that statement. Is there a good reason we shouldn't be nice to people on Misplaced Pages? Forgive me for any misinterpretation, but you seem to be very angry about something. This is supposed to be a collegial environment, not a battle. If you have any ideas on how to stop the bickering between you and Drrll, by all means implement them. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


  1. Your request seems unreasonable. I see little point in searching back through talkpage histories for evidence as to why I think you don't like me. That neither do we have a clean slate, nor have our interactions in the past been characterisable as positive, should be a sufficient reason for me to feel disinclined to accept your mediation.
  2. No I did not "say don't want to be nice to people" -- what I in fact stated was that "I don't especially want to be nice to" you or Drrll. Leaving off qualifying adverbs misrepresents their contents, in violation of WP:TALK. The point I was making is that yourself and Drrll have given me little reason, at an emotional level, for me to want to be nice to either of you -- or to want to be nice to Drrll in order to be nice to you, so that left the intellectual "rather dry and emotionally-empty rationale" of Misplaced Pages policy.
  3. I would suggest that given your one-sided demand in your opening comment, and your own inability to avoid engaging in "bickering" thereafter, you are precisely the wrong person to intervene here.

This conversation is over. HrafnStalk(P) 08:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just some recognition of your efforts

Thanks for watching over the articles you watch over, particularly those revolving around creationism and evolution topics. I tend to see your username often when anonymous IPs are making ridiculous edits or when nonsensical arguments need rebutting on talk pages (e.g. Age of the Earth). Your efforts don't go unnoticed and are certainly appreciated. John Shandy` • talk 05:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:POT and rude comment from a lazy editor, who can't be bothered adequately formatting their own citations, or investigating their own arguments -- and seeks to blame me for these deficiencies.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wish I could share the above. It's probably true in dealing with creationists, I don't know. But what I see is a Wikipedian behaving rudely, and lazily. You are quick to delete other edits, slap on tags, but contribute very little if anything of value. As per the recent incidents you were involved with on Admin noticeboard, you would do better to follow the spirit of Misplaced Pages etiquette and contribute more to articles instead of arguing. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

William Lane Craig article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Off-topic -- take it to Talk:William Lane Craig‎

"Consensus on talk" doesn't mean a thing to me. Browsing over the edit history, this article has been subject to an edit war between you, Theowarner, and anyone who wishes to expand on the article--which is childish, to put it lightly. At the very least the charge of not meeting notability guidelines needs to be removed, and the article does require expansion. Note the second pillar of Misplaced Pages: "Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view." I believe purposefully stunting an article in the way you are doing violates this essential pillar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joycey17 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If you'd actually bothered to read the article talk page, instead of simply stating "'Consensus on talk' doesn't mean a thing to me", you might have noticed that Theowarner is in fact heavily in favour of trimming this article -- and has even expressed a desire to see it deleted. As to notability, point to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and the tag will be removed expeditiously. The trouble is that none of us can actually find such significant reliable independent coverage. And how is sourcing almost the entire article to Craig and his ministry even remotely NPOV? HrafnStalk(P) 12:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I think Joycey17 (talk · contribs) is what we call a "sleeper" account. It was created in 2007, made one edit in 2010, and now shows up to edit war and revert to an older version. I have no objection to the account using the talk page, but this kind of behavior appears suspicious, as if it was trying to evade scrutiny of its other accounts. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I've come across such a/cs myself from time to time -- if I stop to think about them (which I generally don't), I'd probably characterise them as (low level) serial-WP:SPAs. Every year or two, they find some new topic of interest, edit that topic (and generally only that topic) for a short time, before disappearing back into hibernation. They don't generally seem to be particularly harmful (and tend to be less obsessive than true SPAs), but I don't generally find them particularly helpful either (little interest in how Misplaced Pages gets things done). HrafnStalk(P) 03:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please see

this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.177.240 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

WLC, and ReasonableFaith

FYI, you were mentioned by name on the ReasonableFaith forum regarding the recent changes to the WLC article. I believe the discussion has died down now, with the OP acting like a troll, and everyone else at least marginally agreeing with the edits. However, I thought you should be informed anyway. Here's the link.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Forced Wikibreak

My monitor has died, so I'm taking an forced Wikibreak for the next couple of weeks until a new one arrives (Dell apparently do quite good monitors but completely crap logistics). HrafnStalk(P) 04:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Questioning controversial claim designated as disruptive edit

Hello Hrafn, to avoid my further possible blockage due to your accusation of my edit as WP:DE, I inevitably had to follow recommendations for WP:DR and initiate a new discussion at WP:DRN noticeboard. Since the case concerns your actions, pls. take it kindly into your consideration. I hope we will manage to resolve our dispute in civil manner by using help of 3rd-party editors. I apologize for any inconvenience, thanks for your understanding.--Stephfo (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for butting in here, but can you just back the hell off Stephfo? Honestly, it is a dead horse, just let it go. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)