| Revision as of 00:25, 31 August 2005 editNereocystis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,989 edits Nereocystis's response to Researcher99← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:19, 2 September 2005 edit undoNereocystis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,989 edits defense of DunkelzaNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Dunkelza's response to Researcher99== | |||
| Okay, ] just spammed the ] page by posting his RFC response on THAT page as well. I removed it from that inappropriate place, but will leave his response here, where it belongs. This is another example of Researcher99 hijacking legitimate article discussion to grind his personal ax. Such activity is highly counterproductive and '''MUST STOP'''. | Okay, ] just spammed the ] page by posting his RFC response on THAT page as well. I removed it from that inappropriate place, but will leave his response here, where it belongs. This is another example of Researcher99 hijacking legitimate article discussion to grind his personal ax. Such activity is highly counterproductive and '''MUST STOP'''. | ||
| Line 4: | Line 6: | ||
| Researcher99 has instead insisted on using the definitions provided by said Christian Polygamists, rather than scientific definitions from Anthropology, Sociology, or Zoology. I believe that Researcher99 should focus that POV work on a ] article and bring only appropriate scientific evidence to the general NPOV ] article. ] 20:08 August 30, 2005 (EDT) | Researcher99 has instead insisted on using the definitions provided by said Christian Polygamists, rather than scientific definitions from Anthropology, Sociology, or Zoology. I believe that Researcher99 should focus that POV work on a ] article and bring only appropriate scientific evidence to the general NPOV ] article. ] 20:08 August 30, 2005 (EDT) | ||
| :In defense of Dunkelza's references, Researcher99 merely asked for an existence proof. | |||
| ::The article currently declares a false statement, saying that "group marriage" is sometimes called "true polygamy." | |||
| :and | |||
| ::The article currently also declares another false statement. It makes up a new word, saying that "group marriage" is sometimes called "polygynandry." | |||
| :In both cases, a handful of references proving that the terms are used as described is sufficient to handle Researcher99's claims. Later refererences improved on the initial references. ] 17:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Nereocystis's response to Researcher99== | ==Nereocystis's response to Researcher99== | ||
Revision as of 17:19, 2 September 2005
Dunkelza's response to Researcher99
Okay, Researcher99 just spammed the Talk:Polygamy page by posting his RFC response on THAT page as well. I removed it from that inappropriate place, but will leave his response here, where it belongs. This is another example of Researcher99 hijacking legitimate article discussion to grind his personal ax. Such activity is highly counterproductive and MUST STOP.
Also, for the record, I am not upset that Researcher99 doesn't like my citations, but rather that he doesn't present any NPOV evidence of his own. I agree that my citations aren't always the best quality, as it is difficult to find entire bodies of text that show group marriage as being included in the broad category of polygamy. Instead, I cited study guides and other academic snippets where group marriage is shown as a subcategory of polygamy. In the process, I have consistenly maintained an NPOV. We should all be avoiding (as much as possible) information provided by political groups like "Christian Polygamists", "Anti-Polygamists" , and "Polyamorists".
Researcher99 has instead insisted on using the definitions provided by said Christian Polygamists, rather than scientific definitions from Anthropology, Sociology, or Zoology. I believe that Researcher99 should focus that POV work on a Christian Polygamy article and bring only appropriate scientific evidence to the general NPOV polygamy article. Dunkelza 20:08 August 30, 2005 (EDT)
- In defense of Dunkelza's references, Researcher99 merely asked for an existence proof.
- The article currently declares a false statement, saying that "group marriage" is sometimes called "true polygamy."
- and
- The article currently also declares another false statement. It makes up a new word, saying that "group marriage" is sometimes called "polygynandry."
- In both cases, a handful of references proving that the terms are used as described is sufficient to handle Researcher99's claims. Later refererences improved on the initial references. Nereocystis 17:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Nereocystis's response to Researcher99
I will only respond to a couple of items.
Yes, Researcher99 and I did discuss a possible resolution. As one of the conditions, Researcher99 wanted me to defer to his expertise. I was unwilling to do this. After nearly 2 weeks of discussion which want around in circles, I was ready to quite. Uriah923's offer to mediate came at a fortunate time. After nearly 2 weeks of discussing Uriah923's mediation, Researcher99 wasn't any closer to agreeing. He wanted to discuss past insults from months ago (which this RFC is also doing, oh well). It was too late to revert to the previous discussion between Researcher99 and me. We had 2 discussions lasting nearly 2 weeks each without ever discussing the text of the article. Add in the previous attempts, and it was clear that Researcher99 wasn't going to come close to appropriate wiki behavior.
I suggest that Researcher99 find a mentor who can help him through the use of collaboration. This will allow Researcher99 to contribute without causing undue pain to others.
I do look forward to a Christian Polygamy article, but that has to be done carefully as well. There are a number of people or groups who consider themselves Christian polygamists. Researcher99 considers only his group thetruthbearer.com, to be legitimate Christian polygamy. Nereocystis 00:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)