Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:54, 10 November 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Dylan Flaherty, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --John (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Larsson Duplication

Duh... I was the one who wrote that and added it into the article orignally. I forgot I did that, so I put it there again a few days ago :D ValenShephard (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Best thing about Misplaced Pages is that we're so far away from 1.0. :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Brandon Rios

I'm sure that Rios did fight out of the Garden City Gym. Victor Ortiz is from the same gym and now those two hate each because of what happened during thier amateur careers. You're right, I just can't find a citation so lets keep it off the Article for now. Thanks for staying on it.--Polvo (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Authorship of the books of the Christian Bible

Suggest: (a) change title to "Authorship of books of the bible"; (b) use Hebrew (Jewish) order of books, since they invented it; (c) re-write contents to reflect genuine scholarship. If you're interested... PiCo (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, thanks for your advice. I've come to the conclusion that RomanHistorian has committed the fatal scholarly error of relying entirely on a single book instead of a broader understanding. Worse, the book he chose has a strong POV that amounts to fringe biblical maximalism of the conservative protestant sort. I've looked at some of the changes he made, and they are consistent in adding this POV, often while editing and even deleting mainstream views. I've done my best to clean up some of the mess, and I see that you have, too. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But I'm willing to try to engage him in dialogue rather than treat him with hostility. Let's see what comes of it. PiCo (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my frustration with his single-mindedness is manifesting as hostility. I will be glad to back off and let cooler minds engage. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, by all means engage with him. I'll suggest to him that he restrict himself to one of two articles to avoid starting major conflicts - personally I don't have any interest at all in the NT, and pretty narrow interests in the OT. I'll suggest he take up the Bible Authors and Joshua. PiCo (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but I will do my best to be civil. As for topics, I suspect I might have more interest in the NT than you do.

I've given it some consideration, and I think his best bet if he actually wants his changes kept at all is to make them slowly, in moderation, and to accept corrections. When he changes an entire article, the best I can do sometimes is just revert it wholesale. If he changes a paragraph or two at a time, I might still have objections, but I probably won't just revert. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It always helps to you know, post on the talk page why you are reverting. Give the other editor more detailed rationale for your objections, and then you can both work together to find a compromise you can both agree to (assuming one cannot convince the other outright of their position). At least 3 or 4 articles where you have been engaged in edit warring, you have made no effort to dialog with the other party. I'd encourage you now to join these discussions, and focus on what the article can be, then working block outright new addition via reverting. -Andrew c  19:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR

It appears you are engaged in edit warring. Not just on a single article, but on multiple articles targeting one user in particular. On Misplaced Pages, we have a strong policy against edit warring, WP:3RR. We consider edit warring, no matter who may be "right" (except in cases of blatant vandalism or copyright violations), to be destructive, and thus we block user who edit war on a continuing basis. Please read up on our edit warring policy, and consider this a warning. You need to find ways to work with and compromise with other editors, and work our your differences on the talk page. -Andrew c  13:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but I believe the fire has been put out. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Genesis

Thank you. "best" makes more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendroche (talk • contribs) 03:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you too. I think the commitment to mainstream scholarship is something we share. Anyway, glad to have met you and worked with you. PiCo (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the offer of support. At the moment I'm satisfied with they way this is being handled, since the admins involved seem to be fair and dispassionate. If everyone involved can accept the outcomes and avoid getting emotional we should be able to resolve it with a minimum of pain Happy editing - have you looked at Authorship of the Bible lately? I added a list of deuterocanonical books, which I hope is sufficient. PiCo (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I did look and I saw, and thanks. PiCo, whatever our disagreements, I never thought for a minute that would be capable of the sort of narrow-mindedness required to exclude these books. I hope you are right about the dispute resolution process, as there does seem to be a long-term pattern of fringe non-mainstream Biblical views being imposed upon Misplaced Pages. It would be nice if the matter were resolved with some permanence. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Support for behavior identified as traditional or moral such as discipline and religious commitment" @ Family values

I removed this section because it's a meaningless politico-religious catchphrase. Discipline of what sort? Religious commitment to what? Of course they identify it as moral, that's why they support it! Of course they identify it as traditional, they're conservative! I suggest clarification if you're going to want it to stay. Roscelese (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, so I fixed it. I agreed that it was vague, so I looked at the citations for anything more detailed. What I found didn't even support what was there. Thank you for catching this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gospel of John. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JJB 07:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already reported RomanHistorian. Wait until it blows over. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, it seems to me that you broke WP:3RR at Gospel of John per the edits which I have listed at WP:AN3#User:Dylan Flaherty reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: ). There may still be time for you to avoid sanctions if you will promise to avoid this article, and anything related to the Bible, for seven days. You may still participate on talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I'm taking a break from those articles, regardless. I'm going to give RomanHistorian, JJB and HardyPlants a week to do what they like with those articles, without my interference. If the end result is an improvement, great. If not, I'll revert them all the way back to yesterday.

Really, what they should be doing is making a few small changes, waiting to see if there are any objections, then moving on to the next round. This way, at least the uncontroversial suggestions, such as spelling and grammar improvements, will get through. But they want to be bold, so that's going to lead to bold reverts. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed, after a false report after I edited Battle of Jericho, I'm extending my week-long vacation to all Bible-related articles, not just articles about the Bible. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a promise to edit war more, instead constructively working together. Hardyplants (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

HardyPlants, it takes at least two to edit war. What are you promising? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you did not read my commnet, it says "constructively working together" which up to this point you have not done.Hardyplants (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That was my point: are you going to constructively work together with me or are you going to go off and make really bad changes that will only wind up reverted? Think about it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for telling us this, Dylan. This is all being logged. I will keep monitoring your behavior and will report you again the next time you edit war. Edit warring is edit warring, even if it is across multiple articles. RomanHistorian (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to apologize for stalking those articles and reverting perfectly good changes just to make a point? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and keep up your behavior. This will make it easier to get you banned from Misplaced Pages in the future. I am glad that my reversions to Gospel of John finally pushed you over the edge and exposed you for what you are:) RomanHistorian (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you are unrepentant. You damaged a half dozen articles out of rage, and yet you pretend to have the moral high ground. None are so blind as those who will not see! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You both need a break, when your editing become personal nothing good can come from it. Hardyplants (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal, like calling for a permanent block? Or personal like wikistalking and reverting perfectly good changes? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus

I was simply reverting the weasel wording. We can't make generalizations unless the sources themselves make those generalizations. What you need to do is find reliable sources that indicate that historians are apathetic and put that into the article rather than remove the wording. If the sources discuss historians then that that can be used in the article. This article is highly contentious as seen by its protection so what I would advise is that you take these discussions to the talk page. Unilateral edits are going to rub someone the wrong way, and its great to remember Misplaced Pages is collaborative. I'm going to revert my edit largely because I don't have the time to pursue this, but you can expect any editor who comes along to remove that weasel wording. Take the discussion to the talk page and you'll save yourself a lot of trouble.(olive (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

That's good advice. We do have a reliable source about historians that would preclude their mention in that sentence. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh more evidence. Thank you olive:) RomanHistorian (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Dylan.Take that information to the talk page. I'd better not revert myself since it looks like what you changed was the consensus version. The best advice Is to take your time and discuss these concerns and changes on the talk page. A consensus version means most everyone is agreeing. Even if they're wrong, you can't change the article with out creating a ruckus, that's the nature of collaboration. Discuss, discuss, discuss. I see you're a pretty new editor so it takes a while to get the hang of the difference between what's in the sources and even the most educated opinion. I'm still working on it. Its an encyclopedia not a research paper, and that's a big difference. Good luck. (olive (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)) \

Thanks again for the advice. I'm just going to take a week off from Biblical topics, so we'll let the current version stand. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian: I don't know what you're babbling on about, but I'm going to have to ask you not to comment on my talk page unless it's something urgent. Why are you even here? Don't you have some false reports to file somewhere? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Consider this your warning: if you keep reverting my edits I will keep pursing this and will have you banned.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What edit have I reverted? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As soon as you revert more than a couple of my edits, I will file another edit warring complaint against you. You have been warned, and I am not the only one who holds this view about you.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh and just to clarify, I don't care if you revert all of my changes at once or over a period of time. I will still report you. You might as well take longer since it will give me more time to build up a stronger case against you. You are building up a nice history, and getting everyone to turn against you as it is. This is going to be fun!RomanHistorian (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your glee shows that you are acting out of malice, and that this is a blatant attempt to intimidate me. There is absolutely no rule against reverting bad changes, so your threats are empty. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and make your mass reversions. We can see what the moderators and other editors think about the legitimacy of your changes and of your actions. Probably about the same as they have thought so far. Everything you can do to build your history of edit warring will make me happy. Plus, as EdJohnston noted, it is pretty obvious you are a sockpuppet, so that is another avenue I can follow as well.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What's pretty obvious is that I caught you in a lie, and none of the wild accusations you toss out can distract from that. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Carl

LOL, I know, it was the best I could do in a few minutes... I don't know. it's still a bit, off. I9834 (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

At least he's no longer a member of the living dead. Then again, with his characteristic bluntness and unpopular social views, he might as well be dead, at least politically. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rklawton (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Trash talk

(The following was dumped here from User_talk:RomanHistorian. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling my edits "trash" is not civil. Neither is erasing my comments here without acknowledging them.

There is indeed "nothing that can be done about" me because I am not the one who's violating the rules; you are. And I am absolutely going to post on this page again if I need to inform you about rule violations on your part, so keeping me away from this page is not an option. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I said stay away from meRomanHistorian (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Although you have stalked and bad-mouthed me, I will not do that to you. However, I will also not "stay away" from you. If you break the rules, I will certainly notify you, and if appropriate, I will report your violations. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Cameron and parenting

Did Paul Cameron write anything on LGBT parenting? He would be an easy and uncontestable example of misrepresentation of research, unlike Schumm, to whom only few have paid attention to either way. Mentioning Schumm even as fringe example seems WP:UNDUE, because he isn't notable among the fringe. (I wonder if Schumm just writes papers for their shock value, e.g. . It seems more plausible that he has an agenda: )Tijfo098 (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and he's much more famous for this sort of thing than Schumm. He's the one who said "there is a strong, disproportionate association between child molestation and homosexuality", but couldn't back it up with evidence. There's more in his article and the links from it. My favorite sentence is:

Cameron was quoted in Rolling Stone as saying that homosexual sex was more pleasurable than most heterosexual sex, and as a result, if homosexuality were tolerated then it would become predominant within a few generations.

While I admire his willingness to do first-hand research, so to speak, my suspicion is that he's either doing heterosexual sex wrong or he's himself is not at all heterosexual.

Schumm's agenda is entirely transparent, due to his public admissions: rather than do honest science, he wants to make the science conform to his religion. I find this deeply offensive, not only because of the dishonesty, but because he's buying into the idea of science as the arbiter of morality, making him guilty of scientism. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

talk page deletion

Hello Dylan, I'm sure this was an accident, but it appears you've deleted my edit on the TPM talk page. . Could you please undo your edit? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It was indeed an accident -- there were multiple edit conflicts as I tried to respond. But I can't find whatever it is you wrote, so I would appreciate it if you would restore it yourself. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you please remove this edit? Thanks..Malke 2010 (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with it? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is something that might be misconstrued by others and in the spirit of working together I'd appreciate it if you would remove it. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd really rather not. It's not insulting or even uncivil. It's simply a brief statement to explain why I an unable to discuss the topic with you further. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'd prefer that you did as I am not comfortable being the subject of a new thread on an article talk page. The best place to make a comment would be on my talk page, because when you think about it, the other editors on the article talk page are not there to mediate or assist in your dealings with other editors. The only one who can help there would be the other editor, in this case, me. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but it probably doesn't belong on the article talk page. You should put it on her talk page, or request dispute resolution. She even has a mentor you could contact. We try to avoid interpersonal conflicts on the article talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to move it, but not to remove it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse

I've notified Juggalobrink that continuing to call edits in a content dispute vandalism is inappropriate, however, please don't edit war. If you're not able to reach a consensus on the talk page, please use some other dispute resolution methods to get outside opinions and find a solution. Shell 21:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Shell. At this time, I will limit myself to two reversions in any 24 period on that article. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm, that's really missing the point. You need to work out the problem you have on the ICP article rather than revert at all. Shell 23:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that this avoids an edit war. I've already discussed the content issue on the talk page, so there's nothing more to be done there until there are replies. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your warning has been removed with the request that you stop the disruptive edits, especially the likes of the Miracles (Insane Clown Posse song) edit which was unsourced and, more importantly, trivial. If you would like me to explain exactly what I mean by trivial, I'll gladly do so. I've also brought up the Christianity Today article at the Insane Clown Posse Noticeboard. Please add your stance on the subject.Juggalobrink (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not burned out, thanks. I just think long-running battles like this create an unfriendly environment for other editors. The bits we're obsessing over are a very small part of the larger article. NillaGoon (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not wrong about that. I'd like very much to move past these disagreements so that the article can go back to normal. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Dennett

You're right. gf.org is obviously not a bad source, although bigthink appeared to be. Since Sci Amer is a good neutral source of the same info, gf.org seemed unnecessary, esp. since it requires the reader to take another step (i.e., search) to find the info presumably being referenced. Cloonmore (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I don't dispute that SciAm is a good source, so I'm fine with it being used. I just wanted to understand why you rejected gf.org, but this clears it up.

Thanks for working on this. I've done my best to source the remaining two awards. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility

• Regain your credibility by being honest...

I know that it's frustrating dealing with other editors who don't seem to be on the same level. But we must both assume good faith and avoid incivility. Accusing other editors of lying, or strongly implying it, violates both policies. Please try to keep your comments collegial and it'll be easier for everyone.   Will Beback  talk  04:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I've had problems with this particular editor before -- just scroll up -- but that's no excuse for incivility. If I understand correctly, the right thing to do now is to go redact my original statement. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making that edit.   Will Beback  talk  05:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, User:Arthur Rubin has much Edit warring without any comments, a common tactic; just look at his edits over the past year: Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin. He particularly abuses IP Users (regardless of Misplaced Pages:Not every IP is a vandal) by POV. Note: I attempted to put this comment on his talk page, but my contributions were blocked (Edit conflict). Best Wishes ... wp:tea. 99.54.139.253 (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Merciline Jayakody

Dear friend , could you please assists me to solve Problem of this Article Talk:Merciline Jayakody/Temp--Wipeouting (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Tea party / constitution

I agree that if possible, the lead should state specifically what their interpretation of the constitution is, if such a citation can be found. My concern was that, on it's own, "their interpretation" had something of the scare quotes about it. It's a matter of opinion, at any rate. I'll check out the talk page. ---Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page warnings

Editors can delete these, that's acceptable. Dougweller (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It is acceptable to move them to the talk page of the editor who left them? And, when the warning is legitimate, is it acceptable to ignore the warning and continue to violate rules? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete them off your page if you don't like them.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your "Tags Clean-up"

Dylan I've already spoken twice to your concern, within the discussion section you've created. I wrote:

The specific tags in question will remain until their respective debates have ended. However I'm not going to entertain your questions in this section in every instance that a tag is prematurely removed and needs to be restored. If the tags bug you, then you can participate in the discussions to speed them to conclusion.

Do you understand what that means? -Digiphi (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It means you think your name is Jimbo. It turns out that nobody else sees things your way, which is why other editors keep removing your excessive tags. I can't stop them, and neither can you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of those tags were mine, rather that Digiphi's. But there is no consensus for your view of tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed this on the article talk page. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You had not, as of 5 minutes ago. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why they say patience is a virtue. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, it means that the article doesn't need your blessing to contain the tags that people have added to indicate that content is controverted. It also means that neither I nor any other editor needs to ask your permission to maintain the tags that people have added to indicate that content is controverted, and I won't. If you want for something to cease being controverted, then you may participate in its discussion section on the talk page. If you are unhappy with the direction a discussion has taken, you may not subvert the process by making edits anyway, or by trying to duplicate an ongoing discussion in a new section because you feel that your way is simply superior. You have complained in the past when I've quoted policy to demonstrate the wrongness of your actions, and claimed that you've already read all policies and guides. Therefore you know what tags are for and why they are put in articles. Tags attached to objects in the article which are controverted will remain until those objects are not disputed in ongoing discussions on the talk page. You need to make peace with that. If you don't like that process (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT) then you should petition Admins, pursue RfC or perhaps check out the noticeboards. I strongly encourage you to explain your feelings to whoever you want. Please do so. Otherwise remember that I am not a cop, and you have the right to remain silent. -Digiphi (Talk) 16:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I explained on the appropriate page, it's not a matter of personal challenges. Whoever puts up a tag absolutely must be able to explain their objection, otherwise the tag is removed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My "RSN" comment over at SSM

Just a quick note--I do agree that the document is a fine source for the scientific consensus on that question. My comment about "take it to RSN" was, I hope, a way of bringing that question to a broader audience if those who disagree with you (and I for that matter) think that the source isn't reliable enough for the statement. Sorry if my comment came off any other way, it wasn't intended as disagreement. Cheers! --j⚛e decker 21:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I understood it just fine. If anything, it was my response that could have been clearer. We're on the same page here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rockin'.  :) --j⚛e decker 22:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

~~~ has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

--j⚛e decker 00:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Joe, make sure to order a round for yourself. You came up with the compromise that broke down the stalemate. Together, we turned an edit war and a week-long protection into a quick resolution. I'd call that a good day's work. :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My pint is already on the table and frosty, thanks! Cheers! --j⚛e decker 00:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Not minor!

Sorry about any inconvenience I performed on that page. I don't have the equipment to take back my minor tagging I believe, so should I change the tag or something? I wouldn't have tagged it if I didn't find a problem with the article's vocabulary. Backtable _{Speak to me} 04:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't sweat it: I fixed the error. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your help on the gospel pages

It's nice to have backup. Leadwind (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You can always count on me to try to do the right thing. However, I will not edit-war or even come close to it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Golden rule

It's best to treat other editors as you would like to be treated. Uncivil remarks directed towards other editors not only hurts them, it coarsens the entire discussion. This is not a Sunday morning talk show where commentators hurl insults at each other to boost the ratings. This is a serious effort to write an encyclopedia. We don't have to make friends with everyone we meet but we must be civil towards all, regardless of the topic. That's not just a recommendation, it's a policy. Please carefully read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF before making any more talk page contributions. Going forward, I expect you to follow those core policies closely.   Will Beback  talk  09:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your recent comments on the TPM talk page. Please read and follow the policies I listed above. This is serious. Editors get blocked because of personal attacks.   Will Beback  talk  13:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There's been quite a bit of conflict on that page. That's why I'm wondering if you could point at something specific. For example, if there's a sentence that's too harsh, I can redact it. I'm not sure what to do with general advice other than generally agree. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Final warning. If you make another comment like this I will make a formal complaint. Again, please read the policies, then re-read them. If you have any questions about this please clear them up before making further talk page postings.   Will Beback  talk  13:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, thank you for pointing out a concrete issue. I have redacted it. If you feel it's still too harsh, please let me know. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, while you certainly have the right to make a formal complaint at any time, I suspect you'll get better results by just asking. It's not my intent to violate any rules, so pointing out potential violations is usually enough. In any case, thanks for helping me correct this error. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been to this page too often in this regard. I have asked you several times to read the relevant policies, but you haven't said if you've done so or if you have any questions. Pointing out errors a few times is OK, but by now you should know for yourself how to avoid them. I assume you're working in good faith but if you naturally have a confrontational style then you have to find a new style for Misplaced Pages work. Anyway, feel free to call or write if you aren't sure of something.   Will Beback  talk  09:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, I won't belabor the point, but context is king. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

review of Guthrie

I'm not sure what you wanted me to say. I've seen the first page of the Guthrie review and wish I could read the whole thing. Leadwind (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear, but I was trying not to bias you. Mostly, I was wondering if you could provide a sanity check of my interpretation. Am I reading much more into this than it actually says? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been away for a few days. Getting tired of wikipedia to tell the truth - not so much an encyclopedia as an argument in a pub. PiCo (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I can sympathize. Let's just leave it at that. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement

Hello. I have signed on to mediate this case. Please make your opening statements at this time. Thank you! Hamtechperson 00:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh

First, let me inform you how I found this; Malke 2010's talk page is on my watchlist.

Now that that is out of the way, you should not be edit warring with them there. You should know better than this.— Dædαlus 06:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It was rude to change my section heading, as it was not offensive and I indicated my preference by changing it back. When he would not honor it, I simply deleted the section to avoid pointlessly escalating. In short, the matter is settled. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Daed.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, in some of my beginning edits here, I ran into the same problem, I was having a discussion with a user that turned sour, and thus I wanted to remove my posts from their page. Through an ANI thread, I found this wasn't the case; that I wasn't allowed to do so. Yes, it was rude to change the header, but in Mal's defense, your header was rather rude the way you had it, implying that Mal had no common sense.— Dædαlus 06:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Daed, help me out here. Did this show common sense? Or did it violate common sense along with Misplaced Pages rules? I honestly want to know your opinion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)