Talk:Thelema/Rabelais/talk

Untitled
So Vassyana, I say that ''as Sutin points out, you can't remove "God" or add more deities or even make "God" optional without creating something new. The article can cite people claiming that you can, but only if it presents their views together with this scholarly account.'' Then we have the argument that including Sutin's account with theirs "is not neutral". I obviously can't tell if I've made a real compromise with a user view that I don't understand, but I've tried to include all sources and published POVs. Please make a decision. Dan (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you would leave my text unchanged and add your sources and points of view in a separate sentence we could resolve this much more quickly. I've repeatedly asked you to add point of view rather than alter existing text but you persist in changing what I've written which is completely supported by my sources. Lay off with the changes, okay? Will in China (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How's that? Dan (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we've included these other late religious views, how shall we include Sabazius? Dan (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And how could the part about the Abbey count as synthesis if Bowen doesn't? Sutin explicitly talks about the Abbey as well as Rabelais in general. Dan (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, so does Bowen (still on the cited page). Dan (talk)


 * Sabazius is talking about the difference between Crowley's religion and Rabelais' philosophy, so it belongs in the section on Crowley. We haven't gotten to that development historically yet. Will in China (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

He also says Rabelais did not propose a serious philosophy. And the quote you just added does not mention a separate philosophy of Thelema; it says, "Thélème, in addition to being a satirical anti-abbey, is also a pattern of the ideals of Pantagruelism, of the whole of Rabelais’s ﬁctional undertaking." The same author explains in one of my sources that the name refers to the will of God. (She also deals with "the spirit of the abbey, as a realm of Christian perfection that neither Gargantua nor Fre`re Jean will enter, no more than Moses entered the promised land.") Since it apparently counts as relevant, I think I'll use that quote for the requested "syn" citation. Dan (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please have the courtesy to let me finish my edits without reverting three times while I am doing so, jerk . Will in China (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Chill
You really need to chill Dan. This is a draft. I don't edit in an editor, I edit directly on Wikipedia. I don't edit in a single edit. You had your turn, then you repeatedly reverted while I was working, causing multiple edit conflict. Do that again, and I've had it, I'll open an RfC against your conduct. Will in China (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What would you say to someone who just broke WP:3RR for the second time in less than a month, because of the same dispute? Dan (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If you would refrain from reverting while someone is editing, it wouldn't happen. 3RR doesn't apply to drafts on talk pages in any case. Will in China (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A "page" is any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Dan (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain something. I don't look at my watchlist between a series of edits. I am WORKING. Then I will look at the talk page. Reverting me 3 times with an interval of as little as six minutes can only be interpreted as being intentionally disruptive to my working on the article. There is no urgency and I should get to present my suggested form without you messing with it while I'm doing it. Got it? I believe you owe me an apology, not an insult and a threat about "3RR" which doesn't even apply here. Will in China (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So your intent by reverting me 3 times was to make it impossible for me to edit. Well FUCK YOU! Will in China (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If by "disruptive" you mean asking for a response here. Dan (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverting is inherently disruptive to editing. You did it three times for no reason. This is a DRAFT. You didn't even wait a reasonable amount of time for someone to even look at the talk page much less formulate a response. You are playing games and using the letter or Wikipedia rules to thwart the spirit of editing. If you continue, I WILL NOT work with you. Now run off like a good little whatever you are and report me for everything. Don't forget to tell them you intentionally reverted a draft while another editor was actively editing it causing multiple edit conflicts for the editor and intentionally preventing them from presenting their proposed changes and then threatened 3RR to keep them from doing any more work on it today. Okay. Will in China (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my harsh words. Please acknowledge the disruptiveness of your reversions. This is a draft page. How can we discuss a proposed version if I'm not even allowed to finish it? Will in China (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)