User talk:Ilkali

 If you post a message here, I will respond to it here. If I start a discussion on your talk page, I will watch that page for responses. Please try not to distribute our conversations across multiple pages.

Archives: 2007, 2008, 2009

NPOV/FAQ Aqain
If I have misrepresented you in any way then I apologise unreservedly.

That said, I wish to clarify a couple of points that are not germaine to the NPOV/FAQ discussion. You stated that my proposal "is awful", rather than saying "in my opinion it is awful". Hence my comment. Several people have accused me of wishing to eradicate the word myth, albeit not lately. It was easy to assume from your comments that that was your intent as well. Regarding the window analogy. If you had made it clear that you were just saying that compromise isn't always good then I could have accepted that. In the context of the discussion, it came across that you were implying I was the one "wanting to break the windows".

These were my reasons. Once again, I apologise for any misrepresentation my perceptions may have caused.

More generally:

I have repeated my assertions that I am not religiously motivated and I am not "anti-myth" with good reason. I am not simply a "a friend of Til Eulenspiegel" or in any way ideologically opposed to yourself, Ben and others. I am genuinely trying to find true neutrality. I am genuinely trying to discuss this with a view to finding a consensus (rather than a compromise). I find it objectionable that Ben inserted a paragraph into the NPOV/FAQ without discussion or consensus, but have not exercised any right to simply remove what he has written, because that would be confrontational. Unfortunately, this discussion is becoming confrontational. As one of the "opponents" of my proposal, I ask you the following:
 * Is it right that one editor can insert a paragraph into what (at the time) is described as "official policy" wihtout consultation or consensus?
 * Am I wrong to seek consensus on an alternative?
 * Given the number of voices of dissent, is it right to keep the current wording when there is clearly not consensus?
 * Am I wrong to ask that editors not only are neutral, but are also seen to be neutral? (Which is, when it comes down to it, all that my proposal asks)

Most importantly, are you willing to work towards a wording that is acceptable to the vast majority (we will never get "all" to agree)?

I ask the above because I am getting fed up of the sheer intransigence of some editors. The "we must have myth" bleating is as bad as "we must not have myth". It is as dogmatic, as NPOV and no less dangerous than religious zealotry.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "You stated that my proposal "is awful", rather than saying "in my opinion it is awful"". Yes, because that's how English works. I say "this apple is delicious" rather than "in my opinion this apple is delicious", because I'm usually surrounded by people intelligent enough to infer that I am deliberately stating my opinion.
 * Also, I said that the position represented by your proposals was awful. I think that's an important distinction.
 * As for the rest of your message: I'm not interested in debating protocol and procedure, and I currently neither condone nor condemn any of Ben's actions.
 * "are you willing to work towards a wording that is acceptable to the vast majority[...]?" It's insulting to even ask the question. The reason people continue to disagree with you is not that they are stubborn or inflexible, it's that they think you're utterly wrong and you haven't convinced them otherwise. Ilkali (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are as many think I am right, if not more. I am trying to assume good faith. Protocol aside, Ben's wording has no more consensus than mine; ergo it should not stand. If you genuinely think mine is awful, that is fine - your opinion is yours to hold and I have no right to tell you otherwise. However, the simple fact is this: the current wording must change because it does not have consensus. You find it insulting that I ask if you are willing to work towards a new wording. That was not my intention. At present you have not contributed towards finding a new wording; rather, you have stated your opinion about mine and that the current one should stay. It cannot; so please help the debate towards something that can. I would far rather do this by amicable discussion than see it go to ArbCom.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "There are as many think I am right, if not more". So what? Consider my comment in the context it was made, and explain how an appeal to numbers disproves the point I was making.
 * "At present you have not contributed towards finding a new wording". Yes, because it is clear you will not be content with any wording that I am content with. I'm willing to find an amicable solution, but if you won't be happy until you've broken some windows then I don't see that it's possible.
 * "rather, you have stated your opinion about mine and that the current one should stay". I have argued extensively on this matter, with you and others. For example, I spent significant time trying to establish this this wasn't a NPOV issue. At every point you failed to engage me and resorted to incessantly reiterating your view. I've done more than enough. Ilkali (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Polite request
Whatever you may personally believe, publicly calling me a liar is a violation of WP:CIVIL. I am not the sort to take further action over what is, at heart, a trivial piece of name-calling. However, I am politely requesting that you withdraw your accusation.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you were a liar, I said I don't believe you're not a liar. The point is that WP:AGF doesn't mean I have to believe everything you say, and if you use a claim about your personal life as part of your case, I'm entitled to say I don't think it's true. Ilkali (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI note
Please see this. It has been going on way too long. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated
As someone who has contributed to a thread about terminology on WT:NPOV/FAQ, I'd like to point you to a thread that attempts to bring the issue to some sort of closure, here. It's important we try and get to the end of this debate, so your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Ben (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom
Please see Requests for arbitration

I have not listed you specifically as an "interested party", but, as you have made a number of comments recently, if you wish to add yourself to the list I have no objection.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My Apologies...
...If I offended you with my arrogant belligerence! Gabr-  el  01:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanking you for good advice
Hi Ilkali, I just dropped in to say that I have great respect for you. I remember that you had advised me to get along with fellow editors. I think that it is a very valuable piece of advice. I am trying to follow it.Civilizededucation (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thx about signing advice
I didn't figure out that obvious fact on my own. I guess I thought some kind of timer would remove it! Anyway, I won't undo your Revert without further advice. To see how I was thinking when I placed "experienced average year" go to the (current) bottom of Talk:Year. It was not synthesis. You do know about the details of the Gregorian calendar, right?Julzes (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that, in any given N years, 1/4N last 366 days and 3/4N last 365 days, so it averages to 365.25, right? This is:
 * 1) Obvious stuff, and easily calculated from the two facts preceding your inserted point.
 * 2) Unimportant. How does it affect the reader?
 * I doubt you'd consider it worthy of mention either if it weren't pertinent to your pet coincidence. Ilkali (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A:Untrue. B:It would not seem true to someone passing through the year 1900 or 2100, as these are not leap years in the Gregorian calendar. I don't regard it as my pet.  Please try not to be offensive as I was trying to help clarify something that many people regard as important by revealing my new results.  And you did not read what I said in Talk:Year, so why respond so quickly?  I'll repeat that I thought the over-specification on how many of this and that are in this and that were intended as humor, and I was adding my own.  It's okay though.  If you don't know something it doesn't mean something negative.Julzes (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are an SPA of the most ridiculous kind, trying to shoehorn the same nonsense into every nook that could possibly hold it. You want some respect? Then spend ten minutes researching how Wikipedia works before peppering it with self-serving original research. Ilkali (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Am I to feel chastened? See good faith and all comments on new users that you can find.  I HAVE APOLOGIZED PREVIOUSLY IN THE MOST PUBLIC AND AUTHORITATIVE PLACE POSSIBLE.  I don't regard it as self-serving.  Assume good faith.  And don't exaggerate SPA.Julzes (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agnostic Theism and agnostic pastafarianism
How is that vandalization? It's a legitimate stance. We don't know if there was a flying spaghetti monster reaching out with noodley appendages, do we? Just look at the human nervous system and cthulu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsinoyman (talk • contribs) 22:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)