User talk:Merzul/Archive 3

Likewise
Good night, my friend. And good morning also. :)) --Rednblu 03:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Attribution/Community discussion
Hi, Thanks for responding to my discussion of the policy issues arising out of the Langan entry. I've recently responded to your reply, in the section, "Ranking policies." FNMF 23:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

NBeale and all that Jazz
I'm really concerned about the WP:BLP implications of what he's doing. If he wants to RfC me I don't care as long as this gets sorted. Unfortunately he splatters this stuff everywhere so an article RfC won't work. Thanks for the support on my talk page and hopefully we can find a mentor that he will listen to - maybe Pastordavid if he will take on the role. Sophia 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cross-over editing! I'll approach Pastordavid too. I hope he will make a difference but I strongly suspect that only warnings with teeth will be observed by our friend. Sophia  21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In regards to the Talk:H. Allen Orr. I tried to convey my concern ... again. Although after researching some of his actions in the past it will likely fall on deaf ears. Perhaps an unfair characterization; but there seems to be an element of religious extremism. If he feels he has a religious mandate to defend God, then there is no hope to reason with him. Perhaps I should stop with the commentary ... but ... people come to God in many ways; few by having religious views shoved down their throat.--Random Replicator 00:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution
Your perspective would be greatly appreciated. The main article written by real biology gurus was pushing the limits of readability. We approached the intro article with the intent of reaching a broader audience. The advantage of being a teacher as opposed to a "real" scientist. I also found the main article had a tendency to inflame the issue. Subtle and not so subtle lines stating what was wrong with the creationist perspective. That bothered me; the other extreme of our mutual friend. If you can spare time, please read the introduction to evolution entry looking for any inflammatory or "baiting" components that may have been overlooked.--Random Replicator 14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked ...
Since you asked, let me offer you the following piece of advice. When you get into an edit war/dispute, always keep a cool head and comment about the content, not the contributor. I am not saying that you have done anything wrong, per se, just a general piece of advice. Even if someone is the worst troll, the best response is to ignore their inappropriate comments and continue to talk about the content.

That said, thank you for giving informal dispute resolution a chance. It is also good - as you are doing - to step away from dispute prone articles from time to time. Kudos to you. -- Pastordavid 17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheism reasons
I've set up a page for rewriting the Reasons section based on the german article. See Talk:Atheism and please help rewrite this section. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-04 18:29Z

Militant atheist
Hi again! And what happened to your wikibreak? :-0 Snalwibma 20:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. Glad to see you both are in on this article.  The conversation and cooperative editing appears to be going much better this time around, and I am glad to see it.  I am keeping my fingers out of this article, but it is on the corner of my peripheral vision.  I hope it continues to progress as well as it is right now.  -- Pastordavid 17:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

importance-s template
I've been trying to get some outside opinions on this for awhile, so would you mind clarifying what you mean ? Does it seem like a mistake to you as well? --Ronz 22:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You need a wikibreak!


And you shall rise again on the third day huh???? Sophia 18:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Breaking your wikibreak
You've been spotted - Shame on you! Snalwibma 20:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Shhhh!!! Don't tell anyone! --Merzul 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Policy work group?
Hello, since you seem to have thought through the policy situation on Wikipedia, I nominated you for this work group, I hope you are okay with it. Please move your name to the declined section, if for some reason you don't have time to take part in this. Thank you! --Merzul 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, you go to bed for a few hours and something like this springs out of nowhere. Ok, sure, why not. --bainer (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

NB and all that
Thanks for the comment. I thought the Beyond Belief additions to Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism and Atheism were about the most blatant POV-pushing and OR synthesis that I have ever seen. Not sure about letting him get away with it for a while. I am very happy to let him work away (expressly against the advice of PastorD, I notice!) on Nicholas Beale, because, frankly, who cares? But he is so persistent at weaving his personal opinions into all sorts of articles, in all sorts of ways, that it will take someone a lot of work to undo it all in the fullness of time! I am certainly planning to pounce if he inserts that garbage about Beyond Belief again, but otherwise I think maybe you're right. Leave him to it for a while. Hmmm. Not sure. I'll sleep on it. Snalwibma 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Merzul. First, thanks to you and Sophia for promoting the material on Martin Beale to an article. I do think however that your latest barnstar, no doubt well meant, is a personal attack and it would be better if it were edited (keeping the barnstar of course but removing the personalisation). Many thanks. NBeale 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It was childish, true, but I stand by what I said, I'm greatly thankful for their actions in countering your blatantly obvious abuse of Wikipedia to promote yourself and your views. I have no tolerance for this activity, and if you see this as a personal attack, then feel free to take it up with whatever authority. --Merzul 19:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You should not delete (or insert) tags like that
Hi Merzul. You should not just delete a POV tag (as in Atheism) without discussion, you should discuss it and allow others to. Please undelete. Also I think you inadvertently put a "start class" tag on the Argument from love page, but we need an independent reviewer to do this, it shouldn't be done by someone working on the article. NBeale 16:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is clear consensus for my edit, your edits were independently revert by other people before I removed the unjustified POV tag. Please read WP:CONSENSUS! --Merzul 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Merzul. Whether or not my edits were reverted is beside the point. You should not remove a POV tag without discussion. It was carefully justified, if you don't like it argue against it but don't unilaterally remove it. Equally I think we must remove the Argument from love Start class tag and get someone indepenent to review it NBeale 17:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For maintaining your sanity...

 * A Barnstar - and on my birthday too - thanks! I know what you mean about being unproductive and I've started to limit my interraction too. I'm sure we'll bump into each other around wikipedia. Thanks also for all the laughs you have given me. I can't remember where I saw it on the web but somewhere in a blog someone has written "wikipedia is not an encyclopedia but a role playing game - once you understand that it all makes sense". They are soooo right. Sophia  17:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider the Barnstar an honour and would not dream of altering it - you are right - it is about his edit history not him personally. I also would welcome any RfC surrounding his behaviour as he is taking up too much of too many peoples time. Sophia  20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

help
I just put a post on the Trinity and Christ on the Christian Science page. Wondering if you could look at it and see if it makes sense? Simplywater 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)