User talk:Ilkali

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Okay, how do you want to handle the "mythical" Angel Gabriel? 2 Gabriel 3 Warning(s) 3.1 Warning 3.2 Second warning 4 3RR Warning 5 Theism 6 References to Burke's articles 7 Leave my talk page posts alone

[edit] Okay, how do you want to handle the "mythical" Angel Gabriel?

You've reverted twice at ‎Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). This is a pretty clear WP:NPOV issue to me; I'm not a religious person myself, but I regard the "mythical Gabriel" an unnecessary and pointless slap at some Christians, Jews and Muslims, since the second dictionary definition is "fictitious". Using Gabriel as an example isn't necessary in a paragraph that discusses fairies and Tolkien's fictional characters; they are sufficient. We could talk about this at either WP:Third opinion or WP:POVN if you like. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel

Ilkali, I think we got off on the wrong foot, and if that is my fault I apologize. I wanted to step back and clarify a couple of things. I do not disagree that Gabriel is a mythical character from Abrahamic religious narratives, but Gabriel is also more than a "mythical character" from Abrahamic religious narratives, and there's the rub. I think the guideline is there to treat similar types of entities no matter how they are considered, by whom they are being considered and/or within what context (whether academic or popular) they are framed. That really is my only point. These types of figures may all be considered "mythical" within some contexts, or "religious", "sacred", "divine" or what have you within other contexts. I don't think living religions get to hold a trump card saying that their narratives can never be referred to as myths because people still truly believe them. In fact some definitions of myth presuppose that all myths were so "truly believed in" at some point in time. That said I know that there are academic contexts within which the angel Gabriel, and similar figures, are named without the framing of mythology or the specific notion of mythical narratives, and I also know that there are many religious people who, perhaps because they cannot divorce popular notions of myth from academic ones, will always take offense to having their sacred characters and stories related to myth. These are in fact good reasons to be explicit about the breadth of category and not make it seem like these types of beings are only "mythical". Sometimes it is more appropriate to call them "religious". Anyway, I'm sure I've not told you anything new, but I hope at least my tone seems different. I don't think we actually disagree on all that much. Best.PelleSmith (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning(s)

(the following is a merging of three sections opened in quick succession by User:Alastair Haines. Ilkali (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Warning

After tolerating personal attacks for some time, I am now warning you that editing other user's posts on talk pages is unacceptable behaviour.

You can demonstrate good faith by improving your participation in the project in the following ways:

1. ceasing personal attacks
2. not editing other user's talk page postings
3. learning reflective listening techniques
4. learning strategies for gaining consensus
5. considering the difference between Wiki lawyering and constructive contribution to discussion.

Please feel free to ask for clarification if the policies or suggestions are not clear. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't edit your post, I removed it. Removing inappropriate posts is not inappropriate behaviour. You need to grow up, Alastair. That's how you can improve your participation in the project. Ilkali (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't edit your post, I removed it. Wikilawyering.

Removing inappropriate posts is not inappropriate behaviour. Insisting on removing after they are restored without providing an argument is inappropriate.

No further discussion from me in this thread. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second warning

(Posted after Ilkali removed post a second time, after warning, and without discussion.) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reply to the first warning includes a personal attack. If you remove my reply to Andowney again. I'll have to take this further. There is no precedent at Wiki for anyone to unilaterally remove posts from other people's discussion. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Your reply to the first warning includes a personal attack". My bad! I should've advised you to learn maturity optimisation techniques. Then it'd be constructive criticism, right?

"There is no precedent at Wiki for anyone to unilaterally remove posts from other people's discussion". {{notaforum}} is included in almost 1000 pages. WP:TALK: "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal". No precedent?

Part of growing up is accepting that you can be wrong. Ilkali (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant discussions. Explain perichoresis in your own words Ilkali. Name three scholars who are widely cited on the topic. I assume you can do this and thereby are competant to judge what is relevant.

Part of growing up is accepting that you can be wrong. Indirect personal attack. How many times have you admitted error Ilkali?

End of my comment in this thread. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Warning

You have now reverted my reply to Andowney three times, with no attempt to seek compromise or support from third parties. You are sabotaging a very long standing discussion that is coming close to resolution.

Actions:

1. restoring my reply to Andowney
2. reporting you for uncivil editing
3. final notice to you for 3RR

You can avoid the 3RR report and risk of blocking by refraining from further reversions; and by instead attempting to make a case, explaining why you have not removed previous discussion, and how my reply to the last post fails to interact with the current issues. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"You have now reverted my reply to Andowney three times, with no attempt to seek compromise or support from third parties". You have now reverted my removal of your off-topic post three times, with no attempt to seek compromise or support from third parties.

"and by instead attempting to make a case, explaining why you have not removed previous discussion,". I didn't deem previous discussion to be as blatantly off-topic. If you'd like to argue that it was, I'm all ears. Ilkali (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't deem. Sorry Ilkali, I will not accept my posts being subject to your unilateral judgement. I'm happy to hear arguments. If you pursuade me, I'll edit them myself. So far, despite being asked, you have not engaged with the content of what you deleted, to show how it is irrelevant. If you did engage, it would be immediately evident that the text is relevant. Describe how three issues from foregoing discussion are relevant to the article (since you accept they are).

On second thoughts, don't bother, I don't have time to go into irrelevant tangents defending how my comments are relevant. Engage with the content of my comments as they bear on the topic. If you can't see how they apply, leave the discussion to those who can.

End of troll feeding.

I'm not going to spend time continuing a discussion that you've already declared over. Ilkali (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

---

WP:Wikiquette alerts#Personal attacks and deletion of talk page postings

I note you have left the comment in place now. Thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

---

As a personal policy, I try not to say things behind people's backs unless I say them face-to-face first.

I also try to discover if I'm the only one who reads things the way I do.

I have asked User talk:Nick Graves#User:Ilkali to comment on my perceptions of your approach to editing Ilkali. I have left identical comments at the talk pages of other users I see from your talk page you have been co-operating with on various projects.

From what I can gather, you have a sharp mind and a fair bit of energy. I'd love for you to enjoy using that within the Wiki community. I am quite serious about reflective listening and consensus building. Reflective listening is easy. Consensus building is much harder. Wiki is a good forum for developing both. I know no-one who is perfect at either skill.

Unless you are interested in gender or God, I'm not quite sure why you are involved with this article. I haven't actually heard you express an opinion on either topic as yet. All I've heard is your comments regarding MoS or other guideline issues. Thanks for your concern, but Andowney and I are pretty up on a range of style and Wiki policies, so we're pretty set on that score. I know there are articles screaming for copy-edits. Jainism and related articles are fascinating, give a bit of an opportunity to refine Sanskrit skills, and really need working over for basic English expression, let alone MoS. One of the main reasons I don't want to waste time arguing about details at Gender of God is I'd rather help out Jainism. You could do this too. There are lots of places to employ your skills.

If you want to defeat me personally in some area related to language, I wouldn't choose ancient languages, diachronic linguistics or the semantics of natural language as the battlefields of choice. Especially if the content is theological. I started studying Greek and Latin at 12, Sanskrit at 16, Arabic at 20 and have since added Hebrew, Sumerian and various other languages. I am now 42. You could probably whallop me in Khoisan, Caucasian and Amerind families and any number of modern languages, but why bother? It'd be hard anyway, because I don't contribute that far out of my own fields of interest. Please consider applying your knowledge of sources to any of the considerable gaps in Wiki.

Have a nice day. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"I am quite serious about reflective listening and consensus building. Reflective listening is easy. Consensus building is much harder". The lack of self-awareness that you're demonstrating is a large part of why I say you need to grow up. When we clashed over the lead of Gender of God, you made no attempt to converge on an amicable solution. You wilfully ignored the majority of what I said and stonewalled any proposed changes while being patronising and dismissive. If you have any listening or consensus-building skills, you didn't demonstrate them.

"If you want to defeat me personally in some area related to language [...]". I've no interest in 'defeating' you. I'd rather you just get out of the way. Ilkali (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theism

I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist on a response from you at Talk:Theism; specifically an elucidation of your remarkable presumptions of "consensus" and "resistance", and an explanation why self-contradictory cruft has to be preserved, and why that should be done despite also being in violation of OR, RS, V and NOT. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I guarantee you a response within 24 hours. Ilkali (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References to Burke's articles

Coming back to the matter we discussed, you have not yet replied to mine of May 24, posted on my talk page (where you first began our discussion.It would be good to hear from you; if I don't, I'll probably make the entries suggested in my 7 and 8.Finisklin (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've created a Wikiquette alert about the issue here. Ilkali (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leave my talk page posts alone

You are wrong, you are not in line with policy. I will restore my posts until someone presents me with a polite request and a good reason.

I've warned you personally about trolling already. Until you start showing courtesy, I shall continue to deal with you the way your behaviour deserves. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The good reason has been given by two separate people now: Your edit is clearly discussion of the topic rather than of the article, and is therefore in violation of WP:TALK. As for politeness: It is childish in the extreme to refuse to play by the rules until asked nicely.

"I've warned you personally about trolling already". You've accused me of trolling without ever providing any rationale for the accusation. Until you can do at least that much, I ask that you assume good faith.

"Until you start showing courtesy, I shall continue to deal with you the way your behaviour deserves". Excellent idea. Why not open a WQA and then ignore the results when they turn against you? Ilkali (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My edit is clearly discussion of improvement to the article, and part of a much longer discussion. Since no-one has actually discussed the issues with me, I doubt they can evaluate that properly, and have certainly not borught any discussion to consensus, if they haven't interacted with one of the parties involved.

But leaving the unresolved issue of the talk page aside, a thought crossed my mind for a constructive way forward. An editor who makes substantial contributions to an article (rather than just seeking to provide what seem to that editor to be corrections) is in a much stronger position. The article as it stands is woeful. Several religions have little content or sourcing, some religions are left out altogether. From memory, Islam and Mormonism need serious attention. Sikhism could be improved. If you could find a good source and write it up neutrally, it would be great for the article, and would incidently prove me wrong in my assessment of you.

It's a simple enough idea. There's plenty of room to build the article without quibbling over details. In fact, in the course of doing so, you might even discover that some of the points I make actually make sense. Alternatively, you might find evidence from reliable sources that I'm wrong about some things after all. The bottom line at Wiki is that sources are king, not editors. One source beats any number of editors, or Wiki could never be trusted. Wiki's all about copying sources into articles, not about editors debating what articles should say. The latter does need to happen, but try bringing some sources to the article if you want to participate in the debate. Believe me, it'll change everything. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)