::Others have not discussed this issue for months and there was no opposition to the merger of this article with problem of evil article. See the merge discussion there.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Problem_of_evil#Merger_proposal][[User:Ht686rg90|Ht686rg90]] ([[User talk:Ht686rg90#top|talk]]) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
::Others have not discussed this issue for months and there was no opposition to the merger of this article with problem of evil article. See the merge discussion there.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Problem_of_evil#Merger_proposal][[User:Ht686rg90|Ht686rg90]] ([[User talk:Ht686rg90#top|talk]]) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Please, look at the discussion you linked to. One user commented that the merger had already, effectively, been done. That's it. There's no consensus from that discussion. Please discuss the merits: even if there was a discussion a couple months ago that ''did'' produce a consensus, [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 15:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
== Re: Theodicy ==
== Re: Theodicy ==
Revision as of 15:35, 5 May 2009
limits
Hi, this is a response to your comment on limits. I think merges at this point would be premature. First of all, very few people are aware of this discussion, and very few have commented. Furthermore, there is a difference of philosophy that may not be easy to resolve. Some feel that shorter, more focused, articles, that are well linked together are the ideal of a database, even at the cost of a certain amount of redundancy. Others feel that duplication and forking is the main evil. For example, an editor has expressed to me privately the sentiment in favor of the first approach, but he has not commented on the limit page yet.
At any rate, my personal preference is that whenever there is an identifiable concept, it should have a separate page. My favorite example of this is Computational formula for the variance, which was buried deep inside the huge variance article previously. Katzmik (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to limit this discussion to my talk page since it concerns the content of the article. I will reply there. Please do so also.Ht686rg90 (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you may find it interesting that recent edits make your point about things getting corrected in some places but not others. Recently there was a discussion at Uniform continuity about whether or not it made sense to refer to non-standard definition of uniform continuity as "local". It seemed to be decided "local" was not the correct word to describe the definition, but the phrase persists in (ε,_δ)-definition_of_limit. Thenub314 (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I had to revert your contribution to the swine flu article as, despite being interesting and relevant, it constituted a copyright violation. Please read WP:COPYVIO for more on what we can and can't include in Wikipedia. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copy/pasting my comments
I noticed that you copy/pasted a comment I had in another place on Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak (here, then againhere). You can't just do that. If you'd like to respond to my comment, you respond in the section where I posted. You can't just randomly put it in a random section, where my comment has nothing to do with the topic. My comment was about polling, so it didn't make sense in the sections in which you placed it. hmwithτ14:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
revert a good faith edit only as a last resort [highlight present in original].
Don't revert to undo a good faith reversion of your change
I am warning you now, continued reverts will be reported. You should go and read the 3RR thing you quoted again. It clearly forbids reverting to the same version, not edits. I am making edits, you have now made 2 reversions to the same version.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Only made 3 edits to the article during the past 24 hours so cannot be 4R. No edits to the article for months before this so no pattern of borderline 3RR. What else could I have done? The other user refused to discuss his reverts as I asked him to do repeatedly on his talk page. Please see User_talk:Anthony_on_Stilts#Theodicy. Reporting this was the only way to resolve such an abuse of reverting while refusing to discuss. In order to report I had to revert 3 times. What else could I have done?
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
A start would have been discussing on your own. You asked for justification, Anthony on Stilts gave it in an edit summary: "theodicy and the problem of evil are not the same. Theodicy can include justification of other behavioural issues, and the problem of evil concerns atheists and polytheists too". As far as I can tell you never responded to that, you just reverted and demanded discussion. Also, if you look at the Talk:Theodicy page, you'll see others who support the assertion that Theodicy is more than just the problem of evil. Mangojuicetalk23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did respond to that claim. See User_talk:Anthony_on_Stilts#Theodicy. I asked for a source for his claim regarding theodicy. Which he never responded to. What is an editor supposed to if someone refuses to give sources or discuss and simply reverts to the version he likes? Make two reverts and report this to someone? Where? Or simply let such editor dictate content?
Others have not discussed this issue for months and there was no opposition to the merger of this article with problem of evil article. See the merge discussion there.[1]Ht686rg90 (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, look at the discussion you linked to. One user commented that the merger had already, effectively, been done. That's it. There's no consensus from that discussion. Please discuss the merits: even if there was a discussion a couple months ago that did produce a consensus, consensus can change. Mangojuicetalk15:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(a) I'm not qualified to answer that, so I've no idea. You could always propose it. Perhaps the other recent editor would be able to answer. (b) That's outside the scope of my minor organizational+citational+stylistic edits. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was mostly just assuming good faith on the part of the other editor. Major reverts = bad. I would recommend looking at each of the editor's many individual edits instead, and undoing or complaining on talk about those you disagree with, rather than just doing a massive revert. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know your detail personal history with the article in question, beyond the recent incident and that I recall from my past watchlist checking that you were making a steady stream of nearly uninterrupted edits. The best comparison I can make is "what if someone just summarily undid your long stream of edits with a request to establish consensus?". Reverting an omnibus edit is fine because it's impossible to analyze, but a series of smaller edits is acceptable. If other editors have not been assuming good faith in your edits or have not been complying with WP policies, then you have my sympathies. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
