User talk:Afaprof01/Archives/2009/November

Templates & Miracles

Thanks for the template info. I will start using them now. As for unwarranted complaints people made about the article, I do wonder why all those believers who watch those pages e.g. Miracles, Parables etc. always let me fight it out alone on the talk pages, but that is another story. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

English?

Sorry about the joke on Miracles... got carried away.... Reminded me of this: [1] It was funny.... Cheers History2007 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Creation–evolution controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Ben (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should send this to me. You aren't being polite enough to explain your reasoning for a change. I've taken the time to do that. You've just wholesale reverted all my edits. Do you think that represents anything close to courtesy or professionalism? So I ask you, "please stop the disruption." Afaprof01 (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I explained my reason for a revert on the talk page of the article. You must have seen it because you replied to it. When I did so I noticed that half a page of the history of the article consisted of your edits interspersed with a series of partial or complete reverts to your edits. Then you reverted again, at which point I felt it prudent to point out WP:3RR. So to answer your question: yes I do. While I'm here you might also like to have a look at WP:BRD. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Polygamy in Christianity

Regarding this edit: I'm sorry, but there most definitely is an article on Wikipedia titled Polygamy in Christianity. Gabbe (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Gabbe, I really hate to be wrong, but you've shown me this is definitely one of those times! My humble apologies. I'm sorry for the extra concern this has caused you so unnecessarily! If we lived close by, I'd offer to come wash your car or something. Clearly I "owe you one." Just know I'm very sorry and will try my best to be more careful next time. I hope you will forgive me. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. It's not the slightest problem whatsoever. But for a while there I thought I was headed for the most peculiar edit war I've yet been to. :) Gabbe (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That could have been one for the books. 1)Deleted non-existent WikiLink; 2) RV deletion; 3)Deleted non-existent WikiLink; 4) "There most definitely is an article on Wikipedia titled Polygamy in Christianity"; 5) "So you say'". 6) "I see it here in Sweden. It's plain as day even with the Midnight Sun" 7) "Well, it's not showing up in the US." 8) [Admins get involved... All sorts of tags and three-letter codes get posted on the Talk page, the Users' Talk Pages, the PIC article somehow actually gets deleted in the fray. Both users are temporarily suspended pending investigation. Gabbe is so frustrated that he leaves Wikipedia and signs up for another 450-day tour of duty at S1. Afaprof01 resigns as emeritus professor and goes into indefinite seclusion, taking no computers with him, and goes on a hunger strike.

That's how it COULD have been. But the good news is that Gabbe came on so nice that Afaprof01 was inspired to check and recheck and found that the article WAS there, Gabbe restored it, and everyone lived happily ever after. Afaprof01 (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Cardinals

Please see [2] Lima (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

I posted my reply to your odd response on the article talk page. But I'm also going to post it here. That comment was not directed at you. There is no possible way you could have taken it like you did. It was under Rod's post, not yours. I originally did not add you to the sock report because of your broad contributions outside the article, and the fact that you had more than 15 edits. However, now that you respond to a comment clearly not directed at you, you have me wondering.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The sock allegation was made by History1965, not by you. If it would help clear things up, I will gladly request a sockpuppet investigation on my account, though it appears that User talk:Seraphimblade has already done that.

I was responding to your statement that "There is consensus...We have general agreement between all people here, except Ffdsajkl101." I was saying "no" to the "consensus" and "general agreement" claim with [Fdf...whatever] being the sole objector. I was saying there is at least one more objector, and that's me. I still object to the "individuals" v. "man/woman". I'm sorry if that was unclear. Afaprof01 (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am notifying you that I have mentioned you in connection with the sockpuppet investigation report, in case you wish to respond there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Rules

Hello, I realize that you are a long-time editor here, but I am here to inform you that edits such as this are strictly prohibited. Please go have a thorough read of WP:TPO, and don't do that again, thanks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to my strikeout of User:Historyguy1965's accusation that I am one of the sockpuppets on Talk:Marriage? If so, my authority for deleting that personal attack is WP:RPA. If I misunderstand, please clarify. Afaprof01 (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ask him to withdraw it, you don't have the right to refactor his post. Although I disagree with the accusation, it isn't without warrant. There were socks involved, and they were just popping out of the blue to support you. He has a right to be suspicious. As I said above, I disagree with it, for the reasons noted in the above section.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus969, I will do as you ask. Please accept the followng as a learning inquiry with no intent to question your judgment. WP:RPA says "...where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I acted in Good Faith based on that policy. How should I reconcile this policy with your SysOp admonition that "edits such as this are strictly prohibited"? Thanks for taking the time to help me understand. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop. As to removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack, this user was not attacking you. He was posting his opinion regarding the recent sock problem that had occurred at the article in question. A clear-cut personal attack would be like, you're stupid, hey f*****, you m************ piece of s***... etc. My point is thus: he was not aiming to attack you, he was pointing out what he perceived as a connection. He was not aiming to demean you, to insult you, to disrupt, to antagonize. As I said before. I do not agree with the accusation, but, given the circumstances, it is not without warrant.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever

yeah, I hear you ...now please, move on Roger Zoel (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Bible verses

The new bible verse references look nice. But, if I recall, the old ones used to appear on my screen when I scrolled over them. I have to actually select the new ones to read them. This is a drawback IMO. Student7 (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Which article? Afaprof01 (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

John 3:16. Guess I remembered wrong! Sorry! Student7 (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thanks for letting me know. Afaprof01 (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)