User talk:Ilkali/Archive 2007

when did I say the talk pages are a place to facilitate progress?

I am simply asking if new people can contribute to an article. Hignit (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you taking this to my talk page? There's no reason not to restrict this discussion to the place where it's relevant. Ilkali (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Misotheism

your edits are bordering on disruption. You are trying to impose unilateral changes to the content of a developed article with a considerable history without discussion (or, rather, by attempting to present your changes to content as "orthographical" at first, wasting my time just to point out in painstaking detail that the claim was so much nonsense). If you want to have a real debate, wisen up and begin acting constructively. Stubborn reverting will not result in the change you desire. dab (𒁳) 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"without discussion"?

I've explained again and again why the changes should be made. I've explained in general terms and I've explained in reference to specific examples. I've responded to everything you've said on the topic, while you've done nothing but repeatedly assert that you're right and I'm wrong. Every time I make an argument, you wave it away and tell me your perspective. You've cited sources, but they don't prove anything that isn't already common ground: that proper nouns capitalise. You haven't shown that the things we're talking about are (and should be) proper nouns.

If I really wanted to make a WP:POINT, I'd follow you around, reverting all the changes you make to articles and demanding you convince me they should be made, then drop out of the discussions after a couple of messages while continuing to revert. I'm not going to do that. But if Wikipedia works the way you want it to, what's stopping me? Ilkali 16:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

re: "I've explained again and again" - Please provide references to the places with your explanations. You don't have to do this "again and again": you can put an issue in one place and wikilink to it. `'Míkka>t 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Specific examples: [1]. General terms: [2]. Ilkali 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Pascal's Wager

Thanks for the note about edit summaries. Sorry I forgot to include them. The essence of my edits were to remove unsourced opinions with quotes from the original text of Pascal. I didn't expect them to be controversial. David Bergan (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello, there. Yesterday I had made an edit to the God article, and then you reverted it saying , "(Undid revision 178681736 by -Midorihana- (talk) the semi-colon places an undue semantic implication)". I know this was a small mistake on my part, but I was wondering if you could quickly tell me what you meant by 'undue semantic implication'? This is so I don't make the mistake in the future. Thanks, and happy editing -- Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-colons carry meaning. When they're used to separate sentences, they generally indicate some kind of connection, often with the second sentence's information being construed as an explanation for the first sentence's. Take 'I didn't buy the car; my boss wouldn't give me a raise' versus 'I didn't buy the car. My boss wouldn't give me a raise'. Do you agree that in the former the connection is more obvious because of the use of the semi-colon?

When you replaced the full stop with a semi-colon, you made it seem as though the two bordering sentences were connected and forced readers to try and figure out what the connection is, and it's frustrating to have to look for something that isn't there. Ilkali (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I see your point. The connection wasn't intentional, I thought it would just flow better that way. Thanks. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

deity article

Hi -- I am addressing your note to me on my talk page at the article deity to keep the discussion with the topic. See you there. 83d40m (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd already placed some discussion on your contributions on the talk page, and you hadn't responded to it. I thought that was the best way of getting your attention. Ilkali (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What's with the random nonsensical question

You left some random question about line breaks on my page that made no sense what so ever. What in the world are you talking about? You have to give examples of things when you ask such off kilter random questions that make no sense. We don't even edit on the same pages so what are you talking about???KellyAna (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked you why you'd done something that you recently did. "Nonsensical" seems a little strong. Ilkali (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsensical, a question that makes no sense. A question not about something that was done incorrectly but merely a question for questions sake. Nonsensical is completely accurate. 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyAna (talk • contribs)

I disagree, but let's not worry about it too much. Ilkali (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Linebreak discussion. We can take it to my page if you would like. Note: I will only be around a couple more hours then back the 2nd. IrishLass (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems little point. You're not willing to listen to what I'm saying or to consider that it might have merit. Rather than trying to understand my position, you've jumped straight to trying to refute it. There's nothing to gain from discussing anything with someone like that. Ilkali (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed your comments from my page as you have indicated you are done. When someone has done nothing wrong and been told they have done nothing wrong by another editor, as I was with the edits you have personal issues with, I feel no need to address your personal concerns. That's why I didn't bother with you, your question didn't have merit neither did any of your ramblings. My edit offended your personal sensibilities and you turned it into a diatribe and an argument. As I did nothing wrong, I felt no need to address you. Thank you for ending it and moving on. KellyAna (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"When someone has done nothing wrong [...]" - When someone enters a discussion over whether they've done something wrong with the assumption that they haven't, the other person might as well be talking to a wall. Ilkali (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why all the harassment on my page? If it was talking to a wall, why did you keep talking? I was told by another editor I did nothing wrong immediately after it happened. I took that editor's word because he came to me immediately, you're the one that waited weeks and didn't even explain HOW you found the edit, why you harassed me over it, and why you acted like I'd been running around all of Wikipedia making edits when I wasn't. I didn't ASSume anything (I happen to hate that word and all its derivatives), I was TOLD I had done nothing wrong by two editors. It was your personal opinion that I did. Three to one. I'll take the majority. KellyAna (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"I was told by another editor I did nothing wrong immediately after it happened. I took that editor's word because he came to me immediately" - Is that how you make all your decisions? You simply accept as true whatever you hear first?

"I didn't ASSume anything (I happen to hate that word and all its derivatives)" - Perhaps that's why you find it so difficult to assume good faith. Regardless, your hatred of the word might stem partially from your ignorance of what it means. Assumptions are a necessary part of communication and reasoning, but when you assume the falsity of someone's claim before he has even made his case, you make the discussion pointless.

"I was TOLD I had done nothing wrong by two editors" - And you assumed they were right. Which is ludicrous, for at least two reasons.

1. The majority of people don't understand technical issues, such as the differences between two pieces of markup.
2. Assuming there is no difference between the two pieces of markup, as these people asserted, editing the page to make one into the other is pointless. Pointless edits are to be avoided, as they waste the time of other editors.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you still don't understand why I oppose the edit in question. How then can you make an informed decision over whether I'm right? Ilkali (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone ignorant, is that how to make a point? I was back to see if you wanted to take this to my page, but clearly, you prefer to be hostile here so it's better to keep this here. IrishLass (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Grow up. Stop getting hysterical at every perceived slight, and stop intentionally misrepresenting what I've said. I didn't "call [KellyAna] ignorant", I said she was ignorant of a particular piece of information, where said ignorance is pertinent to the conversation.

And yes, I know you're incensed at my telling you to grow up. I don't care. I'm not interested. If you're not willing to talk to me like a sane, rational adult, I'm not going to spend any more time on you. Ilkali (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)