User talk:Glynth

December 2010

Redacted. See below for discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC). Originally inserted by (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you talking about? There was nothing at all unconstructive about my edit. My edit makes the article closer to NPOV. I've made very similar edits in the past which were deemed perfectly acceptable, and most importantly: It's COMPLETELY FACTUAL. This is not a controversial label I'm giving him! He embraces that label, and I'm not sticking it all over, spamming up the article! I'm putting it in a relevant place that adds a meaning that is utterly lacking otherwise; without it, the impression could be Wallis fits in the same category as the majority of other Christians. He simply does not. The majority of Christians consider organizations like Wallis's to be "progressive Christian" AT BEST, which is to say they don't like being lumped in with his political agenda and so want a qualifier. To not give this qualifier is not NPOV; to give it when it's factual - and it is - is fine. If you consider that to be "vandalism," you don't know what vandalism is or you are obviously trying to push a political agenda and I will not simply accept that just because people like you tend to dominate this place. -- Glynth (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marking the edit as vandalism and this template may not have been appropriate. There does not appear to be any intentional disruption, Wtmitchell. Glynth, it might be better for you to see the talk page and present your reasoning instead of reverting.Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: The second edit looked OK to me (although "liberal" might work just as well). I did not notice that the first edit reverted also used "left-wing". That was a little much so toning it down was a good thing since after seeing the first one I could see why the editor warned you (maybe out of habit or some understandable skepticism). But it looks like you are trying to not be disruptive so keep going that route. Don;t revert anymore (see WP:BRD and go to the talk page where I started a conversation for you.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This almost seems like Biting the Newcomers to me. Glynth's edit was clearly in good faith and should not have been marked as vandlaism.

Glynth since you are new you may not have realized this, but in your edit summary here you are speaking to a grammar robot which thought "progressive Christian social justice organization" was grammatically incorrect due to all the adjectives(although it isn't, so there's no need to worry about that). (please ignore, it is very late here)

Also, welcome to Wikipedia, and please feel free to continue contributing. Sometimes editing on article's concerning political/religious subjects can attract negative attention, but typically the best way to respond is to accept that and move on.
I hope you enjoy your time here.AerobicFox (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(tardy response to Glynth) Apologies for my tardiness -- I missed seeing the earlier edits here. I'll also apologize for the vandalism warning (I have no objection to your removing it if you want). I looked back at the edit I reverted and I agree with Cptnono that marking it as vandalism was an uncalled-for error on my part. If you wish to remove my vandalism warning that's entirely OK with me. I don't recall what about your edit made it look like vandalism ("left-wing" might have done it—that's a bit strong without a supporting cite—but I don't think I would normally think of that as vandalism or have chosen "test edit" for that from the warning-type menu). I just looked at the supporting sources citations present at the time of the edit (three, with one being a duplicate), and the characterization of Sojourners there was as a "liberal Christian antipoverty group". I see that you appear to have lately come back to WP after some absences; welcome back. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By removing the vandalism warning, do you mean simply deleting this section from my talk page? I don't know what else would be involved. -- Glynth (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, my saying it would be OK with me was following on guideline info at WP:TPG#Others' comments. I'm going to go ahead and remove it myself, per WP:REDACT. A reason removal is indicated it is that the WP:HUGGLE vandalism patrolling tool "... will check the user's talk page for existing warnings and issue one with an appropriate level." (see Wikipedia:Huggle/Manual#Main toolbar). I don't know offhand what characteristics of a vandalism warning is used to identify existing warnings, but would expect that redacting it as I've done above will remove it from consideration by Huggle or other vandalism patrolling tools. Cheers & apologies for having caused this drama. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming denial

Hi Glynth,

You appear to have misunderstood the topic of this article. It is not about scientists who do not accept global warming per se. It is about a well-documented pattern (i.e. including academic studies) of commercially and ideologically motivated efforts of certain actors acting outside the scientific debate. The literature on the topic draws a strong distinction between scientific disagreement, and the project (very similar to the efforts by tobacco companies to deny the effects of smoking) to deny the issue of global warming through media and other campaigns. You effectively appear to be trying to lump scientific skepticism together with political activism; I'm not sure this does anyone any favours.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that's what the topic is if you like, but the article quite clearly veers into POV and so either the article title is a misnomer and an insult or the article text is unfitting. See: [1]. -- Glynth (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just me saying it. Have you consulted the talkpage? There's a good and growing literature out there sourcing this. Your comments about the IPCC figures suggest you're confusing this page with Global warming controversy.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who is saying it. In this specific instance, I don't care about the body of literature or the "consensus"; that's all irrelevant to my point. The article discusses far more than just people who can fairly be called "deniers." It should be renamed or reworked. -- Glynth (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is supposed to deal with the concept of "Global Warming Deniers" that has been promoted by various media, and writings, and their views on it. It is not meant to portray the arguments of those against global warming, which can be found at Global warming controversy. If the above article was claiming to portray the arguments of those in dissent of global warming then it would be obvious POV. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a valid point but the page is already very POV, trying to conflate denial with skepticism. Why are we discussing this here instead of the article talk page where I've already laid out my case with a couple of comments? Why do people just take down my proposed move instead of discussing it fully? -- Glynth (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, could you give some specific examples on the talkpage where skepticism is being conflated with denial? Thanks. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Climate change denial. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Personal attacks such as this are not appropriate. I do believe you've been warned of this in the past. Please work constructively with other editors. Thank you. Jess_talk|_edits 01:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Jess_talk|_edits 01:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Climate change denial. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Guy Macon 02:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this "attack" be the comment wherein I explicitly stated this is not a personal attack or insult, but a statement of fact? I could ask you to please look up the supposed insults I used in the dictionary, look at the context, and look at the facts of the situation. In the context of the indefensible, baseless, and absolutist comment made by the other editor (claiming there are no - NONE, ZERO - people who exaggerate the effects of climate change), they are a perfect and fair description; his comment is absurd and therefore either ignorance or lying are necessarily the only plausible explanations. In a purely logical examination of the words, I would technically be completely vindicated. However, I will grant that the tone could be less harsh and will submit a new comment that is less open to controversy. -- Glynth (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the false impression that if something is, in your opinion, true, then it cannot be a personal attack. You are mistaken. "you are ignorant or a liar" is a personal attack whether or not it happens to be true. Adding "That's not an insult; it's a fact." in no way changes it being a personal attack. When I wrote "Comment on content, not on contributors" above, that was not a suggestion. It is a requirement for all Wikipedia editors. Guy Macon 07:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I thought it was a "suggestion," though I'll note my experiences with certain far-more-insulting-than-I-ever-was editors in the past on this site didn't give me reason to believe such a rule was enforced unless it went far past the line. Still, this is fair enough, and in fact I approve of the rule if it is enforced fairly. I've already posted a more appropriate comment in its place. -- Glynth (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I do believe you've been warned of this in the past." Where, exactly, do you see this? And when was it? Because I don't recall it and you'll see per this page's history that the last (and first) "warning" I was given was retracted (and it wasn't about interactions with other editors, in any case). -- Glynth (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Glynth. You have new messages at Demiurge1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A brownie for you!

You're doing a great job here! – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 08:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Homophobia for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - Mr X 21:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing others of having a general discussion on a topic and then hiding their words on the talk page so as to prevent intellectual honesty from entering a thoroughly POV article. -- Glynth (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Your recent editing history at Homophobia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Mr X 22:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly an "edit war". I make one post, someone removes it, I make a post on the talk page and some people state their objections (some of which are valid), I made changes to the text and put it somewhere that fits in with text that was already in the article... and that should have been it. But then one guy comes along and decides the text doesn't fit and then reverts it without discussion, leaving only an insulting half-explanation for this action in the edit history. I appreciate the warning if this is some sort of automated banning thing, but in an ideal world, you'd be bugging that guy, not me. Somehow, I get the feeling the next person who comes along and removes my completely factual, relevant, and encyclopedia-appropriate text for their own personal/political reasons won't be called out like I have been, if only because they can rely on their fellow travelers to spread out the edit counts. Standard. -- Glynth (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the paragraph to which you added your text says "Homophobia has never been listed as part of a clinical taxonomy of phobias..." Your etymological argument doesn't work with the word "Homophobia". This has been discussed many times on this page. A search of the archives might be a valuable thing for you to do. You are fighting an unwinnable Edit war. Please stop wasting your time and ours. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it takes two to war. So are you admitting that's what you're doing? But you probably didn't get the "no edit warring" warning, did you? Like I said, standard. And if you'd actually read the text you removed for what it is instead of for what you think its purpose may be as well as actually followed your own advice and gone to the talk page, you'd see how your "you're using some sort of fallacious etymological argument" assertion is nothing but a straw man. Seeing as how what I've provided is completely factual, relevant, and in the form you just reverted not even arguably politically charged, the only way this would be "unwinnable" for me is because of the whole Wikipedia systemic bias and "fellow travelers" bit I just mentioned. -- Glynth (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was listening to your arguments and open to the content you added, but when you force your edits in and insult your fellow editors, you're unlikely to sway people to your viewpoint. Why not try presenting your arguments calmly and being open to what others are saying as well? - Mr X 23:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now "be bold" is "forcing" edits, is it? I've made a two, count 'em, two additions, both reverted, plus one reversion myself when the change made was literally attached to a personal insult aimed at me (and bad for other reasons mentioned here and on that talk page). I went to the talk page myself, no one asking me to, after the first reversion and made significant changes based on feedback before making the second addition. And somehow I'm in an edit war and insulting people whereas people like HiLo48 aren't? -- Glynth (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent edit that I reverted was made after this discussion began. It obviously had not concluded. At that point you should not have attempted to edit the article. You should have continued discussion here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reversion that was really just a personal attack on me? The reversion of that which other people thought was fine and so the foundation of said insult (that I didn't read the preceding sentence) doesn't even make sense? That reversion? Yeah. It should have been perfectly fine for me to put it back as no one actually reasonable made that reversion and we are not actually required to wait for permission to make reasonable changes to articles just because someone didn't like a previous edit we made. -- Glynth (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot honestly believe you did not make a personal attack in your reversion note. Not only was it a blatant attack on me as if I can't/don't read or something, but it was actually pretty unintentionally ironic given how it would take poor reading comprehension to think it didn't belong there (which other people on the talk page would agree with, surely, as they thought it fit fine). Don't play stupid. And you're hardly helping your case by posting "LOL" on my talk page; it shows what kind of person you are. -- Glynth (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]