User talk:Bhlegkorbh: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:40, 28 November 2011 editBhlegkorbh (talk \| contribs)551 edits →Your behaviour ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:02, 25 January 2012 edit undoKim Dent-Brown (talk \| contribs)10,635 edits →Recent massive reversion: new sectionNext edit →
Line 61:		Line 61:
	Since you clearly have personal stakes in the area you choose to contribute to, ] is also relevant to you. Perhaps you want to hone your Misplaced Pages skills in topics where you have no such stakes first. I for one have very little patience with editors who are blatantly pushing their private ideologies while pretending to be interested in following policy or being encyclopedists. Let us see some work of yours in areas like oceanography, cristallography or the Italian sonnet before you undertake writing about your private religious convictions. --] <small>]</small> 09:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)		Since you clearly have personal stakes in the area you choose to contribute to, ] is also relevant to you. Perhaps you want to hone your Misplaced Pages skills in topics where you have no such stakes first. I for one have very little patience with editors who are blatantly pushing their private ideologies while pretending to be interested in following policy or being encyclopedists. Let us see some work of yours in areas like oceanography, cristallography or the Italian sonnet before you undertake writing about your private religious convictions. --] <small>]</small> 09:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
	:It seems the only one here who acts as if articles are of his own personal property is you. What you did with edit was a restoration of your own revision of the article, and you've tried to do the same to the "Paganism" article. The revision of the 'Heathenism' article I contributed to write is not based on my own private religion, indeed it describes the views of the various modern Heathen groups based on sources, and it is an expansion of the old revision (yours) which was completely sourceless and full of dead links. --] ] 11:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)		:It seems the only one here who acts as if articles are of his own personal property is you. What you did with edit was a restoration of your own revision of the article, and you've tried to do the same to the "Paganism" article. The revision of the 'Heathenism' article I contributed to write is not based on my own private religion, indeed it describes the views of the various modern Heathen groups based on sources, and it is an expansion of the old revision (yours) which was completely sourceless and full of dead links. --] ] 11:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

			== Recent massive reversion ==

			Seriously, was not cool. Quite apart from going back to a version from many weeks ago, you failed to discuss this in advance on the talk page or notify folks there of either your intentions before the event, or your actions after it. Then you went and made a further tiny edit, seconds later, which obscured the scale of what you had done from people watching this article on their watch lists. That is very poor form indeed and reflects very badly on you, even if it was unintentional.

			First off, don't revert to an old version like that. We are where we are and it erases several months of further work since that time. Second, you must know it's never going to stick. We've learned the hard way that massive reversions like that are not a good way forward and they are never going to go unchallenged. Third, don't make the error of hiding a big edit behind a small one. It doesn't actually hide what you've done but just serves to sow doubt in people's minds about your intentions. Finally, if you're going to make a big change (or have just made one) announce it on the talk page. This will make you a much more collaborational editor and one whom others feel they can co-operate with. ] ] 23:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:02, 25 January 2012

Multiple renames, page moves etc...

Hello there, I see you've been really busy over the last few hours making lots of changes to pages within the general area of paganism. There are really so many that there isn't an obvious central place to discuss them all with you, hence coming here! You've made some quite fundamental changes - eg this and this without discussing them on talk pages first - could I suggest that you discuss big moves like this first? (Your obvious redirects are a hood idea and much less problematic, good work on those). You may find that if you move first without discussion, your changes will just get quickly and frustratingly reverted. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown 21:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kim Dent-Brown, first of all sorry for possible language mistakes; but English is not my mother tongue. Regarding my edits, I am a bold user, and when I think my edits are good, and well sourced, I do not hesitate in making them. :) --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the move of Germanic Neopaganism to Heathenism (contemporary religion) you may find a recent proposal here. I've moved it to a far more popular term and adopted the terminology regulations discussed here. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, welcome!

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Bhlegkorbh, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Yngvadottir (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to offend you

Sir, I did not mean to offend with with my request for a reversion on the Germanic Neopaganism page. Personally, I would prefer the term Odinism for our movement because this has been the name used since the 19th century. In my opinion, attempts to reconstruct Anglo-Saxon or Germanic paganism are wrong headed because we have only Icelandic sources, but people stopped the Odinism heading here years ago.

I hope we can work together on future edits.

--ThorLives (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We are both Germanic Heathens and we should co-work rather than quarrel. I am not offended and I respect the Odinic Rite and the Odinist movement since Odinist groups are doing good job all over Europe. However Odinism is not the only Germanic Neopagan religions; there are many currents and individuals which do not identify as "Odinist". I am one of them, I am a Heathen (and European) identifying neither as an Odinist nor as an Asatruar. "Heathenry" has spread as an umbrella term for ALL Germanic Neopagans, being them Odinist, Asatruar, Urglaawers, Theodsmen, or any other subgroup, and it is often preferred over "Germanic Neopagan" because "Neopagan" is mostly used by Wiccans and related to Wiccan groups and publications.

I suggest you to make the Odinism wiki-entry an article writing what distinguishes the Odinist movement from Asatru, Forn Sidhr and the other branches of Heathenry. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That is good that we can cooperate.

Our traditions are different, however, In my opinion, the umbrella term is Odinism. Asatru was a new word coined in the 1970's, but it can also be used as an umbrella term.

Terms such as "pagan" or "heathen" are not really names, but they were insults hurled at the followers of the old gods. Indeed, if we properly translate pagan or heathen, they mean country dweller or "hick"

Of course, I cannot insist on "Odinism" as the title of this article, because it would disturb some, such as yourself. Misplaced Pages is based on consensus. It does make anyone 100% happy because it is a compromise.

--ThorLives (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of external link

I agree with and support your restoration of this link, and would have done so myself if I had seen it first. But I have to say you could and should have done it more carefully, at least in respect of the edit summary. You're entitled to think whatever you like about other editors, but to use words like "lies" and "maiming" is just not productive. What you did was right; the way you did it was not.

I am trying hard to act as an honest broker between editors with strongly held views, but I need some help from you as well in trying to generate a collegial and productive atmosphere. You can't blame "the other side" without taking a look at how your own editing actions are affecting the situation. Kim Dent-Brown 12:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I'll try to weigh my words better next times. --Bhlegkorbh 01:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour

This was an interesting edit summary of yours. Apparently, you have no qualms in dismissing years of careful work on articles, but when something happens to fit your private agenda you are suddenly all for protecting "work" done by others? As a new account joining long-standing, well-developed, stable articles on complicated and well-developed topics, you would do well to get the feel of how progress is made before plunging into edit-wars. WP:BRD is an important page. Nobody has ever succeeded in defending radical changes to an article by simply insisting they must stay. There is no shortcut for the "D" (discuss) part, and you will need to introduce the changes you want step-by-step, or not at all.

So you think of yourself as a "bold" user. That is very well, as long as you understand that you may only be "bold" until you are reverted for the first time. After such a revert, you have no business being bold any longer, but you are expected to take a constructive approach towards compromise. If you are incapable of that, your "boldness" will not be of any use to anyone, not to the project, and not to your own agenda. All you will achieve is messing up articles and annoying people.

Since you clearly have personal stakes in the area you choose to contribute to, WP:COI is also relevant to you. Perhaps you want to hone your Misplaced Pages skills in topics where you have no such stakes first. I for one have very little patience with editors who are blatantly pushing their private ideologies while pretending to be interested in following policy or being encyclopedists. Let us see some work of yours in areas like oceanography, cristallography or the Italian sonnet before you undertake writing about your private religious convictions. --dab (𒁳) 09:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems the only one here who acts as if articles are of his own personal property is you. What you did with this edit was a restoration of your own revision of the article, and you've tried to do the same to the "Paganism" article. The revision of the 'Heathenism' article I contributed to write is not based on my own private religion, indeed it describes the views of the various modern Heathen groups based on sources, and it is an expansion of the old revision (yours) which was completely sourceless and full of dead links. --Bhlegkorbh 11:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent massive reversion

Seriously, this was not cool. Quite apart from going back to a version from many weeks ago, you failed to discuss this in advance on the talk page or notify folks there of either your intentions before the event, or your actions after it. Then you went and made a further tiny edit, seconds later, which obscured the scale of what you had done from people watching this article on their watch lists. That is very poor form indeed and reflects very badly on you, even if it was unintentional.

First off, don't revert to an old version like that. We are where we are and it erases several months of further work since that time. Second, you must know it's never going to stick. We've learned the hard way that massive reversions like that are not a good way forward and they are never going to go unchallenged. Third, don't make the error of hiding a big edit behind a small one. It doesn't actually hide what you've done but just serves to sow doubt in people's minds about your intentions. Finally, if you're going to make a big change (or have just made one) announce it on the talk page. This will make you a much more collaborational editor and one whom others feel they can co-operate with. Kim Dent-Brown 23:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)