Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:07, 31 December 2008

Changed page

Changed the page to refer to the scholarly work done by Bentley Layton on the test, and to include references to the contextual literary forms of the time. Also made ref to modern usage of the text, and included a footnote reference to the text in The Gnostic Scriptures. This entry, I hope, will be more useful in scholarly pursuits, as the old entry has no references and made many unverifiable statements. Visual Error 12:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote from "On the Origin of the World"

86.140.169.77 added this below to the references section on September 26, 2006. It was deleted the same day by User:Nilfanion. Maybe someone can tie this in better to the article. If it merits it. It looks interesting. Or maybe just link to the source for this with a short explanation of the similarities. The similarities need to be drawn out. Maybe quote similar passages from Thunder, Perfect Mind. Or... --Timeshifter 22:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Eve speaks in a similar way in On the Origin of the World

'It is I who am the being of my mother

And it is I who am the mother

It is I who am the wife

It is I who am the virgin

It is I who am pregnant

It is I who am the midwife

It Is I who am the one that comforts the pain of birth

And it is my husband who gave birth to me

And it is I who am his mother

And it is he who is my father and my lord

It is he who is my power

What he desires, he speaks in the word

And I am the one who is becoming

Yet I have given birth to a man as lord'

It has been suggested this quotation is from the lost Gospel of Eve

Aestheteka

You do not solely decide what is and is not spam here. The link was added to promote a website, which already discolours it. I've looked at it as well. It seems like a glorified personal website for Edward O'Toole. The site fails under the following conditions, ELNO #s: 2 ("use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research"; no footnotes, unverifiable research); 4 (undeniable); 11 (as Edward's personal website). Moreover, 2 persons think this is spam, while you are the only one defending it. You can't decide to keep this in the article because you like it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this here rather than through edit summaries. You are discussing guidelines but not linking to the guidelines. Please be more specific in your guideline linking and quoting. Otherwise we can't discuss the guideline in context.

The article in question: The Thunder, Perfect Mind - Gnothi Seuton. By Edward O'Toole. October 5, 2005. Phenomena Magazine.

I believe you are referring to external links guidelines. This link does not violate those guidelines. There is no conflict of interest on my part. I am not associated with the website or the author in any way. User:Aestheteka added the link originally. See this diff: If they have a conflict of interest, then they should have used the talk page.

But that has nothing to do with my addition of the link. It is a thoughtful article about The Thunder, Perfect Mind, and so it is a good link for the external links section. If you or others continue to remove the link, I may report you to WP:ANI. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I originally removed this link as spam, because User:Aestheteka had added links to aestheteka.com to multiple articles.

As Carl says, this appears to fail WP:ELNO #11; "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". I see nothing to suggest that Edward O'Toole is a recognised authority on 4th century poetry. If Phenomena Magazine is a reliable source, we should be using it as a reference to actually mention some of the points raised in O'Toole's article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing newbies about WP:COI.

Read the article, though. It is thoughtful and relevant. WP:ELNO #11 is a guideline, not a policy. External links do not have to meet the same high standards as references. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked up Phenomena magazine, and couldn't even find a proper website for it. I wouldn't consider it anything meeting reliability, so I wouldn't use this as a source. Yes, ELs do not have to meet the same standards as refs, but we still don't allow everything under the sun into EL sections. Just because ELNO is a guideline and not a policy, doesn't mean we disregard it. (For precedence, see discussion on Ketchupworld at Talk:Ketchup.) Guidelines are meant to be followed. Its original placement (that by Aestheteka, not you) was a violation of COI. I have no interest in rewarding persons who spam WP. There is no compelling reason to add this to the article. Yes, it is well written. But, it is well-written OR. There are no real references in it, it is the opinion of Edward O'Toole. Without an indication, as McGeddon said, of his being a recognized authority, I do not support including this EL. And please, quit the ANI threats. I brought it to the talk page rather than reverting you outright. You're starting to act as though you have ownership problems with this page. If there is not consensus for this EL to be maintained, it ought to be deleted. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you've made no effort to further refute our position, I will be removing it shortly. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "I have no interest in rewarding persons who spam WP. There is no compelling reason to add this to the article. Yes, it is well written."

Please see my previous replies. I did not spam WP. That is a personal attack. As you said, it is well written. There is only one external link. Leave it alone. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware you did not spam WP. I've not accused you of doing so. But the spam-status of the link is independent of who added it. The link in and of itself is unacceptable, and is spammy. I have not made a personal attack on you. And please own up to your selective quotation of my words. The crucial next sentence after "it is well written", is "But, it is well-written OR." I don't care how beautifully a person writes, if the content of their writing is not up to snuff. Now please, realize that there is no consensus to keep this link. You are the only person supporting its inclusion. Three persons have indicated something to the effect of there is no compelling reason to keep it. I will again remove the link. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:KEEPCOOL and avoid personal attacks.

The article was most definitely spammed here against WP:COI.

I see no compelling reason to keep it. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, you have a habit of wiki-stalking me. Please stop. Also, I added the link. Therefore there is no further WP:COI. Because the article link was originally added by someone else is not justification for you to delete it now. That is a personal vendetta on your part against the original person who had the COI.

Carl. You are using the same reasoning as used by Ronz. You also are not justified to use your personal vendetta against the original person who added the link to justify removing the link that I added. Because I have no COI.

You two need to go back to warning newbies about WP:COI. You have done that. You left a message on the offending user's talk page. So be happy. You told them to use article talk pages. You have done your job. You are talking to me now. So stop discussing COI when you talk to me.

I will return the link in a few days when you two have cooled off. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)