| Revision as of 23:49, 14 May 2013 editIgnocrates (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,170 edits →Incident log for Oral gospel traditions: done with this← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:01, 16 May 2013 edit undoIgnocrates (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,170 edits archiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| ::Will do. I would like to use a format that most editors who write FA-quality articles consider to be best practices. Thanks. ] (]) 20:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | ::Will do. I would like to use a format that most editors who write FA-quality articles consider to be best practices. Thanks. ] (]) 20:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::Support duly added, along with a few well-chosens in favour of your ref formatting. I'm not going so far as to ''recommend'' that you follow my preferred ref formatting in future. I am a bit of a dinosaur, and many of the best editors prefer using cite web/cite news/cite journal templates, though I find them a dreadful fiddle-faddle to put in. Have a look at edit pages of FAs by ] such as ], his most recent solo FA. And there are editors not wholly unhinged who favour the sfn device, though I can't make head or tail of it. In short, for any new articles you create I'd find whatever suits you best and stick to it ''contra mundum''. For existing articles you overhaul, I'm afraid you're stuck with the status quo for ref style: see ]. – ] (]) 12:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC) | :::Support duly added, along with a few well-chosens in favour of your ref formatting. I'm not going so far as to ''recommend'' that you follow my preferred ref formatting in future. I am a bit of a dinosaur, and many of the best editors prefer using cite web/cite news/cite journal templates, though I find them a dreadful fiddle-faddle to put in. Have a look at edit pages of FAs by ] such as ], his most recent solo FA. And there are editors not wholly unhinged who favour the sfn device, though I can't make head or tail of it. In short, for any new articles you create I'd find whatever suits you best and stick to it ''contra mundum''. For existing articles you overhaul, I'm afraid you're stuck with the status quo for ref style: see ]. – ] (]) 12:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Incident log for Oral gospel traditions == | |||
| I have created this diff log for documenting further incidents of the deletion of reliable sources and blanking reliably-sourced content without discussion. ] (]) 16:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Attempting to facilitate this intractable dispute is pointless. I'm wasting my time trying to apply bargaining and negotiating techniques to bring people together when what is really needed is a cattle prod. I have more rewarding things to do with my life. ] (]) 23:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Ret.Prof's Comments == | |||
| I am confused and need your help to understand how to proceed?? | |||
| #I added some material from ,, etc who raise it as an important issue. Nobody has disputed these sources. | |||
| #Indeed everyone seems to agree that there is scholarly consensus that Jesus must be understood as a | |||
| #We all seem to agree that the material is clearly undisputable and obvious. | |||
| #Since everyone agrees that Jesus must be understood as a therefore it must be '''removed''' from the article?? | |||
| ] states the obvious may not need a source. ie "Paris is the capital France" or "Jesus was Jewish". However to say that the obvious ie "Paris is the capital France" or "Jesus was Jewish" must be deleted from Wikiedia seem to turn ] upside down. - ] (]) 17:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC) PS How do we have a POV dispute when everyone's POV is the same and it is obviously correct? | |||
| :The content is reliably sourced, and it is an accurate summary of the reliable sources. The POV problem was caused by the deletion of reliably sourced article content without discussion. So, restore the deleted content and note in the discussion section that it is an accurate summary of the reliable sources. You can quote the reliable sources on the talk page to prove it. If there are issues with ] and/or ], those things should be discussed on the talk page before the content is added again. ] (]) 17:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ignocrates. What is going on . Are you knowingly working with RetProf to add, yet again, material we have endless previous Talk page, AfD and merge discussions to remove? ] (]) 10:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::For the record, I am absolutely <U>not</U> "knowingly working with Ret.Prof", and I apologize if my actions led you to believe that. As I stated in my disclaimer on the article talk page, I am trying my best to remain neutral. However, I believe your methods of controlling article content are too heavy-handed at times and the community needs to find a way to allow Ret.Prof to have some input. That is the whole point of attempting to reach a consensus on the talk page. ] (]) 13:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@ In ictu oculi...Please look at the debate over the past few months and you will see that Ignocrates has slammed me a couple of times...and he has been right both times. He is trying hard to be fair and honorable. He has the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart! I have not the slightest doubt that if I had used "heavy-handed" tactics he would have dealt with me accordingly. - ] (]) 13:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:01, 16 May 2013
Archives
Workpages
Name change
My original username, Ovadyah, which I have edited with since July 2005, was apparently too ethnic for some editors, leading to inappropriate talk page speculation about my religious beliefs. Therefore, I have changed my username to the more Wiki-appropriate name of Ignocrates. Ignocrates (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I liked your old name. Where do we stand with the Ebionites? If you have the time, please critically evaluate the sources on my user page. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's great to see you back. I thought you had retired from Misplaced Pages. Sorry, but I'm not the right person to ask about the Ebionites article. I have abandoned that article permanently to the idiots and trolls that dominate this encyclopedia. Best. Ignocrates (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is a shame. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 16:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's great to see you back. I thought you had retired from Misplaced Pages. Sorry, but I'm not the right person to ask about the Ebionites article. I have abandoned that article permanently to the idiots and trolls that dominate this encyclopedia. Best. Ignocrates (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
As part of the "new me", I'm going to be a lot harder on uninformed, yet relentless, editors, who confidently edit on subjects they know nothing about. The problem is not my lack of good faith; it is their lack of competence. And competence is required on Misplaced Pages if we are going to prevent this encyclopedia from regressing to the mean or worse. Ignocrates (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
GHeb and GEbi
Sure I'd be happy to go over them some time. I'm assuming it's all very brown-bread and in line with Schneemelcher and SBL sources now? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, that was fast! Yes, very brown-bread and in line with Schneemelcher and SBL sources. No surprises. You can check my progress at User:Ignocrates/Gospel of the Hebrews if you like. My pace is slow and steady. There is a lot of reading involved going through all these sources. I finally broke down and checked Klijn (1992) out from the university library. I am in the process of reading the book cover to cover. Thanks for being willing to help out, and I appreciate any suggestions for reviewers. Best. Ignocrates (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- My compliments for the way you are drafting the page. It is going past GA towards FA class in my view.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks pal. It's good to hear from you. Ignocrates (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- My compliments for the way you are drafting the page. It is going past GA towards FA class in my view.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
GEbi FAC review
The Gospel of the Ebionites article is currently being reviewed to verify that it meets WP:Featured article criteria. You can help to improve the article, leave suggestions for improvement at Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites, or participate in the review process here. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I can't say I'm wild about the referencing layout you've gone for, but in my opinion you should stick to your guns. See WP:CITEVAR. As long as the referencing format does the job – which yours most definitely does – then those like me who prefer other layouts can jolly well put up with it. As you have followed the format used in a recently-promoted article (G Harrison) you are fireproof. This question should, IMO, have no bearing at all on eligibility for FA. I'll look in at the FAC tomorrow and put my highly-supportive two penn'orth in. (If, for future articles, you are at all interested in how I, as a moderately frequent submitter to FA, prefer to do my referencing, have a look at Gabriel Fauré. I think this method of referencing is clean and simple, but to each his own.) – Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Will do. I would like to use a format that most editors who write FA-quality articles consider to be best practices. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support duly added, along with a few well-chosens in favour of your ref formatting. I'm not going so far as to recommend that you follow my preferred ref formatting in future. I am a bit of a dinosaur, and many of the best editors prefer using cite web/cite news/cite journal templates, though I find them a dreadful fiddle-faddle to put in. Have a look at edit pages of FAs by User:Brianboulton such as Jane Cobden, his most recent solo FA. And there are editors not wholly unhinged who favour the sfn device, though I can't make head or tail of it. In short, for any new articles you create I'd find whatever suits you best and stick to it contra mundum. For existing articles you overhaul, I'm afraid you're stuck with the status quo for ref style: see WP:CITEVAR. – Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Will do. I would like to use a format that most editors who write FA-quality articles consider to be best practices. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)