Revision as of 19:33, 19 May 2013

'Misplaced Pages does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Misplaced Pages is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil. If you want to accuse me of a anti-Christian bias:

.

.

.

Merge discussion reopened

Since no one else had the decency to inform you, you should be aware that In ictu oculi reopened the proposal to merge your Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article into the Gospel of the Hebrews, in what now appears to be a proposal for deletion. Although you were not informed, a notice was given to the original proposer, as well as several selective notices to editors who were previously in favor of deletion of the original article, here, here, and here, in what, to my mind at least, seems like a rather obvious attempt at collusion. Ignocrates (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Copying material from one article to another.

Misplaced Pages's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Misplaced Pages, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted

Text and/or other creative content from was copied or moved into ]. The former page's now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Thank you.

You copied material from Oral gospel traditions into a new article Christian Oral Tradition. As it is clearly a duplicate of the same topic, I've redirected it. You also seem to have ignored the consensus on the original to stub the article. Please don't try to undo consensus in this way. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Licensing Breach? Copying? Undo Consensus? Now I am really confused! I never copied material from Oral gospel traditions to the Christian Oral Tradition????? Also, even though my name APPEARS in the edit history, I NEVER edited Oral gospel traditions?????? What is happening????? I truly apologize for any wrongdoing on my part. There is no need to block me as I will voluntary stop editing until things are sorted out. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no way that your name could appear 283 times as an editor in an article without those edits coming from your account. In fact you created the article so if you think you're confused you can imagine how confused I am. That could explain why the same material appeared in Christian Oral Traditions. The problem is that if you look at Talk:Oral gospel traditions it was agreed to remove that material and turn the article into a stub. You then created the new article Christian Oral Traditions despite that decision, using the same material. Could you think again about denying editing Oral Gospel Traditions? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's calm things down here a bit and assume some good faith. As there has been at least one page move (see below), it's likely he's not lying. Article history is your friend. •••日本穣 • 投稿 • Talk to Nihonjoe • Join WP Japan! 21:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the links and something is very wrong! - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You just have to click on the history tab here. Ignocrates (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Licensing Breach, Copying, Undo Consensus. It does look bad. I am recusing myself from further editing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you ever edit Oral tradition and the historical Jesus? It appears the current Oral gospel traditions was moved from Oral tradition and the historical Jesus at 13:50 on 29 January 2012‎ by User:History2007. •••日本穣 • 投稿 • Talk to Nihonjoe • Join WP Japan! 21:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think you have cleared my name!! Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

@ Ignocrates...It has been pointed out that you doubted my word and wanted an RfC/U for Ret.Prof. Do not feel bad! In your shoes I would have done the same. I looked really, really, really guilty!! If bureaucrat Nihonjoe had not figured out that the edit histories for Oral tradition and the historical Jesus and the Christian Oral Traditions had been tampered with, I would have been finished at Misplaced Pages! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC) PS In my relationship with you, I have always found you to be fair and honorable!

Thank you. That is the nicest thing anyone has said to me in almost 8 years of editing. I proposed an RFC/U for two reasons: (1) it allows other editors to offer constructive criticism - ideally, a constructive dialogue - which may lead to improvements in your editing, and just as importantly, (2) it compels other editors - who may have an axe to grind - to put their cards on the table. If they have an opportunity to express their concerns and they don't take it, that will be mentioned later at ANI or in arbitration. I learned a long time ago in the business world that the best way to deal with snipers is to bring them out into the light. Ignocrates (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Before you resume

In the spirit of collegiality, I suggest you take a look at User_talk:BruceGrubb and familiarize yourself with the details of this dispute and the cast of characters who played a role in it. Should you decide to return to editing, I fear there is a significant risk that you will be "Grubb"ed. I hope you will think carefully about how to come back with your eyes open. Ignocrates (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)... I have. The concerns that you have raised are legitimate. Also, trolling hounding, personal attacks and collusion have some merit. I just noticed John C is an Admin! In any event I have chosen to assume good faith. I am being careful in my edits. My protection is very much up to those bureaucrats who patrol Misplaced Pages. Thanks again to Nihonjoe! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Special Thanks

Due to Nihonjoe we all seem to be getting along much better! Your help is much appreciated by all of us. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Ignocrates

Ret.Prof, I can't afford to expend more time and energy fruitlessly attempting to mediate the dispute on Oral gospel traditions. I have articles of my own that need to be finished before I can take on more responsibilities. Imo, admin Nihonjoe was just passing by and isn't going to do anymore for you. However, the person I contacted this morning, AGK, is an 800-pound Gorilla on this encyclopedia. If he can't take steps to ensure that editing article content is an open and fair process then no one can, and Misplaced Pages really is an intellectual desert. Best of luck to you. Ignocrates (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

AGK informed me that he can't become involved in a dispute until his term is up on the Arbitration Committee. I will try to identify another highly-skilled outside mediator as a final action before I recuse myself as an informal facilitator. After I see the GEbi article through WP:FAC and the GHeb article through WP:GAN (two knocks on wood), I may return to this article as an active editor to improve and expand the content. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The consensus on AGK's talk page is to begin with WP:DRN and take it from there. That is probably going to be seen by ArbCom as a necessary first step on the road to arbitration anyway. Since the hoo-ha has temporarily died down, I would probably wait on this article until Dunn's new book comes out before you resume editing. I expect there will be renewed attempts to discredit Dunn and all the other major authors on the topic, as well as the topic itself. That is tactic #1 used so often in this category - undermine the editor by undermining the sources. If that fails, expect a shift to tactic #2 - poison the well by attempting to undermine your personal integrity. I have removed the article from my watch-list, so drop a note on my talk page if there are any overt attempts at deletion in the interim. Ignocrates (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, if DRN is not able to mediate the expected resumption of this dispute (I suspect they will become quickly overwhelmed by the complexity), you can request editor assistance from admin Keilana as an outside mediator who has experience in dealing with complex disputes. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Re tactic #1 & tactic #2 mentioned above: Most unsettling. Yet I am going to assume good faith. Several bureaucrats and admins are aware of the situation. It seems over the past week you, have taken a bit of a beating. It seems no good deed goes unpunished! Most unfair. Sorry Ignocrates! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Icthus

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus

Hello,

I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)