| Revision as of 16:49, 2 September 2013 editIgnocrates (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,170 edits →GHeb article tagging: your disruptive behavior is not an acceptable substitute for a lack of competence← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:03, 2 September 2013 edit undoJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits →GHeb article tagging: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| :::And that pointer is insufficient to meet guidelines, as I have pointed out on the talk page, I believe more than once, that pointer, wherever it is, does not meet the standards of ]. PiCo, I regret that the often infantile behavior which unfortunately is to be expected from one party has spilled out to your talk page. I do hope that you have been looking at the noticeboards where one editor who recently took shots at you is being bereated rather soundly. If, by chance, that person's conduct played a role in your retirement, I think there is a very real chance that that person will not be a problem much longer. ] (]) 16:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | :::And that pointer is insufficient to meet guidelines, as I have pointed out on the talk page, I believe more than once, that pointer, wherever it is, does not meet the standards of ]. PiCo, I regret that the often infantile behavior which unfortunately is to be expected from one party has spilled out to your talk page. I do hope that you have been looking at the noticeboards where one editor who recently took shots at you is being bereated rather soundly. If, by chance, that person's conduct played a role in your retirement, I think there is a very real chance that that person will not be a problem much longer. ] (]) 16:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::That's a curious argument to make since ] is the parent article and ] is the ] from that article. Face it John Carter, you are synonymous with ] - the archetypal editor who literally knows nothing about the subject - yet you continue to pick at a point relentlessly that can be rather easily be resolved in multiple ways that would receive majority support. ] (]) 16:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | ::::That's a curious argument to make since ] is the parent article and ] is the ] from that article. Face it John Carter, you are synonymous with ] - the archetypal editor who literally knows nothing about the subject - yet you continue to pick at a point relentlessly that can be rather easily be resolved in multiple ways that would receive majority support. ] (]) 16:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Ignocrates, as can be seen by the fact that you chose to make this comment here, where it does no good, instead of making a reasonable comment in response on the article talk page, it is you who are apparently indulging in sheer bullshit for the purposes of ] and ;;WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. If you consider the article to be a spinout, then by all means, as per guidelines, it should probably then include a hatnote at the top of the article, "see main article Jewish Christian gospels". I realize you have little familiarity with basic rationality, as, basically, your entire history of editing betrays that. It works both ways. And I also note once again how you indulge in your apparent telepathy in the above comment, indicating that the psych<s>o</s>ic Ignocrates can read minds, and know what will and will not get support in advance. LOL. ] (]) 17:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:03, 2 September 2013
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages as of June 2013.Disambiguation link notification for September 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Book of Ezekiel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tammuz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
GHeb article tagging
As a co-author, how do you want to handle the unbalanced tag on Gospel of the Hebrews? John Carter's tag-spamming follows a predictable pattern of disruption. It is a clear case of ignoring the input from the recent content RfC, which reaffirmed the previous consensus, and edit-warring against that consensus. Ignocrates (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- John Carter's concerns can be handled on Hebrew Gospel hypothesis - there could be a hatnote on Gospel of the Hebrews directing readers to the other related articles (Ebionites, Nazoreans, and Hypothesis). I'm about to undertake a fair amount of air travel (hate it - like to arrive, but not to get there) so will be more or less out of touch for a few days. PiCo (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that's another way to resolve the dispute that would work. As of now, the article is pointing to the History of scholarship section of the Jewish-Christian gospels article. Ignocrates (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- And that pointer is insufficient to meet guidelines, as I have pointed out on the talk page, I believe more than once, that pointer, wherever it is, does not meet the standards of WP:SPINOUT. PiCo, I regret that the often infantile behavior which unfortunately is to be expected from one party has spilled out to your talk page. I do hope that you have been looking at the noticeboards where one editor who recently took shots at you is being bereated rather soundly. If, by chance, that person's conduct played a role in your retirement, I think there is a very real chance that that person will not be a problem much longer. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's a curious argument to make since Jewish-Christian gospels is the parent article and Gospel of the Hebrews is the WP:SPINOUT from that article. Face it John Carter, you are synonymous with Randy from Boise - the archetypal editor who literally knows nothing about the subject - yet you continue to pick at a point relentlessly that can be rather easily be resolved in multiple ways that would receive majority support. Ignocrates (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ignocrates, as can be seen by the fact that you chose to make this comment here, where it does no good, instead of making a reasonable comment in response on the article talk page, it is you who are apparently indulging in sheer bullshit for the purposes of WP:STONEWALL and ;;WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. If you consider the article to be a spinout, then by all means, as per guidelines, it should probably then include a hatnote at the top of the article, "see main article Jewish Christian gospels". I realize you have little familiarity with basic rationality, as, basically, your entire history of editing betrays that. It works both ways. And I also note once again how you indulge in your apparent telepathy in the above comment, indicating that the psych
oic Ignocrates can read minds, and know what will and will not get support in advance. LOL. John Carter (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- And that pointer is insufficient to meet guidelines, as I have pointed out on the talk page, I believe more than once, that pointer, wherever it is, does not meet the standards of WP:SPINOUT. PiCo, I regret that the often infantile behavior which unfortunately is to be expected from one party has spilled out to your talk page. I do hope that you have been looking at the noticeboards where one editor who recently took shots at you is being bereated rather soundly. If, by chance, that person's conduct played a role in your retirement, I think there is a very real chance that that person will not be a problem much longer. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that's another way to resolve the dispute that would work. As of now, the article is pointing to the History of scholarship section of the Jewish-Christian gospels article. Ignocrates (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)