| Revision as of 23:35, 19 May 2013 editDPL bot (talk | contribs)Bots668,622 edits dablink notification message (see the FAQ)← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:45, 19 May 2013 edit undoIgnocrates (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,170 edits fixed - rm disambiguation noticeNext 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) | ||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for May 19== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 23:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:45, 19 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)