Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:47, 6 August 2014

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Fearofreprisal, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us a bit about yourself

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Gaueko (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

-- Gaueko (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Word (and Barnstar) to the Wise

		The Resilient Barnstar
		As per your comments on the block message, I think you have indeed learned. I encourage you to serve as a Wikipedian editor first, and commentator on Thomas second. Your edits, not the message, will improve -- which is what we strive for as editors. And by doing so the story about Thomas will improve. Be sure to provide balance wherever you can. Perhaps a challenge, but I think you are a truly Resilient Wikipedian. S. Rich (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ping Fu: updated Memoir section for review

Hi Fearofreprisal, thanks again for your detailed feedback on my Ping Fu draft. I've posted an updated version of the Memoir section for your review. Let me know when you've had a chance to look at the section and my comments. If you're happy with the updated section I'll drop it into the draft. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Historicity of Jesus". MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Historicity of Jesus

We must take the highest road possible. We can not argue sources or specific content. I've reviewed the history of conversation in the talk pages going back 6 months. This insanity can only be brought to an end by driving home the message that authority is not vested in theologians from the US. My target is to get firm agreement that the article be broken into sections based on general perspectives: religious, biblical scholarships (with subsections for the various paradigms -maximalist to minimalist) and other (archaeology, literary criticism, sociology, anthropology, etc..). What do you think? --IseeEwe (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@IseeEwe: You're dealing with a group of people who are very knowledgeable, with carefully constructed arguments and sources, great skill at using WP, and who are far more persistent than you. I suspect you'll tire of this Quixotic quest.

My focus is very limited: To get a consensus on scope, and strip out that which is out of scope. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder at how knowledgeable they really are. I started my academic career with a focus on biblical exegesis, and realised how futile it was as an approach to historical events in the first century, and so became an archaeologist with a speciality in early first century Roman mortuaria and a sub-speciality in the philosophy of science, where I examined epistemological questions related to knowledge production. I probably forgot more then they know about many of these matters. About WP, I know nothing. I must plead simple ignorance and good will. The article is labelled non-neutral POV. If this is so then by definition the content is considered biased and unsuitable. Change must be made. I appreciated your comments in the moderated discussion. If this fails I will escalate further. I have already made inquires. We'll see. --IseeEwe (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Historicity of Jesus". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 August 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

DRN escalation recommendation to ANI and Mediation re Historicity of Jesus

Just FYI

• I believe the process works that if you Accept mediation that we can then reduce it to some mutually agreeable scope. If we start by asking for more then we expect to obtain, then when it is cut down to size we will still end up with more than we really need to bring balance back to the article. Please reconsider and please join in the discussion. Your moderate, calm and centred approach will win the day. I am sure of it.

--IseeEwe (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being nice to noobs like me IseeEwe (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic comments

I have removed the "Ian.thomson" section from Talk:Historicity of Jesus since it was not in the least related to improving that article. If you can provide diffs of problematic user behaviour, WP:RFC/U would be the appropriate venue, not the article talk page. Huon (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Huon: I didn't accuse him of problematic behavior. I just asked him what is agenda is (with respect to improving the article, of course.) I think other editors (including those he has called names and misquoted) would be interested in hearing what he has to say to this.

Had I actually accused him of incivility, the first step at WP:Incivility#Dealing_with_incivility is "consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Clarify, and ask for clarification." My post was clearly asking for clarification.

I'll revert your edit now. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)