This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Carter (talk | contribs) at 16:01, 8 August 2013 (→Christ myth theory: renewed discussion, could probably use your input). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:01, 8 August 2013 by John Carter (talk | contribs) (→Christ myth theory: renewed discussion, could probably use your input)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
GA review
This article has been nominated for a GA review. Could I encourage beg you to skim through it and open a review with a couple of broad comments? I have reasons for not doing so myself, though at a later time I would be willing to act on suggestions others have made. Two to four sentences would probably be enough to say whether it meets GA standards. If you don't have time the world won't come to an end, but if Dougweller is in the neighborhood, the more the merrier. The article displays erudition, but fearful of canvassing or committing some other sin, I won't go into my several concerns. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:SPI
Given that you had filed this, you should probably know about this one now, given the Julian context in this one too. History2007 (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Bedson
You might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson and . Dougweller (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
WP Classical Greece and Rome in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Christ myth theory
Sorry about not having checked the recent sources here. I raised the question pretty much because we do seem to have some significant, if not particularly notable in reliable sources, questions regarding all sorts of religion-related topics, including the new form of Deism, which based on what I can see is only referred to in any signifcant way at Examiner.com, in articles/blog entries which don't even remotely qualify as independent reliable sources, and evidently barely if at all qualify as reliable sources at all. The post was part of a broader effort to maybe call attention to some of these signfiicant, if perhaps not particularly independently notable, matters, to see how if at all we try to deal with them. Many or most of these marginally independently notable topics, like the new forms of deism, may well qualify for some discussion here somewhere, but where and to what degree is something that hasn't yet been determined. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, not sure if you've been looking lately, but there seems to be renewed "discussion" regarding the notability of the topic, the scope of the article, and on and on and on. You indicated some sources earlier which apparently you've accessed, and I think your input based on that information you might have might be very useful. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)