Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ignocrates (talk | contribs) at 13:35, 20 October 2006 (→meatpuppets). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ebionites received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Previous discussions can be found at:

• /Neo-Ebionite
• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2

Towards Featured Article status

Before we push the article to Peer review - a step that should always be taken before the Featured Articles Candidacy step - , we need to 1) preserve a neutral point of view ; and 2) extensively provided references for every paragraph in this article following Misplaced Pages:Citing sources guidelines. --Loremaster 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

About See also

According to a Misplaced Pages rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Shalom Loremaster,

Articals explaining offical Misplaced Pages policy have "see also" sections.NazireneMystic 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I know. However, I have a spoken to Misplaced Pages administrators about this issue and I've confirmed that this rule of thumb is an unofficial policy that is highly recommended. --Loremaster 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Toward Peer Review

I am now satisfied with the 12:03, 10 September 2006 version of the article. --Loremaster 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also satisfied with the 12:03, 10 September 2006 version of the article. I will initiate the peer review process. Thanks Loremaster, for your efforts to make this article into a candidate for featured article status. Ovadyah 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Loremaster 19:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to make some minor edits to the article but nothing that will change it's structure or core content. --Loremaster 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Ebionites

I have just made a series of suggestions here Slrubenstein | Talk 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Loremaster 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster I suggest we reserve this page for disussions relating to peer review and follow-up work resulting from the peer review. I suggest moving the last two sections discussing editorial changes made prior to the peer review to Archive 2. I would move the rant about changes to the archived pages to Archive 1, where it can be combined with all the other POV material. Ovadyah 02:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. --Loremaster 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Its interesting that actual discussion about changes to the artical you call rants. then archiving it by moving it to a different section only makes for confusion. Do smoke screens and confusion work in your favor?NazireneMystic 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether they are rants or not, I only archive discussions that have ended and disputes have been resolved. Anyone can easily find and read the archives so my acts cannot be interpreted as some attempt to limit your freedom of speech. --Loremaster 16:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The peer review has been archived. It contains several ideas we can use to improve the Ebionites article.--Loremaster 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Act Bold

Well within the policy to be bold I reinserted the Ebionite restoration movement artical.

I thought they would be judged on thier merit and had no part in the prosses but after revewing the log the vote was made after Alecmconroy gave misleading information regarding the groups size and this seemed to effect the vote and the reason for deletion.once bringing up the notibility issue that was shown to be a non issue compaired to the ME group.

Once the notibility issue was asked to be judged with fair balance and with equal measures thats how both sections were first removed from the Ebionite artical.lol What could not be shown upfront was sneeked in the back door.NazireneMystic 02:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Imagine that. Let's see where acting "bold" gets you with the Wiki admins. :) Ovadyah 13:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I should be fine according to wikipedia policy but then if at any point both groups were judged evenly it would be impossible to include the one group and not the spiritual Ebionites so I dont expect Wikipedians to start acting in good faith any time soon if everNazireneMystic 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As Ovadyah has suggested elsewhere, despite the deletion of the Ebionite Restoration Movement stub, a more general article about modern Ebionites should be considered with the Ebionite Jewish Community paragraph as a subset. Some suggestions for titles are "Modern Ebionite Movements" or "Ebionite Restoration Movements" or "Ebionism in Modern Times". Hopefully the AfD debate narrows the scope of the article so that we don't have to deal with cranks calling themselves Ebionites. --Loremaster 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I said Moonbeams, but cranks will do nicely. :) Ovadyah 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny according the the cranks artical is seems you have sided with cranks and thats about the only explanation of the deletion outcome. Of which i was the only one involved with this artical that acted in good faith. As far as not many believing what the spiritual ebionites held to be true,historicaly not many did, the Ebionites were not in the fat part of the bell curveNazireneMystic 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL Loremaster,

So he plans to make an artical with the same title Allan came up with but he will push a POV to narrow the scope of the artical so we could not be included? At least he is consistant. If you remember I said long ago in the end you will have to do away with the majority of what scholars agree is Ebionite material to keep the artical a billboard for that other group.lol NazireneMystic 20:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The results of acting "bold" are in: the consensus of a second AfD on the restored ERM article was SPEEDY DELETE and PAGE PROTECT. If you attempt to restore the article again, you will find yourself speedily deleted as well. Ovadyah 17:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw, congratulations NM! You are now officially a vandal. Not because I said so, but because of your own actions. Ovadyah 12:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

meatpuppets

While I, in "good faith" let what I thought would be unbiased editors to the deletion prossess without it seems Ovadyah and Alecmconroy were active meatpuppets in the discussion to delete the Ebionite Restoration Movement artical.

Both of them from the archived talk pages clearly know around 400 people are in our main fourm at any given time. We have around 6 other groups also.

The main one alone has more menbers the the other group. Alecmconroy , in the role of meatpuppet that the group had one or 2 members!

Ovadyah memtioned the mis- named neo-ebionite archives but failed to mention after we showed that our group was more notible in every aspect brought out in the prosses to exclude us then we both became subs and removed from the artical.

Another voter claimed outside of Allan's sites there in no memtion of the group at all. On my talk page I clearly have one site that takes almost a whole page attacking Allan, another site were a P.H.D.ed religous scholar reprints an artical Allan has written, and still another site were Were modern spiritual Ebionite writings are listed side by side with famous Christian and Jewish Mystics.

By contrast the evidence Ovadyah claims to be showing his group doesnt even mention them by name and does not show the writers of the articals he links to even know the name of the group or its plaiq I.E. President I.E.King.

Only the reference that used the past wikipedia "Ebionite" artical back when the artical was mainly a billboard for the EJC mentions the group but that realy dones mean anything since it was obtained from Misplaced Pages.NazireneMystic 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I have placed the second formal warning to refrain from personal attacks on NazireneMystic's user page. Ovadyah 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ovadyah,

Funny I didnt attack you but only showed what happened. If I was in error please show me how. If reality seems like apersonal attack on you I cant help you there. Feel free to report all you wantNazireneMystic 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NazireneMystic, please follow the talk page guidelines listed at the top of this page. --Loremaster 18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Most reasonable people would consider being called deceitful or ignorant or diabolical or a meatpuppet to be a personal attack on their character. If this concept is still not clear to you, I can arrange to have an admin explain it more clearly. Ovadyah 23:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ovadyah,

Any reasonable person could not determin if being called deceitful, ignorant or diabolical or a meatpuppet is a personal attack untill it was looked into to see if this is so, it would be ignorant to do otherwise. Were the charges against Foley a personal attack? They surely would be if it were not true but in light of the evidence even his own party is not calling it a personal attack. NazireneMystic 17:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that none of the things you allege about me can be considered personal attacks because everything you say is true. However, none of these insinuations are self-evident truths that speak for themselves; they are merely your opinions. As I said before to one of your collegues, you are certainly entitled to your views. Such views, however, have no place on Misplaced Pages. I ask you one last time to refer to examples of personal attacks and to refrain from such actions. Ovadyah 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And I particularly resent being compared to an alleged pedophile! Ovadyah 13:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

LoreMaster,

Why should I be the only editor involved in this artical that is held to Misplaced Pages standards? Do you know the Ignorance I have had to put up with to this point? How about just the last day? After I followed Policy and restored the artical "boldly even", and that it was linked to the main ebionite artical it would be against wiki policy to speedily delete it. Our ever Honorable friend reported my justified undeletion as vandalism and then yet another briliant wikipedian honored the wooo "report" and went as far to tell me not to undelete the artical again. Siteing someone for not following wikipedia policy involved in this artical is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis Motor SpeedwayNazireneMystic 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is well within Wiki policy to speedily delete it. Please refer to the admin's comments on your user page under Deleted pages. Ovadyah 01:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review