→Attack on Episcopal Church and Bishop Pike: new section |
MilesMoney (talk | contribs) →A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message |
||
Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Pike&diff=581697242&oldid=581688588 This] edit shows that you either don't understand how to cite reliable sources and attribute their content to claimants appropriately, or you are deliberately using Wikipedia to attack religious institutions and their members. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 23:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Pike&diff=581697242&oldid=581688588 This] edit shows that you either don't understand how to cite reliable sources and attribute their content to claimants appropriately, or you are deliberately using Wikipedia to attack religious institutions and their members. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 23:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
== A barnstar for you! == |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Halfstar Hires.png|60px]] |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Half Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | With less reasonable editors, the dispute over [[Gary North (economist)]] could have easily escalated into [[WP:AEGS]] high drama. Instead, you were willing to discuss what actually concerned you and come to a reasonable compromise that both of us could live with and which improved the article. This is how all disputes should end. [[User:MilesMoney|MilesMoney]] ([[User talk:MilesMoney|talk]]) 07:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 07:48, 15 November 2013
Template:Archive box collapsible
It seems that neither of us wishes to be an administrator here.
We also seem to share the feeling that every editor has the potential to redeem past transgressions and become valuable, should they choose that path Fiddle Faddle 00:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Request
Hello St Anselm,
I have been working on St James' Church, Sydney for quite some time and have now nominated it for GA. Would you be willing to review it please?
Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure yet, but I had a quick look at it, and there is no way it can pass GA with this sentence: St James' is known for having more liberal and diverse theological perspectives than most other churches in the diocese on certain issues, particularly sexuality and the ordination of women. That is definitely original research. You don't need a citation in the lead, but material in the lead should be in the main body of the article - this is not. StAnselm (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Good point. Will look into it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if you can provide some encouragement
I am working with an editor, Rathfelder, whose name I have not linked to in case my discussion here might make him feel bad. he has great enthusiasm and great energy, but my feeling is that it is off target. I'm trying to correct his aim and to help him move from enthusiastic to excellent (hence my desire not to discourage him by his finding this message at least before you have replied to it or considered it.)
His articles are entirely outside your field. He is UK, you are a fair distance away. That will mean that you bring an outsider's perspective to looking at his work and guiding him.
If you scan his talk page, just the index, you will see that he has been creating a great number of articles about entities that are notable, but whose articles are most assuredly lacking. He has "Stub and move on" edited. I am trying to persuade him to revisit all of the stubs, one by one, and to turn them from unreferenced stubs to at least stubs with references. To do this I had to fire a large shot across his bows in order to get his attention. Now I have it, at least to an extent, but I am in danger of wearing out my welcome in his life.
With that in mind I looked for a decent editor, one with who I have interacted and share at least some similar goals, but one who is, by and large, a stranger to me in order that I do not influence them one way or another by whatever my track record with them might be. I think I have found such an editor in you, and ask for help in guiding Rathfelder's aim. Fiddle Faddle 11:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality of articles relating to Bill Gothard and the Institute in Basic Life Principles
Please stop deleting relevant links that are added to these articles, or else show that the links are truly not relevant to the person or organization at hand. Your repeated deletion of these additions, followed by the accusation of spamming toward those who add the links, does not reflect well on Gothard or on IBLP but merely shows a strong bias. As you can see, a notice has been placed at the top of the entry for Bill Gothard indicating that the neutrality of the article is disputed; neutrality demands objectivity, which includes the presentation of various views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.85.214 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Publication
To publish is to make public. At some point, and some how, Daniel was made public. I doubt that there was a book launch, or reviews in the local media, or an author tour, but allowing for the conditions of the time, published is not, IMO, inappropriate. But I changed it anyway - if you think the word jars, no doubt others will too. :) PiCo (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've been intentionally avoiding the great debate on the article talk page, but I did notice it, and it did jar. StAnselm (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Crucifixion darkness era issues
Greetings, StAnselm. I noticed that you changed all CE mentions to AD in the Crucifixion darkness article with this edit. I undertsand why, but I want to urge caution here. As you may or may not know, an editor has almost entirely rewritten the article in the last 6 months, and it is currently undergoing a thorough review for Good Article status. There was a time when the article used AD for dates, but in the last six months most of the sources have been replaced, the article has been reorganized, and even the name of the article has changed. It has used CE pretty consistently since at least July. Given all that, I think it would have been better to discuss the issue on the talk page, as recommended at WP:ERA: "BC and AD are the traditional ways of referring to this era. BCE and CE are common in some scholarly texts and religious writings. Either convention may be appropriate. Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change."
It may seem like a lot of rigamarole for something as dry as a date format, but people do seem to get upset about such things. There have even been arbitration cases about it, if you can believe that. For formatting issues like this, I tend to favor whatever format is used by the most prolific content-creator in an article. (That's certainly not me. All my edits have been minor rewordings and reference fixes -- nothing substantial.) Anyway, we can discuss it at Talk:Crucifixion darkness if you like. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
Thank you for reviewing St James', King Street! Here's a little something from Newtown. Amandajm (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC) |
- Re the Theology at St James', those who regularly attend elsewhere have cause for such comment. The usual sermon by a Moore College graduate is a lengthy repetition of the scripture in different words, with some reference to the elder son borrowing the car, or the younger son tipping his weetbix on the floor. The least relevant sermon I have heard recently was preached by a senior minister to a large congregation that included almost no "new" Christians, and included possibly a hundred who had been Christians from 40 to 80 years. The scripture, which gave plenty of scope for mature contemplation, was interpreted at the level of a pre-confirmation, thirteen-year-old Bible study, and with a presumption that all the listeners were new to Christianity. Jesus instructed that the sheep needed feeding, along with the lambs.
- While I have defended the fact that psychology is part of what is taught at Moore, I should qualify that by saying that I am led to think that the main thrust of such teaching seems to be that women are intrinsically different to men in the sight of God. Whiteghost and I are both female, and just possibly feel a little disenfranchised.
- Amandajm (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, StAnselm! I was just putting my finishing touches on my opinion of the renaming of Eleazar Avaran to Eleazar Maccabeus when I saw that you reverted the change! If User:IZAK challenges this and/or if more opinions come in, I hope you will be able to place the proper templates onto the talk page and initiate the proper log entries in order to make it an official discussion. I'm not sure how to do this. For the moment, however, this may be premature; it may not come to that. Kind regards,--@Efrat (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
More Maccabees
Greetings, StAnselm! I just noticed that you have already reverted John Gaddi and Jonathan Apphus. Thank you. There is one more, Simon Maccabeus back to Simon Thassi. Also, User:IZAK has started a discussion on the page Talk:Eleazar Avaran However, he did not make it an official WP:RM discussion. Could I trouble you to take care of that bit of housekeeping? Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
anti-Islamic POV
You've been warned about your anti-Islam views in the past. if i see it again i'm taking you to An/I. Edits like this where you are positioning religions in certain hierarchies are pointless. Pass a Method talk 05:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have made such an aggressive post if i saw you make a consistent stance. For example if you consistently supported a chronological order. However i have seen edits of yours in the past where you support an alphabetical order. Such double standards are the reason i complain about your edits. Pass a Method talk 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would also like to remind you that following an editor to an article you've never edited before after getting into a content dispute with them falls under the definition of WP:STALK. I've seen editors getting indefinitely blocked for such behavior, so it would be in your best interest to stop. Pass a Method talk 17:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
FFS, words have meaning
OK, putting a pin in here. Will try to explain it all to you tomorrow -- Kendrick7talk 03:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Attack on Episcopal Church and Bishop Pike
This edit shows that you either don't understand how to cite reliable sources and attribute their content to claimants appropriately, or you are deliberately using Wikipedia to attack religious institutions and their members. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Half Barnstar | |
With less reasonable editors, the dispute over Gary North (economist) could have easily escalated into WP:AEGS high drama. Instead, you were willing to discuss what actually concerned you and come to a reasonable compromise that both of us could live with and which improved the article. This is how all disputes should end. MilesMoney (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC) |