User talk:Ret.Prof/archive3

Archive 3 (2010)

Search for Admins

We really need more good Admins. My project for the year is to search for them and for the first time nominate a few.

Jesus

Thanks for the kind words --JimWae (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome! Jesus is a problem to edit because people have such different views and care so deeply. Please keep an eye on me as I edit this article and go into "damage control" if I do anything stupid. A fan! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

CDA proposal

Hello Ret.Prof, per your comment at Taelus' RfA here, I thought you might be interested in knowing that there actually is an active proposal for a community de-adminship process, located at Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship. You may wish to get involved in the discussion yourself. :) Best, GlassCobra 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Problem admins can reek havoc if not dealt with fairly. Don't get me wrong, 99% of you guys are fantastic but that 1%..... Thanks again, - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Participation at my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 14:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Look forward to supporting you next time. All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC) P.S. the kitten won me over.

Thanks

I want you to be the first person I thank, without your kind words five months ago I very well may have left Wikipedia. J04n(talk page) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Ret.Prof/archive3 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

please don't misuse citations

Hi there. On Gospel of John, you have twice used the ODCC and EB as citations for the "eyewitness" claim that neither source supports. Obviously you understand what a breach of protocol it is to claim a source supports a statement when it doesn't, so this must have been an oversight. Especially when you are asserting information that contradicts the mainstream view, please be more careful with your sources. Thanks! Leadwind (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on my Windy friend. I "don't misuse citations" and I have committed no "breach of protocol". Please read the material more carefully! - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone cited this statement to the ODCC three times: "The style of his account shows the writer to have been an "eyewitness" of the historical events he records." The ODCC doesn't say this. If it wasn't you who cited the ODCC to support this sentence (and EB on two occasions), then I retract my accusation and apologize. Leadwind (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't in good conscience accept your apology. I assumed good faith about your accusation and finally figured what happened. We were using different editions. Go to the ODCC, 1989 ed. p. 743 13th line from the bottom. Sorry for getting snippy. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Presumably there was a similar problem with Encyclopedia Britannica Online, which was also twice cited as supporting that statement. Leadwind (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Right Jolly Old Elf

Hello Sphilbrick, I got your email and I did not take offense. I am a big guy over six feet and over 200lbs. When I walk down the street I have been mistaken for Ernest Hemingway, Kenny Rogers and (this one is a killer) Santa Claus but never a woman (maybe it is the white beard). I used to think kids liked my jocular good humor until I realized it was Christmas presents that drew them to me in the mall . . . sad but true. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC

An important Topic - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

I understand the concept of a polite "no"; but is it wrong to invite you again to join others as a co-mentor for me?

Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me. I cite Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Perhaps your decision-making might be affected by reading WP:A/R/C#Statement by Tenmei, especially

A. Response to Steven Smith

B. Response to Coren

C. Response to Roger Davies

If you continue to shrink from a role as an ArbCom-approved "public mentor," it is still possible that you might be willing to help as a non-public mentor/advisor? Words from a book in your area of expertise may prove persuasive?

“ The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him. ”

-- Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894)

In this context, I wonder if the perspective of an academic might help mitigate some of the inevitable lessons learned the hard way through trial and error? In the following, does something spring to mind which is obvious to you but not to the mentorship group?

Roger Davies seeks more information from the mentors about how mentoring will work.

I hope these words will help "prime" the pump. I believe that what can be done in pre-planning has been accomplished. We will be figuring it out together as the future unfolds. A restatement is straightforward:

• An initial editing strategy based on a theory of wiki-pacifism was suggested by the userpage of Leujohn in Hong Kong.
• Fasten in Germany suggested that I tentatively adopt pacifist tactics as an experiment derived from salutary premises which I posted at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unanticipated Consequences, especially the words of a famous German:

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein

In the absence of any better alternative, I agreed; however, a willingness to experiment with a novel tactic represents only a superficial change. This is useful as an exploratory gambit, but not transformative. I am not persuaded that pacifist action is workable even in this experimental approach, but we'll see.

The Latin axiom qui tacet consentire videtur is mirrored in WP:Silence + WP:Consensus. In our wiki-context, I would like to find a way to construe pacifist non-confrontation ≠ WP:Silence. In resolving these seeming contradictions, the mentors' points-of-view are essential. Together we will discover otherwise unrecognized alternatives.

In the context of this specific issue, Xavexgoem has agreed to be a non-public mentor. "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty encompassed User talk:Xavexgoem/archive5#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly. Xavexgoem's experience in mediation will help remedy an arguable deficit in the composition of our small group. Core policies are the tools at hand; and Xavexgoem agreed to help connect the dots in hopes that it could benefit more than me.

Does this help you make better guesses about how mentorship will work?

Does this suggest comments you might want to share? Observations? Questions?

The answer is no. I do wish you all the best and if I can be of help in other area please let me know - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

New Editor for GosThom

Hello Ret.Prof: I see that you were busily working away on this article yesterday, but may not have had time to read the new notes that I posted to the discussion page, pointing to what I believe to be several different shortcomings in the entry as it now stands. I haven't done a thorough check yet, but I would like to offer my services (such as they are for a newbie), at least for the short term, in the effort to bring the entry up to standards. - Mike Grondin - Mwgrondin (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will get back to it in a couple of days. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested Review

Ret.Prof,

Would you be so kind as to review the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brief Chronicles and, if you feel so inclined, to express an opinion? Thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I have been slacking in this area. Ret.Prof (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing your own "good name" (see Hamlet: "report me and my cause aright to the unsatisfied.") I am sorry to have brought this kind if disgraceful innuendo on you by simply requesting your honest and honorable response (whatever it may have been, which I of course could not know in advance), but pleased by your vigorous response to make clear how badly your critics have failed to abide by common sense standards of courtesy and have instead substituted their own paranoid fantasies.--BenJonson (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A request with your name on it.

Ret. Prof,

Please see this request. I thought of you, as I do not remotely qualify. The referenced article is Pasquill Cavaliero --SPhilbrickT 22:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I will be glad to help. It looks like a well written article. It may need a few more references. I enjoyed the work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, I removed tag. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the above is the full extent of my relationship with Ben. I have been impressed with his work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of Thomas Chart

Dear Ret.Prof - I am basically leaving this chart to you, as I'm under the impression that it's your baby, but I did wonder about the ref in the section title. In general, refs in section titles appear to me to be rare (note that it apparently causes the underline to move up, making the header look clunky), but more specifically, I'm unclear what the relevance of the ref'd page is. - Mike - Mwgrondin (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Done! In general, refs in section titles are not a good thing. By the way I have reviewed your edits and the work you are doing is great. Glad you are making time for Wikipedia! - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It cannot have been easy going over my edits, since I've sometimes gone back and reworded something I've edited earlier. But I did want to thank you for your encouragement, and for your positive and constructive approach. You're a model for other editors to emulate, and I consider it most fortunate that you've made this article one of your interests. - Mike - Mwgrondin (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Ret.Prof's Day!

User:Ret.Prof has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Ret.Prof's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Ret.Prof! Peace, Rlevse 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It really made my day. All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt

Note

[1]. You need to sort out your indenting. You pissed me right off the other day by making a load of quotes indented under a comment of mine that I did not make - and did not have the common courtesy to refactor after I pulled you on it either. I suggest you do so this time. You really are coming over as either very rude or totally ignorant of conventions - of which I am sure you are neither - so I am suprised why you continue to do this. Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Your sarcastic comment at the RFA is becoming typical. I did not get confused, as anyone with half a grasp of English would see. YOU need to stop indenting in the way you do - ignoring standards that are accepted and expected worldwide on the internet, not just on Wikipedia. Either you do not know these, in which case I suggest you research them, or more likely you are deliberately trying to wind people up with your "efforts". Neither is impressive. Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You made this statement, "You pissed me right off the other day by making a load of quotes indented under a comment of mine that I did not make". How can you have a comment of yours that you did not make? Please assume good faith and try not to upset yourself. However it seems to me to be a bit of an oxymoron - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to take that tone, Ret. Prof. Pedro's concerns seem valid to me; we can all make mistakes on formatting, but if another user brings it to our attention, we need to accept it I think. I would stress that I was in no way confused by what you were saying at the RfA; but it's good form to take criticism like that in one's stride I think. --John (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My harsh tone has nothing to do with either of you. You are both fine editors. Nor does it have to do with indenting. I will be more careful in future. It has to do with what I see as being a corrupted RfA. I now believe this to be the case. And it does affect my tone. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

I won't say it on MQS' RFA page, and I realize it might offend you here too, but telling DGG they might have a "dangling part" in the midst of a discussion involving notability of porn stars - I just started laughing. :) Especially considering the content of your message. I hope you can join with me in seeing some humour there. :) Regards! Franamax (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh My God! lol, But it was unintentional - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Several years ago I was invited to an Easter Service at a Lutheran Church. The topic was Jesus' Glorious Resurrection and how Mary was the first to witness it. It would have been a good sermon but German pastor's English was poor. He preached on Jesus' Glorious Erection and its impact on Mary. He finished by saying "The Lord has risen" to which we replied "the Lord has risen indeed" Needless to say it was traumatic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh now you're just being mean. I don't have that many laughs left in my body. :) I'm going to have to come back here tomorrow and read again when I get my breath back. That's a rather hilarious anecdote. Franamax (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not that mean. I am glad you did not take offense. Now if I can only learn to indent! (and remember to sign my comments) - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

MQS RFA

Although I appreciate that you are trying to initiate conversation regarding some of the reasoning in the opposes, as a third party it seems that you are trying to protect MQS, and are willing to jump on anyone in the oppose section. I don't believe this is your intention, but it to a certain extent does come off that way. It seems it is quite clear that his RfA will pass, and for the sake of preventing wikidrama it might be best to back off some of the opposers, to a certain degree. Feel free to do what you want, but I just wanted to inform you that it does come off a bit strange. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. My problem was when I first read the oppose section, I was about to oppose until I looked at his edits. It is now my belief that the Candidate was being treated unfairly, which as you can tell I did not like. Thanks, for a most pleasant rebuke. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah certainly. I had the same thought as you did, until recently when more possibly negative diffs have arose. I need to re-evaluate my thoughts again. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I really should not get so upset. I don't know the candidate and he may not make a good admin. Still it is the way he is being taken down that bothers me. This sort of turns people away from Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

and now you seem to have opposed based on the part of the whole thing which is least likely to be relevant to any reasonable opposition. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi DGG! As of 16:00 March 12 the candidate had 95% support and looked like an ideal candidate. At that time a very large number of people descended upon the RfA. Virtually all were oppose. Within a few hours Schmidt was a failed candidate. Oppose reasons were as follows: The candidate has

1. "porn issues"
2. "questionable judgment"
3. committed "sock puppet offenses"
4. "spam links"
5. "a serious misunderstanding of the coriest of all our core principles"
6. "a fundamental misunderstanding of BLP policy"
7. a "vested interest in protecting self-promoters"
8. is "powerfully vested in a rather strange ideology"
9. is "hostile to standards that would lead to accurate, verifiable and strong encyclopedic content"
10. did improperly conspire re "offline coordination for the early supports"
11. is " a nudist version of MBisanz"
12. is an "Extreme inclusionist"
13. is "an inclusionist who will dismiss (or seriously contort) policy"
14. goes around "harassing and making inappropriate judgements".
15. reliance on wikilawyering to subvert rules
16. "candidate was way too quick to offer pictures of himself, including nudes",
17. "no one specific thing - just too many situations"

DGG how could have ever nominated such a candidate? I cannot support such a candidate if everything is on the up and up. Do you think this RfA "is on the Up and Up"? - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I nominated him because I think he'll do a careful, modest, and reasonable job. I think he is on the up and up, yes. Everyone's been fooled once or twice, including him--and me, but I think not this time. The opposition is divided between his inclusionism and his old misbehavior, but I think that either one of them would not be enough to have stopped him. Even so , more people support him than not. He's held up very well under pressure--all the insults are coming from the other side. What should I say--that he he goes rogue, I'll block him myself? and so I would, but somehow that seems like a peculiarly weak kind of support. DGG ( talk )

Ditto for me. I wouldn't have nominated if I wasn't quite sure that MQS will respect community consensus on his admin actions. The whole sorry affair is not really en:wiki at its finest. The socking is ancient history. If he was to start closing AFD's unreasonably, the answer is simple: people would take them to DRV, he would end up with a bunch of overturned closes, and if he kept doing it he would be taken to ArbCom. But I'm sure that would never happen. As far as your specific excerpts above, my comments would be a mix of "no", "wrong", "not in my opinion", "who cares", "they misunderstand the method", "they draw inappropriate conclusions", & c. 'Tis indeed a lesson on how memes can be propagated into a storm. Yes, I'm confident this RFA is on the up-and-up. Franamax (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good answers. As you are two of the most respected editors on Wikipedia I will rethink my oppose. What is your opinion of this comment? - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree with his statement that a principal motive is " baseless character-assassination of an excellent candidate who, a large, organized group feels, won't delete enough... or, more accurately, will stand in the way of their efforts to delete more. " But I would not extend it to a blanket condemnation of everyone who voted oppose--some of them probably remain honestly if unnecessarily concerned with the old stuff, or with those links. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

multivotes

For clarity could you possibly indent and strike out whichever votes do not represent your actual position. It's gotten a little confusing. I understand, but I do not think everyone does. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

84 Strong support: is my position. Am I missing something? Please let me know and I will strike it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's #79 now, the one that copy/pasted DGG's statement above.

"I have taken the time to investigate this candidate. I have no doubt that he will do a careful, modest, and reasonable job. I think he is a good faith editor. Everyone's been fooled once or twice, including him--and me but, he has held up very well under pressure. All the insults are coming from the other side! I am quite sure that MQS will respect community consensus on his admin actions. See my talk page for further discussion. - Ret.Prof (talk) 9:04 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)"

The bold being directly taken from: "I nominated him because I think he'll do a careful, modest, and reasonable job. I think he is on the up and up, yes. Everyone's been fooled once or twice, including him--and me, but I think not this time. The opposition is divided between his inclusionism and his old misbehavior, but I think that either one of them would not be enough to have stopped him. Even so , more people support him than not. He's held up very well under pressure--all the insults are coming from the other side. What should I say--that he he goes rogue, I'll block him myself? and so I would, but somehow that seems like a peculiarly weak kind of support. DGG (talk)"

All user contributions are licensed automatically under CC-BY-SA 3.0 which requires attribution. In the future, Ret.Prof, if you're going to take someone else's words and present them as your own, you need to attribute them. Lara 19:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Done! Thanks Laura - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done. RfA has closed. Actually I think my "thank you" at the end of the comment saved me as this was part of a discussion within Wikipedia and we were on the same side, thus Co:Auth would apply. In any event thanks for looking out for me. Ret.Prof (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

character-assassinating assertions

Are you going to present any evidence for your claim that the oppose voters are organised, which you say is pointed to by "evidence"? Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. You are not helping anyone, least of all the candidate, by continuing with these allegations.   pablo_hablo. 23:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am. It will be presented in a calm rational fashion after tempers cool. It will prove among other things that he is not a member of the Inclusionist Taliban, nor has he been involved in any character-assassinating. Hope you find it interesting. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Now would be a good time, rather than some unspecified time in the future.   pablo_hablo. 23:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. I am not asking you to disprove the idea that he's an inclusionist - I'm asking you to show some kind of evidence of "conspiracy" or "organisation" amongst the opposers. Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Great news! I have found the leader of the Inclusionist Taliban - see Mr Big - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop evading. Are you or are you not going to give evidence for your assertion? If the answer is "no", withdraw the comments immediately. You've accused people of unfounded character assassination; what makes your accusations of cabalism any better? Ironholds (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

When you told me to "shut the hell up" I took offense. I also thought the Taliban remarks were out of line. I have decided I would give you time to cool down for you do not seem receptive at this point. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am receptive, I just don't like people avoiding the question; indeed, my request for you to "shut the hell up" was due to you repeatedly posting the idea that evidence shows opposers were "organised" without actually providing any evidence. And I never mentioned the Taliban. Ironholds (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary of the Evidence

I was about to summarize the Evidence for Ironholds, when I found that the RfA has been blanked. Is this normal? - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking of an expired RFA, or many other pages for that matter, can be done upon request should the circumstances warrant. There was a request, it was granted. The history is still available. Yep, normal. Franamax (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Got your email. I pondered it. I still have mixed feelings but I do have great respect for you and I will let this subject drop. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Disputes

See Wikipedia:Edit warring, WP:BRD, Wikipedia:Reverting

Horse Racing

Got any hints Eco... Pastor Th..... Ret. Prof...........? Looking to make a few quid or an admin account you see and thought you could help :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.207.105 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Has someone been drinking? - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please use the "Show preview" button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Baptism of Jesus, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you.

The sad thing is that I do. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Early Christianity?

Feel like poking your head in at all? Leadwind (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Love to but I am going to be very busy! Our pastor has been taken down with a blood clot so they are taking an old Ret.Prof out of moth balls (I am also a pastor). Say a prayer, for I am more than a little rusty. Have fun and happy editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a great idea. Pleased to be of service in any way I can. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments

I think your view would be apprediated, here Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would love to get involved. I actually agree with your position. However I won't be able to get back editing until July 25. (Final Sunday as relief pastor.) Ret.Prof (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we need a fresh view and also someone who can help move us beyond a conflict. of course I want Wikipedia to have great articles on biblical topics. But when people (scholars, clergy, theologians, historians, whatever) are talking about two different things, it means we need two good articles, not one confused on. I will look at this other article. I am sure your views will be welcome in a couple of weeks, even if this conflict is resolved you may still see ways to improve the article(s). Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus

I never saw you edit that article, and I do not think anyone duking it out on the talk page canvassed you, so I want you to know I thought your offer was just the kind of good-faith constructive act WP needs more of. So it is distressing to me that one relative newbie actually bit YOU! Frankly, I think this should be reported at WP:WQA. Would you want to try to work it out on his/her talk page? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In truth I have been called worse things by better people. For me, my greatest concern is those who bite anon or new users. Since many gifted users tend to be sensitive, we alienate those very people that we need to keep the standards high. Maybe instead of blocking problem users we should offer them a mandatory program in basic people skills. Ret.Prof (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

M-Source

Hello. In April you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this). I'm removing a lot of similar references; many other editors have also been deceived by these sources. Another publisher that reuses Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I have checked out what you said and you are absolutely correct. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

RfAs

Some of your recent RfA comments directed towards oppose !voters have been a little aggressive. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground and try to focus on the issue at hand, not the person raising it. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I will ponder what you said. Remember, I was not attacking . . . but defending an editor who I felt was being unfairly attacked. We need good people to put themselves forward. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I will go over my comments to see if I was being harsh. Thanks for the polite way you brought your concerns to my attention. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to review your first sentence in the comment where you tell someone else to review their first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.58.138 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Butterworth.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Butterworth.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I am now able to upload photos properly! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

It has been an interesting exercise. I'm not needed or wanted, but I'll not stress over it. Cheers! Cgoodwin (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, but you need a thick skin! Don't give up. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again

Thank you very much for your support and comments in my RfA. It was an eye-opening experience. I will not be trying for it again any time soon, though. Cgoodwin (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank s

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making yourself available. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

RFA

You have double posted to several RFAs, please review for example, Fainites and Jc3s5h. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My RfA

I've left a question at your support comment - thanks. Connormah 19:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I will respond shortly. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

I appreciate your comment at Jesus/talk. I really think you should be watching the Historicity of Jesus article if you are not already.

If you look at the talk page the bottom three or four threads are highly active, and it is an attempt to move forward from highly contentious editing at the Jesus page, the historicity of Jesus page, and the Christ Myth theory page. There is clearly a need to consolidate and reorganize pages relating to Jesus. But it needs to be informed by people who have actually read books and not just snippets from Google scholar. I hope you can find time to review the discussions and comment as you see fit. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I must add that I live by a University (and Seminary) that has a world class library. Having access to such material is a great blessing. Right now I am reading three books on Jesus in the Talmud. I look forward to working with you. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I happen not to believe that the Yeshu narratives in the Talmud have anything to do with the historical Jesus. There is a book by Jeffery L. Rubinstein (no connection to me) in that great series, "Classics of Western pirituality" on Rabbinic Stories and he has a section on Yeshu, arguing that they represent a Jewish view of Christianity, not Jesus as such. I am also a huge admirer of Daniel Boyarin, who has written a on the Talmud but also a brilliant book on St. Paul called A Radical Jew (but I have no knowledge of the vast literature on paul) and one or two books on early Jewish-Christian relations, in which he refers to Talmudic narratives. I think he is a superb scholar and I give a lot of credence to his analysis.

The debate at the Historicity talk page is going to go on for quite a while. There really are too many articles about Jesus from a non-Christian view, and there is no good rationale for the number of articles we have or their titles i.e. ho different topics or questions or debates are covered. I think there is a real need for someone with some objectivity and just as important a knowledge of the literature to say "Look: here is what exists in print, and here is the logical way to divide it all up, so these are the articles we need." No one seems to be doing that, and some of the people most vocal haven't even read the scholarship, or a representative sample of it (i.e. books that they disagree with). We really need well-informed voices. I hope you will continue to follow the discussion and if you know other editors who know the literature well (including works by non-Christians) I hope you can get them to participate in the discussion. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Rubinstein and Boyarin refs. - Ret.Prof (talk)

Where I disagree with Slrubenstein

You made the following statement "I happen not to believe that the Yeshu narratives in the Talmud have anything to do with the historical Jesus". However, at Wikipedia "your POV" or "my POV" will get in the way and do more harm than good. What we happen to believe is not relevant to Wikipedia! We must read the sources carefully, then carefully craft an article from a NPOW. Thanks for the Rubinstein and Boyarin refs. Still a fan of your work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Hello Ret.Prof, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been great that you were willing to give it another try. Wikipedia is lucky to have you! - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

AD/CE

The guideline - and there is no policy, only a guideline - is to use either BC/AD or BCE/CE. So the first principle is, either format is acceptable at WP.

The rule not to mix them up means: in one section of the article do not use BC, and then in another section use BCE. In other words, the second principle is to be consistent througout the article.

When there is a dispute the general principle for resolving it is to go by whichever format was used first.

However, some articles are of particular concern to Jews or to Christians. There is no written guideline here, but editors have over he years decided that, if an article is on an explicily Christian topic it should use BC and AD. If it is on an explicitly Jewish topic it should use BCE and CE.

Jesus is an article of concern to both Jews and Christians and as a way to avoid ceaseless edit wars, we all decided to use BC/BCE and AD/CE throughout the article. This is not in our viw a violation of the spirit of the guideline, since the articl eis internally consistent.

That said, this is a compromise agreed on by editors of this one article. It is not a general guideline or a general agreement. It applies only to one article.

Now, if there were a raging edit war at another article and advocates of each of the two systems were equally resolute I guess I would hold up Jesus as an example of a way out of an unresolvable conflict. But I have yet to see such an edit war at any other article. And if there is no conflict, why try to resolve a conflict? We only make an effort to resolve a conflict when there is an actual conflict. I do not see evidence of that at the St. Thomas Christians article.

It seems pretty obvious to me that this is an article on particular concern to Christians. I have no idea why it would be of any particular concern to Jews. Are most of the editors working on it Jewish? Are most of the sources written by Jews? Or, to be more to the point, do many of the sources use the BCE/CE system? If the answers to all these questions are "no," then I see no possible reason why anyone would want to use BE/CE.

IF many of the sources on this topic use the BCE/CE system, I think that gives you grounds to suggest that the article should use it. My advice is to try to make the discussion about why so many sources use BCE and CE. Ask whether those reasons or principles are ones people writing an encyclopedia article should use.

However, if no one has argued that the system should be changed, then WP guidelines say, use the system that people have been using at that particular article.

In short, the Jesus article situation is unique, and in general decisions over usage are made by editors working on an article, there is no one rule for all articles.

The other person writing on my talk page linked to a proposal that I DID forward for ONE policy for ALL Wikipedia articles. But that policy was REJECTED. If you ever wish to propose it again as your own proposal, feel fry, I will support you, but I had my go at it and was defeated and that is that. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. It was helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites article lead section

Greetings Ret.Prof. We have been discussing the lead section of the Ebionites article on the article talk page Talk:Ebionites#Intro. I recall that you contributed to a substantial rewrite of the lead. Therefore, you may want to have input into the discussion and any subsequent changes to the lead section. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For your recent activity on the Ebionites page. We would certainly welcome any input from any informed editor on how to improve the article. Yeah, I am an admin, because I wanted to work on protected templates, basically project banners. That don't mean I'm a good guy. I call myself by the name of a fictional homicidal maniac, John Carter of Mars, for a reason, y'know? ;) Anyway, as I've indicated on the talk page, I've been trying to gather references for the article at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites. The encyclopedic data seems to me to be the most valid, although clearly there are going to be errors, particularly on a subject as confusing as this one. Gathering sources is probably what I am best at anyway, so I will work a bit more thoroughly in that. And, of course, if you would want to be involved at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebiontes (so spelling ain't my strung soot eithyr), I certainly wouldn't object to seeing something with some knowledge of the topic take part. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

John, I have come across your work and have been really impressed. Good stuff, we are lucky to have you. Feel free to change any of of my edits as I welcome such help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally late

Sir, you might be retired, but your vote mattered a lot in my RfA. I know this thanks comes late; but it's sincerely being posted. And yes, I'm impressed by your main page. Moving comments. Rgds. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Suetonius and Chrestus

Thank you for the citation you provided for Suetonii use of the Chrestus spelling. I have just been perusing the Van Voorst book you cited on Google books, and it is very enlightening.

I realize that the Suetonius article is short and very much a work-in-progress, and I appreciate your continued contributions to it, however I am a little worried that it may be headed toward a state where it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the importance of Suetonius in establishing the historical reality of Jesus. I think you will agree that Suetonius is an important source for many other reasons, but that may not be the impression that the average reader takes away from the article as it is now written.

This may not be an urgent concern right now, but it is something to consider.

Regards Revcasy (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. However much has been written about the link between Suetonius and Jesus. Do you think a separate article "Jesus in the writings of Suetonius" could stand on its own? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that it certainly could. As always though, with topics that might attract controversy, it would probably be better to develop the article a good bit in your user space before publishing it--that is how I would handle it if I were the one creating the article. Revcasy (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Good advice, as I have unintentionally upset several editors with Jesus in the Talmud. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Polemic aspect of article

Ret Prof: just a brief note to follow up on the "polemic" aspect of the J in Talmud article: you may want to refer to the article Antisemitism in the New Testament which covers a similar topic (polemic against a rival sect) but sort of in reverse. The structure and content of that article may provide some ideas. Also, I'm sure you are aware of the article Historicity of Jesus and the section in there on the Talmud. Any new material should be consistent with that. Good luck. Let me know if I can help in any way (although I am short on time these days). --Noleander (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Slow and steady over the next month or so, with lots of reading and careful writing is my approach. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

James Ossuary and Talpiot Tomb

I remember reading that at the time of the release of the Cameron film The Lost Tomb of Jesus him saying that the court was at that time considering a legal case about the James Ossuary. If you could find out if the case is still pending decision, or perhaps if a final ruling was made at some point in the interim, that would be extremely valuable. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It is still pending. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Still? Ok, thanks for the information, and sorry about the earlier semi-vandalism. I thought I was editing a different page. Too many screens going at the same time, I guess. John Carter (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your email

I'm sorry, I guess I'm failing to see the problem. Can you be more explicit in your request? You can post on my talk page if you feel comfortable, if it's private I guess email is OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, things seem to be working out. Thanks for getting back to me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus info

Ret Prof: I was looking at Historicity of Jesus and the Talmud section in that article: Historicity of Jesus#The_Talmud. That section has a "main" link to Yeshu article. When the Jesus in the Talmud article that you are working on gets to a good state (whatever name it ends up having) you may want to include a "see also" link, so readers of Historicity of Jesus can get to the new article. I'm sure you are already familiar with two relevant policies, but I'll mention them anyway just to be sure: WP:Summary style and WP:Content fork. Those guidelines describe how WP handles the situation where a section ("The Talmud") in an article (Historicity of Jesus) grows too large: it is "forked" and a new article is created, and a "main" link is inserted in the original article. Today, that main link points to Yeshu, but it is also possible to have two links there. --Noleander (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not familiar with two relevant policies. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on sourcing for articles

RetProf: I hope you're research on the Talmud/Jesus/Christianity material is going well (I've got a couple of books on order, so I may be able to help with content later). Because the topic may be somewhat contentious, it is probably best to make sure the first draft has good sources behind it, and - based on the Talk page - I think the books you are looking at are the right ones. As you know, it is wisest if every sentence (and I mean every sentence) has a footnote that specifies the book and page it came from. Another thing that helps ensure the article is neutral is to identify the source in many of the key sentences. If the sources have a potential bias, it is best to clarify that in the text. For example:

May cause problems: The sun rises in the east.

Better: Historian Joe Smith asserted that the sun rises in the east, but UFO-believer Stan Jones writes that the sun rises in the west.

If you want to see an article that follows these rules, look at September 11 attacks. That is an article that has been subject to tremendous controversy, and you can see how it has ended up: every sentence has a footnote, every sentence is worded very neutrally, and every sentence simply paraphrases what the source says. (One exception is that sentences in the "lead" paragraphs at the top of the article do not have to have footnotes). Therefore, if you start an article with that sort of sourcing, there will be much less drama later on :-) --Noleander (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I have been very impressed with they way you handle yourself. I am an inclusionist. As long as all sides of an issue are fairly included, I am happy. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

When moving pages...

Don't cut and paste the text, see instructions ~ R.T.G 19:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and advice. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical Jesus, etc.

Believe me, we would welcome having at least a few knowledgable editors who are willing and able to work on the subject of early Christianity. And I tend to agree that the earliest known sources are probably the ones that should be emphasized, except in a few cases where they clearly differ from other, often more reliable, sources, like perhaps in Celsus allegations about Pantera, which has itself been explained in a few ways other than his own, such as the possibility of "pantera" being a misprint or mistranslation of something else. A few ideas come to mind, which I have begun to try to institute elsewhere, which might work here as well.

I know that writing articles about books themselves doesn't appeal to a lot of people. However, particularly regarding as contentious a subject as this one, and some of the other widely disputed topics in religion, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Satanism, cults, sex abuse, and the like, one of the things that would probably be among the most useful is having individual articles on the more frequently referenced books on the subject by both the broader public and academia, which have material indicating what material from that book is most widely accepted by academia, what isn't, etc. Having such material will tend to reduce the number and frequency of edit wars and disputes in the articles on the subjects themselves. So, for instance, a lot of Bart Ehrman's work is considered of high academic quality and well deserving of discussion in the main articles relevant to that work. Tim LaHaye's predictions on the apocalypse in his fiction, not so much. If you were to want to, maybe starting or developing articles on the most-widely regarded "standard sources" would probably be very useful in the long term for the project.

Also, just as a side point, there seems to be some discussion right now about the content of the article James the Just. I personally come from a Roman Catholic background, as I pretty much tell everybody so they know my own existing prejudices. Anyway, that article seems to be in rather poor shape right now. The identification with James the Less in the first article, for instance, seems based on the Catholic Encyclopedia, a source which obviously has its own POV, and probably isn't the best for this sort of article. If you know much about this subject, and particularly about the differentiations made in academia between James the Greater, James the Less, and James the Just, and the degree of acceptance they have, that would be very useful to know.

Thanks again for all your contributions, by the way. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I hope to be of help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Time to give to Wikipedia

It has been rough year for many of us. Yet Wikipedia is important. If all of us give a little it will add up. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar & "The Historical Jesus For Dummies"

While I generally approve of your recent changes, I'm concerned that the paragraph about harsh criticism is only sourced by "The Historical Jesus For Dummies". Don't you think we could use some better sources here? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I know "The Historical Jesus For Dummies" a first glance seems like a strange source. However the author is knowledgeable and writes from a NPOV. Are there any points specific points that cause you concern? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I found some information about her here and she's most likely a reliable source. My concern isn't over unreliability as such, but whether we want to put so much on a source that, to be frank, is not reassuring. In other words, I'm not suggesting that the criticisms should be removed, only that we could add a few more sources to share the burden. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Will do. Thanks for your kind manner. It is appreciated. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We're all on the same side here. I found an article that might help in your search. While I don't believe it qualifies as a reliable source in itself, it does cite some. Dylan Flaherty (talk)

Tolstoy

I wonder if you have previously stumbled across this quote?

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him. -- Leo Tolstoy, 1994

For me, this concept has resonance in a variety of Wikipedia settings. These sentences were introduced to me by someone interested in Metonymy and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ≠ WP:Straw poll. Although I still haven't resolved what I think about the context, I do come back again and again to Tolstoy's words.

Perhaps these words might be usefully stored in the back of your mind? --Tenmei (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As a person who has worked in the area of Biblical Scholar most of my life, I find what you say is true. My belief is that when editing Wikipedia, we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions... but my education keeps getting in the way. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have temporarily stopped editing

I have temporarily stopped editing as, edit war has again resumed at the Gospel of the Hebrews. Ictu oculi is breach of WP:3RR, is again making dramatic statements ie "laughably bad references" and deleted my comment about Consenus. Ret.Prof (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but with respect this isn't right;

• 1. There is no edit war other than you seem to have decided that you have wholesale delete/undo rights on that and related pages.
• 2. I haven't been deleting your contributions (unless those faulty references were yours from some time back? if so I'm sorry but I can't check back months to find out who wrote what - if it needs fixing it needs fixing)
• 3. I haven't deleted your Talk comment about "consensus". The link you have posted above is backwards, my 1:36 pm vs your 2:01 pm, 2:01pm comes after 1:36pm. All I did was remove the separator line == between my question of why you had done the delete and your response.
• 4. As regards the use of Google Books on those pages, while nothing wrong with that, I'm using it myself to check the references, but as they stand without correction they are misleading. I'm not particularly well versed, or in fact interested, in this subject, but when I see a host of laughably bad references, for example citing more than one Kessinger Publishing reprint as a "modern scholar", then I am allowed to call laughably bad references as laughably bad references on a Talk page. I don't even know who did them, I only know that you've repeatedly attempted to delete corrections to the references. 1890 instead of 2009 and so on.
• 5. Again, if you find an edit by another Wikipedia user you dislike, edit, don't just do wholesale deletes and then cry "edit war" when a delete for no reason is undone.

Anyway you have the field to yourself for another week. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I may have overreacted. I had just finished reading "the unedited talk page". Sorry - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, I understand it's annoying when you've been doing a large helpful merge and someone (a Saturday editor in my case) comes back and fiddles with refs. Also, neither of us are at 3RR, were' both at 2RR on this set of edits, if you go through it line by line you'll see I've done nothing more than A. add year "(1899)" B. debunch and move specific ref to after author C. add German title and original publication date where relevant D. Wikilink Christian Friedrich Weber etc. (a stub which I had to make). No problem this end. I have stopped editing because time is up for another week. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Bigotry and prejudice have no place on Wikipedia

I have recently been doing some edits at the Historicity of Jesus and noticed that a number of editors believe that Christian publications should not be considered reliable sources. Only non Christian references are acceptable. Material from the Church Fathers to Eerdmans Publishing must be deleted! This sort of attitude has no place on Wikipedia. It goes beyond POV pushing into the realms of bigotry and prejudice. To ban Christian scholarship from Christian articles would seriously undermine Wikipedia's credibility. Indeed this kind of prejudice is simply wrong.

Some of the best work on Jesus comes from Christian scholars. To ban their work would be like banning American publishers from articles on America or banning British publishers from articles on Britain. In truth Christian scholars do have varying degrees of bias but no more so than non Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman. Indeed Ehrman because of his bad experiences as a young Evangelical Christian is very biased, as are many estranged Catholics.

Now do not get me wrong. I am not suggesting we ban Ehrman or other scholars with an anti- Christian bias just because they are outside the mainstream. What I am saying is that we must put aside our silly game playing and put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our "opinions" aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions.

Also concerns about a source must be backed up by references. Simply because some editor does not like a source is not not grounds for deletion. I know this sounds like common sense but but common sense is often lacking in religious articles. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Be very, very careful about accusing editors of "anti-Christian bias" on the basis that they want the secular, non-apologetic mainstream to be reflected. Please don't make this mistake again. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan: Do not misrepresent what other editors said. RetProf did not accuse any editors of bias. WP succeeds because of civil collaboration, and I think you owe RetProf an apology. Regarding the sourcing issue: RetProf was making the eminently reasonable suggestion that scholars - who happen to be Christian - should not be excluded as sources merely on the basis of their Christianity. Of course, if the scholars are biased or apologetic, that should be noted when they are cited. --Noleander (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested excluding scholars just because they happen to be Christian, but nobody should ever be accused of being "anti-Christian" for insisting on a neutral, secular approach to scholarship. As a Christian who favors such an approach, I find his remarks personally insulting, which is why I cautioned him about confusing the two. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't keep Christian scholars off Christian topics. Though I'm not a Christian, I regularly refer to a textbook from Fortress Press, Eerdmans seems legit, and I respect scholars like Brown and Wright. It doesn't matter whether a scholar or press is one particular religion or another; what matters is whether they're mainstream. That said, publishing houses like InterVarsity Press and authors such as Lee Strobel represent a specifically Christian take on scholarship and shouldn't be presented as representing the mainstream. I'm against information cited to atheist presses on the same principle. Leadwind (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, editors like Dylan and Leadwind might say they don't object to Christian-leaning publications, and in a narrow sense that is true, but look at the discussion on the talk page of Gospel of Luke and see how open they are to Christian-leaning authors and publications. Leadwind's idea of an ideal scholar is Vermes, who is pretty hostile to Christianity (and an atheist or at least secular Jew I believe). Apparently Vermes, according to Leadwind, represents the majority view among 'serious' scholars, although his anger at Christianity boils to the surface in his works and his view that Christianity was an invention of Paul is itself a fringe view. Apparently too, scholars like Guthrie are "minority sectarian" because they think Jesus was who the gospels say he was (or at least this view makes Guthrie ipso facto unreliable). It is very difficult to work with people who define the playing field so narrowly, and who just so happen to define it on pretty anti-Christian terms. I have seen this fight (editors saying that Christian-leaning sources should be excluded) and the people fighting for exclusion usually lose, so keep up the good fight, and I am more than willing to assist you if you need backup.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I made two edits here and here. I'm sure someone will revert these, and can see how these types of quotes can be dangerous to the belief systems of atheists/agnostics, but think these edits should be part of the article long-term.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if people started to see things in perspective with the "current academic thinking" rather than seeing them from the perspective of "traditional church view". For wikipedia purposes, something is conservative or liberal from the current academic point of view, not from the inerrantist point of view. Most of the problems seem to be due to lack of understanding about the proper point of view for wikipedia purposes.-Civilizededucation^talk 06:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist Catalonia

Could you explain your reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist Catalonia? I don't see why it merits an article all of its own. If that were the case, it would have gathered some actual material by now.

Are you able to expand the article? I'd be genuinely pleased to see that. BillMasen (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a bit as to why I do not think it should be deleted. I hope that it is helpful. Simply put, I see it as a article that need work, not deletion. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Article locked

Historicity of Jesus has been locked. I invite you to come over and help us move towards some kind of consensus.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for another of violation WP:CANVAS, Roman. Keep up the bad work. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am already involved, therefore WP:CANVAS does not apply. I think you owe Roman an apology for the uncivil tone. Please, let us end the Drama. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews

Sorry, I haven't had much time for Wikipedia. I'm free today and I've briefly reviewed the talk pages there. I'm still a little confused about what the edit warring was over, and it seems like there hasn't been continued discussion in 3 days. Is there anything specific you want me to look at, or could you summarize the dispute, if it is still ongoing? Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Gospels

A similar issue as to what is happening on Historicity of Jesus is happening on Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, and Gospel of Luke. Leadwind is doing what Noloop is doing: deleting "sectarian" sources and replacing them with liberal sources, and with it a heavy POV.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Your ideas on sourcing appear to be weird. For example, you seem to be the only one who thinks that Vermes is anti christian. Actually he is quite a moderate and rated highly in academic thinking.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think what is important is that we find a way to work together. Cheers. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

Just to let you know, or remind you (as the case may be) that moving content from one page to another by "cut and paste", as at Edward Williams Byron Nicholson, is not desirable since it breaks the attribution history. See WP:CUTPASTE. The solution is to move the page, either by using the "move" button or making a request at Requested Moves. I've fixed the history this time; if you know of other occasions where this has happened, you can list them for fixing at WP:REPAIR.

Incidentally, was he generally known by all four names, in full? I would have thought he would have simply been called "Nicholson" or "Edward Nicholson", not "Edward Williams Byron Nicholson"; in which case, the article should be at "Edward Nicholson (librarian)" (where, ahem, I originally placed it!) not his full name. See WP:COMMONNAME. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 14:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google search and the references indicate "Edward Williams Byron Nicholson". Thanks for the " fix" - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability of clergymen

Hi, I started a discussion as to the notability of clergymen at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Clergymen, your input is welcome. J04n(talk page) 15:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hope you have a great New Year! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a great RfA. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} has sent you a Christmas cookie! May its sugary goodness fill you with warmth and love this holiday season. But don't eat too many!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:Wikipedia:CONTRIB/Holidays/General3}} to your friends' talk pages.

Happy Holidays

J04n(talk page) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.