User:Σ/Testing facility/TP/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 9

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Funny you should say that...

I've just had a little word about needing references if he/she is going to launch it out of user space, and about FAKEARTICLE if it isn't launched. (I've also suggested deciding on the subject's gender...) Peridon (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Peridon, when I went to look at the page you were talking about, I just assumed it was an article and put a {{refimprove}} tag on it. Usually people put articles they are working on in their Sandbox so I'm not sure what is up here. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Self promo, I think. I've already deleted an earlier version. He/she's getting a chance to do something with it - but I'm watching like a s****-hawk. That's how I knew you'd been there - and that someone had changed a cat from actor to actress (I've now removed all but one of the cats - shouldn't be there in userspace, but I'd missed that before). If nothing in the way of refs appear, and there's no sign of launching, I'll MfD it as FAKEARTICLE. Peridon (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I try to remove content categories from User Pages when I come across them but not when the Editor is working on an article and the categories relate to the subject in their Sandbox. Then, I think deleting them would come across as hostile and, for all I know, the article will be moved to Wikipedia space and then the categories would be valid. But mostly, I find content categories on User Pages of either new or inactive Editors so they are justified.
Have a pleasant weekend! ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #77

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 23:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Jason Blume

Richhoncho, who created the category, voted "delete" in the CFD, so I tagged the category for G7. That's what happened there. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?), thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

666!

As one of a highly select international group, you are hereby invited to join me in celebrating my 666! (Let the games begin!) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, Pdfpdf! Liz Read! Talk! 14:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Not yet

I haven't begun the draft, but that is the raw selection. Serendipodous 17:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Serendipodous! Don't worry, I won't breathe a word. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 17:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup! Saturday October 5

Jefferson Market Public Library
 Please join the Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013!
Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach
for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA.
--Pharos (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI

was just perusing an/i (yeah, i'm that bored) and noticed you used the term "Indian-Canadian". Solely in the assumed spirit of everyone 'round here wanting to be better informed, it's "Indo-Canadian". (For the record i am the latter but not the former). Peice Owt. Primergrey (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Primergrey, but my choice of Canada was rather random. I didn't want to use "Indian-American" and I'm not sure what you call a person who is Indian and British. So, Canada was their third country that came to mind.
Thanks for the correction though, now I know better. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Canada Sasata (submissions), Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and New South Wales Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ebionites 3 Evidence

Hi Liz, I see you decided to contribute to the Evidence page after all. I'm glad you weighed in with a view of what happened on your talk page, and I'm also glad you said something about what John Carter did to Ret.Prof.

One of the things you noted in Evidence is how few actual edits to articles John Carter has made. I have looked into this in detail and plan to discuss it in the Workshop. If a contribution to article content is defined as a least one complete sentence supported by at least one reliably sourced reference, here is John Carter's last contribution to sourced article content: diff. On September 16, 2010, he created the Modern Ebionites section of the Ebionites article. Other than about a half-dozen pages of bibliographies (lists of references) created on or around Oct. 29, 2010 that is all. After Oct. 2010 there is not even a single sentence added to article pages in 3 years. This is relevant to Smeat75's point about John Carter's lack of understanding of reliable sources. How can someone who edits so little have so much to say on article talk pages about what everyone else should be doing regarding the proper use of sources? It will be interesting to see what other editors have to say about this in the Workshop. Ignocrates (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Ignocrates, I won't pass judgment on your or his level of knowledge about the subject. My observation was purely from hanging out on the article Talk Pages and noting that John seemed to want the power of veto but he never followed up on your repeated requests that he contribute to the article by supplying other references. This seemed unusual because I do know that John edits other articles. My guess, purely speculative, is that he didn't want the kind of scrutiny he leveled at you to be laid on his contributions. I know that usually people who are judgmental are hardest on themselves.
This is simply my own observation, Ignocrates, but you have the advantage because, in general, you have remained civil and, as this dispute has continued, you stopped personalizing it and made it about the content. I urge you to continue taking the high road throughout the arbitration process. Refrain from reacting to provocative comments and just dispassionately present the facts as you see them. Since I know John has my Talk Page on his watchlist, I'd give him the same advice. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Another interesting point related to the above is that John Carter claimed on the Gospel of the Ebionites talk page that he recused himself from editing because of accusations of bias. When I called him out on this, he either could not or refused to produce any evidence of these accusations. However, in the process of digging for the diff I showed you above, I found these two: diff, diff. In these posts to project talk pages, John Carter claims he was accused of falsifying sources, not bias. I would like to know more specifics about this incident, as it may be relevant to the Workshop. Ignocrates (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, my advice above. In my view, less is more, you have strong points, you don't need to pile it on. This hearing is not an attempt to seek some kind of revenge but to clarify a dispute. You don't need to detail every misstep, just present your strongest evidence and answer any additional questions the Abitrators pose to you. My 2 cents. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Well said, thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Your mention of “sports“ at WP:AN

Hello, Liz! I just wanted to remark that the statistics collected on those user pages that are up for deletion were not about sports AFAICT: rather, it seems, a form of trainspotting for circulating banknotes, a hobby that’s unlikely to be the subject of extensive articles.—Odysseus1479 01:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Odysseus1479, I'll have to think a little harder to figure out "AFAICT", not sure what that stands for. But the pages I looked at looked like sports teams' rosters and the outcome of conference matches. But I just spot-checked 6 or 7 pages on that long, long list. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry: “As Far As I Can Tell”. I only looked at a couple of those pages myself–a case of the blind men & the elephant, I suppose.—Odysseus1479 07:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion

Hello, Liz. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorrowStravis (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 23:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 00:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Errrrrrrrr. G'day!

I've replied. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Pdfpdf! Liz Read! Talk! 15:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
No worries. As I've often said: T'ain't What You Do (It's the Way That You Do It), and one of the reasons I enjoy communicating with you is because I like "the Way That You Do It". Pdfpdf (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
a) "Talkback" b) It's nearly 2am here - past time to "retire'. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Goodnight, Pdfpdf! Liz Read! Talk! 16:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding this, see the first sentence of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#List. (Or am I missing something?) Anyway - bedtime! Pdfpdf (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Pdfpdf, there they are. They aren't very prominent though. I've looked over this page a dozen times and never noticed those links. So, thanks for pointing them out to me. Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with what you say, because I had to expend some effort to find them, and I knew what I was looking for, and I knew they were there ... somewhere. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Go.to.bed, Pdfpdf! ;-) See you when the sun come up down under. Liz Read! Talk! 17:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 08:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hammonton, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supernatural (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Teenly

I've been crying after reading that talk page and her contributions both the articles and other pages. I find it difficult to believe that she was as young as is stated but even if she was three times that age, well, what she had to offer was amazing. Life just isn't fair sometimes. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you came across my question about Teenly, Sitush, you must have that Departed Wikipedians page on your Watchlist. Yes, it's hard to believe that a 6 year old was actually editing on WP and communicating with others. But her User Talk Page doesn't read like a hoax. And, in my years on Twitter, I'm pretty familiar with accounts that pretend to be sick children. This doesn't sound like those.
If you found her Page moving, read the note that mentioned her passing at User:Bwilkins#Special notes left for me ...I think any Editor would tear up after receiving a note like that on their Talk Page. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the Departed page is watchlisted from the time when Tito Dutta was improving it earlier this year. I agree that Teenly is not a hoax. She was clearly a very gifted child, and I've known a couple. I just find it very upsetting: what we've lost and what she gave. I don't usually get too bothered about deaths or about children but reading of and around this particular one hurts. It seems that I have a heart after all but it is preventing me from editing right now, so I'm going to sign off for a bit. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's a surprise to me that WP brought a small child pleasure but with what she was dealing with, I'm glad it could provide a little distraction from her illness. Take care, Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

A cupcake for you!

I know I'm going to make you fat but just the same :-) I wanted to acknowledge your astute and succinct contributions to the Ebonites3 ArbCom evidence page. Its important to have uninvolved editors step in and give their perspective. OK.......... now eat your cupcake!! — Keithbob • Talk • 21:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, Keithbob, it's appreciated. I wish I could remember how I ended up on the edge of this fierce dispute since I have no opinion about subject. I hesitated to get involved at ARBCOM because I'm more of a witness to a fight than an involved party (and this fight has lasted six years!). I've made a few comments on the Workshop page until I saw how many ideas were being put on the table and I think the Arbs need to sort this out themselves.

But I appreciate you noticing! Have a great week! Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback (Ks0stm)

Hello, Σ. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page.
Message added 19:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello, Σ. You have new messages at WWB Too's talk page.
Message added 23:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Changes to Wael Hallaq

Dear Liz,

I submit the following for your consideration. First, as I explained recently to Flyer22 on her talk page:

1) the identification "non-Muslim Arab" in the opening sentence, though true, has the effect of stereotyping Wael Hallaq and his academic contributions. Although the fact that he is a non-Muslim and an Arab may be of interest to some readers, stating the fact at the outset gives it undue precedence; this wrong emphasis is a disservice to the living subject of the article and to the reader, and, as I have said, comes off as a an attempt to stereotype. Imagine, for example, if the article on Reza Aslan opened with "Reza Aslan is a non-Christian Persian," or the article on Muhammad Ali opened with "Muhammad Ali is a non-Christian African." 2) For the above reason, I chose to remove "non-Muslim Arab" (which, along with its citation, had been added by another editor), and to insert the term "non-Muslim" into the third sentence of the second paragraph. In this way, the fact may be known to those who, for whatever reason, deem it important, but not in such an essentializing and stereotyping manner. As for "Arab," so much should be evident through the combination of his name and birthplace; it need not be stated at the outset as a defining characteristic--the effect, again, is stereotyping.

Second, I continue to disagree that the phrase "is a prominent scholar" requires citation, and here is the argument I presented to Flyer 22 for the same:

3) As for my choice of the word "prominent" to replace "non-Muslim Arab," this is not POV requiring citation. The facts related in the article are eloquent testimony to Wael Hallaq's prominence in Islamic Studies: three decades in the academic field, two highly-sought-after and influential professorships, nine authored volumes, and some sixty other publications are evidence enough of prominence in an academic field. Prominence is not proven by citing a text which links the subject to the word "prominent;" rather, it is evidenced by the subject's many and influential accomplishments and publications. Scholars and students in the field of Islamic Legal Studies--my own area of study, authorship, and teaching--know the name Wael Hallaq very well.

Finally, I understand the concern you expressed as "Removing sourced material," as the opening "non-Muslim Arab" was indeed cited, and the citation removed when I removed the opening phrase.

Seeking resolution to this persistent rolling back of my edits, I will do the following: 1) I will remove "non-Muslim Arab" for the stereotyping reasons outlined above 2) Despite my continuing disagreement, I will not replace it with anything (i.e., I will not insert "prominent" or any other descriptor) 3) I will retain the citation, and move it to the term "non-Muslim" which now occurs in the second paragraph, deemphasizing the fact so as to avoid stereotyping

Regards, RaHHaal (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable, RaHHaal. Note that these guidelines about language like "well-known", "accomplished", "top-ranked", "most important", "the best", "spectacular", etc. are applied to all profiles and are actually a big problem on articles about entertainers (actors and singers). It's not a standard that is being unjustly applied to this article alone. It's a constant battle on Wikipedia against superlative language.
As for Wael Hallaq's prominence, you don't have to find a reference that specifically uses that word. It can be any reference (from a reliable source) to his importance as a scholar that you can find. One source you could cite, for example, is any prominent award or honor he has received or if holds an endowed chair for his professorship. That would demonstrate his prominence.
I think Wikipedia has a particularly high bar for academics...there are many scholars who I think should be listed on Wikipedia but there are Editors who evaluate academics and they can't have a regular record of teaching and publishing, they have demonstrate they are exceptional or notable outside of their academic discipline. Since most academics spend the their time on research and don't seek out media attention or publicity, this is a difficult standard to meet.
I'm glad we could come to a compromise you can live with at the moment. Note that if these edits are challenged by others, we'll need to move this conversation to the article Talk Page. Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference desk

Hi Liz, I am not sure if there are any admins or other well-meaning editors who 'police' the reference desk, sorry I can't really help here :( GiantSnowman 17:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Giant, you can help me if you'll indulge me in one more question: Have you seen disputes concerning the Reference Desks (regarding users, incidents or policies) posted to AN or AN/I in your tenure here at Wikipedia? I'm just wondering if that's where a discussion like this would happen. Thanks for your assistance! Liz Read! Talk! 18:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there have certainly been dispute about the RD posted at ANI - but if you're seeking more guidance then I'd try AN. GiantSnowman 18:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Right now, it's just an observation, Giant. But now I'll search the AN and AN/I archives and see if it is an issue that has come up before. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 18:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Why don't you run for admin

Greetings Liz, I saw your comments at Jimbo's page and was wondering why you don't run for RFA. Your editing history seems to support that you would do well. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That's flattering, 71.126.152.253, thanks. But I have some strikes against me:
  • Though my first Wikipedia account was registered in 2007, I was a sporadic Editor until July of this year. I doubt that I'd get credit for all of my edits under my other accounts (including my IP account) and there seems to be a 12 month minimum for consistent editing.
  • I'm interested in the processes of how Wikipedia runs smoothly, assessing consensus, examining policies, voicing unpopular opinions that should be heard, dispute resolution. I don't see my forte as content creation and that's, pretty much, a basic requirement for all successful RfA. Lots of GAs, FAs and DYKs are often emphasized.
  • They now require extended "tours of duty" (2 or 3 months) in a variety of areas (AfD, AfC, Vandalism, NPP, etc.) and I'd rather find something I'm good at and stick with that (along with regular Wikignome activities) then round out my resume just for the sake of an acceptable future RfA.
  • Plus, I've looked at the editing stats of long-time Admins. Doing Admin grunt work, putting out fires, checking unblock requests, requests for help, and the like, seems to consume all of the time that Admins used to spend working on the encyclopedia. It's like being an engineer and getting promoted to be a manager and finding that instead of doing creative work, all of your time is spent filling out paperwork and attending meetings. Yes, you get these powerful tools, but it looks like much of Admin work is borderline unpleasant and they are constantly criticized, no matter what they do. Yeah, sign me right up! ;-)

So, for all of these reasons, I don't think I'd do very well in an RfA and I'm not sure that Admin work is the kind of work I wanted to spend hours doing. But, again, I do appreciate your encouragement! Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You are right that usually 12 months of consistent editing and some experience in deletion/vandalism/etc. is typically a must for an admin candidate. But there are actually a number of admins who spend a lot of time writing content, like Wehwalt, Casliber, Jimfbleak, etc., so if you do become an admin you can always keep that up. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Good to know, Mark Arsten. Unless my circumstances change (that is, I can unpack my library!), I don't see myself creating a lot of serious content, which is really needed right now in the sociology area. The limitations of a small apartment and not having an office any longer, everything is boxed up, especially bulky reference books. But, luckily, there are always a lot of other necessary tasks that need to be done! Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

Hi I was just wondering if contributing to the encyclopedia itself ever interested you? What sort of topics interest you? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Dr. Blofeld, 51.70% of my edits are to the Wikipedia article space so I do work on the encyclopedia itself. All sorts of topics interest me, I try to fix problems, especially regarding references, tables and categories, when I come across them...small improvements that help articles.
But I imagine you aren't talking about merely edits but content creation itself. After seeing so many newly created articles quickly deleted, the idea of putting a lot work into writing which is then erased, well, that is completely unappealing to me. I also don't see a lot of value in creating a lot of random stub articles which, by and large, are never expanded by other Editors, just for the sake of article creation. They typically don't provide much information and are just placeholders.
It's been interesting to me to see so many unreferenced, badly written, older articles that currently exist on Wikipedia and then see such a high bar set for newly created articles. I'm not saying that bad articles should be accepted, just that standards have changed a lot on Wikipedia regarding article creation and now a lot of articles that could improve over time are simply being deleted.
At least, that is my perception of what is occurring. Liz Read! Talk! 12:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, a massive cleanup job is needed on here and it's difficult to know where to start, and shoddy new articles which go under the radar are adding to the cleanup job and workload. I just didn't recognize your name which if you're a veteran here that strikes me as odd.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I first registered in 2007 as Nwjerseyliz but I made most of my edits logged out, as an IP. My most recent IP account seems like it is static as it only contains my edits if you check Contributions. But all I did was fix typos that I saw or run-on sentences, I didn't know much about formatting or how Wikipedia was organized.
I decided to become more active last summer and my first comments in the Wiki space reflect my confusion and frustration over where to find information on how Wiki operates and how to edit. Now that I know my way around, it seems obvious but back in July, I kept searching for topics with Wikipedia's search function, not knowing that I had to go to Advanced and check the "Wikipedia" box in order to find pages in the Wiki space. It was very frustrating and I'm glad the Editors who staff the Teahouse are incredibly patient.
My first serious edits, of course, stepped on toes. I wish Editors and Admins who post warnings on User Talk Pages would realize that casual Editors don't even know that policy and guideline pages exist...they don't know there are these articles they should read first or where they are and they couldn't find them without a direct link. So, I was labeled as "disruptive" and some of my edits were reverted because I was learning by trial and error. This scolding led to me spending a lot of time reading Wiki articles and noticeboards, in order to better understand Wikipedia culture and what expectations were. This is why you just started to seeing my name around the past few months and also why I also often advise against imposing blocks on new Editors because I know how much I stumbled around, ignorant of what customs and practices I was violating. Liz Read! Talk! 16:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Nwjerseyliz still exists and if I go to other Wiki sites it logs me in under that username and when I return to en.wiki, I'm still logged in as Nwjerseyliz. So, you'll still see some edits there.
  • Liz wrote: But I imagine you aren't talking about merely edits but content creation itself. After seeing so many newly created articles quickly deleted, the idea of putting a lot work into writing which is then erased, well, that is completely unappealing to me.
I know exactly how you feel.
Liz wrote: I also don't see a lot of value in creating a lot of random stub articles which, by and large, are never expanded by other Editors, just for the sake of article creation. They typically don't provide much information and are just placeholders.
Just to play devil’s advocate: Most, if not all, the articles I created were stubs, and while what you say above (still) applies to some, others have received some nice contributions. See for example Wage Earner Protection Program Act
Liz wrote: It's been interesting to me to see so many unreferenced, badly written, older articles that currently exist on Wikipedia and then see such a high bar set for newly created articles. I'm not saying that bad articles should be accepted, just that standards have changed a lot on Wikipedia regarding article creation and now a lot of articles that could improve over time are simply being deleted.
How true, sigh… XOttawahitech (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I was spending a lot of time in WP:CfD last month, Ottawahitech, but it could get so adversarial, it was tiring. I mean, the easiest thing is to vote Delete because it takes no effort (just like posting Block! on AN/I). But if you want to Keep, you have to find policies, guidelines or logical reasons to justify why content should exist. I also felt like I needed to notify everyone who might be effected by a Delete and found that the majority of Editors are not checking in daily and decisions in Deletions wrap up quickly (usually in a week or less). So, that effort didn't pay off with much response but I'm glad I did it.
I'm still finding out where I fit in to the Wiki world, where I can help out the most but also get some satisfaction.
I didn't mean to knock stub authors, some that I've seen are closer to articles while others are pretty meager. I just became curious how some Editors could create 100s (or 1000s) of articles and when I looked into it, they were often just a sentence-long stubs about some obscure type of salamander or gnat that lists their scientific name and common name and a reference to some biological reference book. A decent article could take weeks or months to craft especially considering all of the other things going on in life. It's quite an investment of time and effort to track down all of the necessary references so the subject is going to have to be one I already know something about. I truly admire Editors that have the persistence to take a so-so article to GA and FA status.
But like the guidelines say, this isn't a race, Wikipedia grows as a cumulative effort and a new article can be added today, next month or next year and still be a worthwhile addition. Sorry for rambling a bit, I tend to get a little reflective in the morning when I'm drinking my coffee. Thanks for being a Talk Page Stalker! ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 16:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Butting in here, I wholeheartedly agree with you about how it can take a long time to find sources, particularly at present. That's probably the main reason I'm working on getting together the lists of encyclopedic articles, and also trying to add some of the older PD ones to commons. Particularly for a lot of older topics, like maybe a 19th century mayor of Berlin, some of those older sources might be among the best out there, considering the possibly greater temporary significance of the subject at the time those works came out, and more space devoted to them on that basis, and the fact that, in a lot of cases, except some involving homosexual outing, revelation of subsequent sometimes questionable sexual or other forms of behavior, etc., there won't be a lot of currently regarded information about them that won't be included in those old sources. Granted, a lot of that sort of material can also, not unreasonably, be called "boring", but it might still be significant enough for inclusion here to some degree. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
You have to be very careful with old reference materials, John. They reflect what certain scholars believed at the time they were written, but our understanding about most fields, from physics to literature to anthropology, is not even the same as it was ten years ago. I'd say that even a reference text from 1993 is out-of-date, depending on the type of information it contains.
I've seen old Catholic Encyclopedias from the turn of the 20th century and reading them gave me a good idea about what a particular group of chosen Catholic theologians (but not laypeople) believed about the saints or the sacraments in 1907. But we not only know more 100+ years later but scholarship itself has changed. Methods of research have changed, there are more academic contributions from scholars in countries outside of Europe and North America and also, gasp!, women, too. While much of academic training itself has changed little over the past 150 years (unfortunately), the individuals who are doing the research have changed, immensely, the research questions that are being asked have evolved over time and so have the conclusions drawn from that research.
Older reference materials are valuable in that they can demonstrate how understanding of a concept or event has changed over time but they are, basically, a moment encapsulated in a time capsule. I'd argue that they should only be used as a reference if a Wiki article is discussing what people at a certain moment in time believed as these works do not reflect contemporary scholarship. That doesn't make them useless, just that their use has to be qualified and it should be noted that they are dated. Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
On the matters you referred to, I actually more or less agree, which is why I mentioned the example of an older mayor of Berlin, although I suppose any older biographical article about minor figures who haven't gotten much subsequent attention might be similar. Regarding matters of religion, yeah, I have seen how in some cases like regarding Nag Hammadi, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Mani's early Christianity, and several other matters which have been significantly changed by recent discoveries would invalidate a lot of the older conclusions, but that number of topics, broad as it is, is probably still a non-majority of the total number of all the possible topics out there. Particularly starting in the era of when written sources became particularly common, say the end of the 19th century, and some works like the Chambers, Britannica, and a few other comparatively non-biased sources, the older articles on, for instance, countries which have since been merged, or conquered, or whatever, might still be among the better sources for those older topics. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

AFD of Juanin Clay

If you get a moment, could you head over to this article and complete the AFD? You tagged the article here, but I can't find the debate or a rationale for deletion. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought a bot would pick it up and create a page. What do I do next? I appreciate your help, I find the AfD instructions confusing. Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Tell me why you want it deleted, and I can complete the rest of the steps for you. A bot can list it and complete templates, but can't guess at your reasoning - and the reasoning is a big part of the process. AFD can be a bit obtuse, on occasion - but it's no problem. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
She just doesn't seem like a notable actress. There are hundreds (thousands?) of actors who have a smattering of film and TV credits. She didn't have a long-running or sustained career. I realize the article is a stub but I don't foresee it being expanded or worked on further.
As for the AfD, I don't know how to get it listed on the page with all of those values in parentheses (like (Talk) ). I have posted one AfD successfully but it took me hours to figure out how to get it listed properly and I don't recall the steps I took (beyond posting the tag on the article page). Thanks for the patience and help. I'd like to do more work on the AfD and Categories for Discussion levels. Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
On the page Juanin Clay, in the box headed "This article is being considered for deletion", you should find a list of four steps. You've done step 1; in step 2, click the first blue link (Preloaded debate) and this opens an editing window. Leave most of that alone; change the |cat=U to |cat=B but most importantly, change the word "Reason" to your reason why the article should be deleted (more on deletion reasons at WP:DELETE). Then set the edit summary to Creating deletion discussion for [[Juanin Clay]] and save the page; we can handle the remaining steps. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Redrose64, I would NOT have figured that out! For the one successful AfD I posted (for Brenda Venus) it was a trial and many errors. I think I just went to AfDs and cut and pasted wikitext. Still ended up posting it wrong the first time. Is there a reason it is so much more complicated that CfD? Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I don't think I'll be creating a lot of new articles (that seems like a perilous undertaking) and finding typos and awkward grammar to correct is haphazard so I'm really looking for some way I can help on the organizational level. I hope AfD and CfD could be these areas once I learn from the masters.  ;-) Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, of the four steps that I mentioned, you've now done step 2 and I've done step 3.
I think we can omit step 4 (Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|Juanin Clay}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).), because the creator was 68.68.182.95 (talk) who isn't likely to be watching for such messages. There have been other contributors; but most of them made only minor changes. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought I did all steps, as I put WP:NOTE as a reason why the article is being suggested for deletion. I didn't know I had to notify everyone who made a major contribution on the article. Is this done for every AfD? Man, this is complicated. Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to notify all the contributors. Typically, only the original creator is informed, but it's courtesy to also inform major contributors. I've notified three who seem to have put more in than most. Hopefully, anybody else who's interested will have the page on their watchlist. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I notified some of those same people so I'll go back and remove the tag I put on their Talk Page. Thanks, again. Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you all have it under control. Good work! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 04:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, happy to help. No problem at all. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deborah Pratt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | children = [[Troian Bellisario]] (b. 1985) (b. 19<br>Nicholas Bellisario

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shooter (mixed drink), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Midori, Pousse Cafe and Uboot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

Category:American child actresses

The close was as a keep, so nothing has to be done. If you don't believe that we need any child actress categories, then your next step would be to nominate Category:Child actresses for deletion. Which will actually need to be an upmerge of all of the children categories so that they get kept in the by country actor tree. The end result is that to be clear, you will need to nominate everything or at least some of the subcategories. The remainder could be done as speedies if your proposal receives consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed. Either one of the two proposals would be an improvement over how things are right now. If I wanted to move the male child actors out of Category: Child Actors into Category:Male child actors, is they a way to do this with a bot or script? There are 1200+ articles that need to be recategorized in order that there is some consistency in the way that the gender is categorized. That's an awful lot of work. Newjerseyliz (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Σ. You have new messages at Michaelzeng7's talk page.
Message added 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Σ. You have new messages at Michaelzeng7's talk page.
Message added 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Very tedious job, so it's always nice to get positive feedback :-) Serendipodous 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I can imagine. Tracking Twitter trends exposed me to a lot of music fan gushing that I wish hadn't eaten up as much time as it did. I'd be happy to never see another Excel spreadsheet but I know they are unavoidable. Your work is appreciated! Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Took your advice

I took your advice and went to WP:NPOV/N. Please keep a watch on Gospel of the Ebionites. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that. It seems like you guys have gone round and round on these issues. I hope you get some definitive answers. Newjerseyliz (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I am super-impressed with how professional the guys have been at NPOV/N. The feedback has been useful and at the very least it's due diligence for the next round of dispute resolution. Ignocrates (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tammy Duckworth

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tammy Duckworth. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

Please comment on Talk:Roger Waters

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Roger Waters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Σ/Testing facility/TP/Archive 4. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NeilN talk to me 15:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Commentary

For what it might be worth, feel free to comment wherever you want. Ignocrates is going to Arbitration because of his really dubious history of conduct, including I think fairly clear dishonesty. So far as I can tell, Smeat seems to be dealing more with the "fringey"/minority view of the oral gospel tradition, which, as someone who hasn't myself checked the Coogan reference, published last year, I have to admit might not be as "fringey" any more. But, yeah, even academics, and highly regarded ones, have been known to be advocates of fringey beliefs, like Carl Sagan and global cooling, as I have already mentioned. There are questions of WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and a ton of others which might apply here. As someone who is, primarily, these days going through the relevant reference works to see what they cover, and to what extent, I am pretty much only active onwiki a few days a week, because compiling those lists takes a loooong time itself. Those reference sources, particularly the most recent ones, taking into account any reviews of those sources or other statements in the academic literature subsequent to publication, are in general counted as being the best sources to indicate WEIGHT around here. There may be a rather valid case for increased coverage of the oral gospel tradition in some of our articles, I don't know. But it would definitely help if people actually discussed how to add or modify the content, rather than engage in basically useless talk page blather and threats, like Smeat and Ignocrates have in the really unusual stated "threat" of an RfC/U. IN general, as per the third pillar of wikipedia, we are an encyclopedia, and I think a review of the policies and guidelines would indicate that most if not all of them are more or less designed to convey the impression that our content should mirror the content of the most thorough and recent reference sources possible, making allowances if there haven't been any since a major finding. Particularly with the 2012 Coogan book, counted by the American Library Association as one of the best reference sources of 2012, I kinda doubt there are problems there, but I haven't checked the reviews to see if some articles or topics were seen as being insufficient or prejudicial coverage, either.

And, FWIW, like I think I told Nishidani elsewhere, what I am trying to do right now is to get together lists of articles in highly regarded reference sources for the various projects, and then, hopefully, when they're done (if I live that long) reviews of those sources, indicating their strengths and weaknesses. I think the likelihood of people being willing to help with the latter will increase if there are more of the former, but still think that having clear ideas of what is and is not included in reference sources is probably one of the more basic things we need around here, and something that still hasn't been done outside of one list of articles in Britannica. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion about User_talk:Ignocrates#RFC/U evidence? Ignocrates (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
You know, I'm embarrassed to admit how many years worth of argumentative posts I've read, going back and forth between you two. It was like watching a trainwreck and I was left wondering, "Why can't either of these guys just step back, shake the dust from their shoes, and move on? Are they actually getting some satisfaction from the incessant arguing? Are they enjoying it too much?"
This conflict has gone beyond reliable sources, it's downright hatred and contempt now. There is little pretense of actually listening to each other to negotiate compromises. There is too much bad blood, too much history and disrespect that has been shown.
I will go to ArbCom when this ever gets filed because I'm genuinely curious as to how the committee members will ever look through the dozens of diffs I expect will be posted, the voluminous exposition on how "disruptive" the other editor is being, that they will have to parse through. I expect that several other well-intentioned editors will get pulled into this as participants and will have to decide what they will say about this business which has gone on now for years.
John, I realize that you think this argument is about what is a reliable source. But that is just the hammer you are using to pound Ignocrates over the head. You have made some valid points and there have been intelligent editors & Admins who have agreed with you. But you dismiss Ignocrates' (and others) attempts to address your concerns. I sincerely believe that you will continue to obsess about this one article as long as Ignocrates participates in editing it. It will never be good enough for you because of his participation in the process.
I think you will find that the focus of the ArbCom will not be on the nuances of what is a reliable source but instead upon the behavior and misconduct of all of the participants in this long, long dispute. My only suggestion is to keep your comments to ArbCom brief and to the point and not dig yourself into a deeper hole.
Good luck to you both. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, John, I've looked at your some of your work as an Admin and I think you've done some excellent work. You have offered measured and thoughtful guidance and advice. But, for whatever reason, you have lost perspective on this one article which is too bad. I think your efforts are well spent on the other work you do, like putting together lists of sources. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

On further investigation, I've found that John Carter and Ignocrates have already been to ARBCOM twice in the past 6+ years over Ebionites-related content. I didn't realize you two had already pleaded your case in several dispute forums and that there was an ARBCOM history, at least related to appropriate sources (RS) on Ebionite articles. I stand by my opinion that this has become a personal, bitter stalemate between the two of you but I see now that all parties are already familiar with the dispute resolution process and I was mistaken to assume otherwise. But I think now the primary sticking point is conduct, not content and any future case will result in mediators scrutinizing past behavior.

I had just been looking at Talk Page comments going back two years between the involved parties. To see that this dispute goes back to 2007 makes me realize that this disagreement in much more complicated than I knew. I don't envy any mediator sorting through this all. And I was mistaken to think I had an understanding of the extent of this dispute and years of conflict that has led to the present situation. I will leave it to well-intentioned Admins and Mediators who have much more experience than I to determine responsibility for the current impasse and solutions for moving past it. Newjerseyliz (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

John Carter wrote : "So far as I can tell, Smeat seems to be dealing more with the "fringey"/minority view of the oral gospel tradition" well, that's wrong. I am interested in quite a few topics, and one of them is early Christianity and the relationship to the Roman empire and Christian origins. "Smeat and Ignocrates ... the really unusual stated "threat" of an RfC/U" Just to let you know that we have dropped that idea as you have to have two parties to a dispute, Ret Prof is not here and I was not party to disputes on Gospel of the Ebionites. "I think a review of the policies and guidelines would indicate that most if not all of them are more or less designed to convey the impression that our content should mirror the content of the most thorough and recent reference sources possible" I don't agree with that at all. One of the best things about Wikipedia in my opinion is that it can be easily updated with the latest information using, for instance, the most recent works of recognised authorities such as Bart Ehrman. I would echo what Nishidani said here [1]"Tertiary sources are fine as well, though the problem there is that encyclopedias, reference texts and the like are always slighted dated compared to cutting-edge scholarship (b) are often too synthetic and gloss over the details and controversies in a generic way, and, (c) in fields, and I'm sure many colleagues here have the experience, where I have a thorough knowledge, I rarely leave off reading a generic encyclopedic entry on some aspect of it without an irritated feeling that much is missing, or at a too high level of synthesis. Thus secondary sources, and by that, optimally, peer-reviewed contemporary scholarship, should form the basis of our transcriptive work. There the only relevant issue is covered byWP:Undue." Smeat75 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
That all makes sense to me, Smeat75. It can be difficult for the typical layperson to get ahold of secondary sources, especially journal articles. But I'd rely on them more than encyclopedias because the author has to lay out his argument and, believe it or not, the scrutiny of peer-reviewed journals is more exacting than for encyclopedia articles. I know of one topical encyclopedia, present in all research libraries, where most of the entries are written by graduate students. That doesn't undermine their scholarship (they may be more on top of new research than full professors), it's just that they were the ones who were eager to contribute and write entries. Heck, I've written entries for encyclopedias when I was in graduate school, too (see Encyclopedia of African-American Religions) and that was because I was a good friend of one of the editors. Of course, he edited down my contributions, but all of the research was mine and I was a second year grad student. Okay, I'm off on a tangent, just here's another vote for secondary sources. Yeah! ;-) Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I echo Smeat75's concerns. The idea for this new Religion MoS is to take the content from 5 or 6 reference sources (i.e. religious dictionaries and encyclopedias), pull out the content they have in common to create an "average" article, and then summarize it with close paraphrasing and call that our best FA work. Anyone else need a barf bag? This is not only misguided; it is dangerous to the very spirit and purpose of Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
In general, I think it is a bad decision to prioritize reference sources that one is familiar with and make them the definitive source to be used in all occasions. For example, I pretty much wore out the Encyclopedia of Religion in the university libraries where I worked but it has a "History of Religion" POV that is heavy on abstraction and light on detailed analysis. The encyclopedia entries reflect not only the particular stance of the contributors (who, luckily, are identified--it isn't always the case) but also the editing team. It was a great source to begin to learn about a topic in the field of religious studies but it was deficient in giving in depth examples or a broad range of perspectives on a subject.
So, my point is that even though I probably made copies of something like 70-100 articles in the EofR and am very familiar with it, I wouldn't recommend it as the definitive source of information except as representing the stance of scholars with a History of Religion perspective. It's not the best source of information if one is examining religion from a textual, historical, sociological, cultural, or practice perspective (it's pretty good on anthropological subjects).
This position can make it challenging to write articles since each author is limited to her own library and what resources can be found in libraries and online. But that's why Wikipedia is collaborative, so a number of editors can bring together the resources they have at hand. Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, if you would notice, nowhere did I say we should make it the "definitive source of information", and, honestly, I rather regret the implicit assertion to the contrary by you. You might have noticed that I did mention the reviews as well, which have had some serious reservations about several of the articles contained therein, which I believe I also mentioned. I also remember saying, probably on the talk page of WikiProject Religion and Nishidani's talk page most recently, that the most recent edition of the German RGG, now called Religion Past and Present, and the old HERE are counted as being basically the other two of the three best, most comprehensive sources out there. Regarding Ignocrates' continued harping on the irrational and I believe completely unfounded motivations behind my actions, I simply note once again that not only is he apparently incapable of AGF'ing anyone other than himself, but once again seems to be taking recourse to his apparently repeated ability to read the minds of others. Regarding whether it is the best only from that perspective, I think I already said that as well. Now, I realize that Ignocrates has made a habit of using the talk pages of others to engage in irrational attempts at misdirection from the matters of his own dubiously acceptable behavior for some time now. That is the primary reason I have asked one of the ArbCom clerks to draft the request for arbitration against him. However, to basically point toward the facts that he, in what I can only call his blind stupidity, chooses to ignore, I have been more or less the sole creator and developer to date of the pages in the Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, and have made a list, more or less reproduced at User:John Carter/Religion reference sources, indicating the other sources which have been either included in the "reference works" article of tne EofR or in the American Library Association's yearly list of outstanding reference sources. So I believe Ignocrates' hysterial, paranoic, and completely irrational accusation above is clearly and directly contradicted by the evidence. But, that's not particularly new with him. I am still working on the list of articles and subarticles from the EofR primarily because of the incredible length of that source, and the really incredible number of subarticles, as well as the number of articles which have been changed from one edition to the next or added in the second edition. There are a number of other sources, which I have also at least started lists of articles on, primarily when the specific volumes of EofR aren't available, and which are at various levels of completion, and will be added as they are finished. As I indicated somewhere, I have also recently started to copy out articles from HERE for inclusion in WikiSource, because at least one or two of the reviews of the EofR said some of the articles in the HERE were still the best ever written. But, if one were to review Ovadyah/Ignocrates' history of contributions, which have more or less limited themselves to the "James" hypothesis for a more Christian early Christianity, the fact that under his previous name, Ovadyah, he indicates that he e-mailed the founder of the Ebionite Jewish Community, now Ebionite Community, about the development of the article apparently in a way which supports that group, and is even said by an IP on the talk page to have been a member of the group, I think we can see why Ignocrates has pretty much ignored the Nazarene Ebionites, who, apparently, don't agree with the EJC Ebionites.
"Ignocrates ... irrational...dubiously acceptable behavior ...blind stupidity....Ignocrates' hysterial, paranoic, and completely irrational accusation" You know, all WP guidelines and policies aside,it is sort of disturbing to see this, it seems to show someone in the grip of an obsession. You seriously need to chill out, take a step back, do not look at anything to do with Ignocrates or Ebionites for several months, this bitter feud obviously isn't good for you, and I do not mean to be condescending. There are plenty of other articles on Christianity on WP that need improvement.Smeat75 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, if you were to review the history of edits to Ret. Prof.'s user talk page, you would see the number of times several editors have tried to reason with him, to, apparently, not a lot of gain. You will also find in the history that I specifically told him that I, unlike Ignocrates, who had indicated he would "protect" Ret. Prof. and has later twice called for RfC/U's against him, apparently thinking both times it only requires one person to do that, I indicated that I would tell Ret. Prof. before taking him to any boards, so I was honor bound to do so. That was the nature of the comment. I very much wish that some editors would see the history of at best dubious conduct and attempts at misdirection which has, pretty much, been the essence of Ovadyah/Ignocrates from the start, along with the paranoia and more than occasional dishonesty, and that is why the ArbCom clerk is preparing the statement to be made for a request. I might do the same myself, and probably would, if the number of reference sources I have at least started on, and the number of articles I am trying to start for WikiSource, weren't taking as much time as they are. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
P.S. The reason for the lists of sub-articles, by the way, is that in previous discussion at I believe the notability guideline talk page on the subject of Buddhism, I was told that in general named subsections of "thematic" articles can be used as indicators of notability on some of those topics, so having an indication regarding which subtopics might themselves be notable seems reasonable as well. Particularly with the EofR, and to a lesser extent some others, those interminable lists of sub-articles, sub-sub-articles, sometimes to three or four or more levels of outline, is why some works take sooo much longer than others. And, of course, under no circumstances would I say that we would be only limited to them either, but that they might be usable in such a way. Also, I guess, in all honesty, following policies and guidelines, I think most of our content could, roughly, be said to be best when it basically just says what other existing encyclopedias or reference works say. But there are a lot of them, like I think I told Ret. Prof. once about two a month, including updated volumes, in religion/philosophy/mythology alone. On any topic which is covered extensively in multiple reference sources, the number of times we would need content in our main articles on topics covered by them to include material not included in them is probably few and far between. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I want to AGF, John Carter, and you have clearly put a lot of work and thought into your interests and putting together resource lists. But it is hard to look past your negativity, WP:PA, WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and WP:HARASS tactics, not just with Ignocrates but you also said horribly harsh comments to Ret.Prof that led him to quit Wikipedia because you disagreed about one source! That was a debate that had gone through the dispute resolution process but it still was a sticking point that was big enough to cause one of the main editors to withdraw from further participation.
And discovering that these disagreements have gone on for 6+ years (with some of the same and some different) parties is not a good sign of being able to collaborate with others and compromise in the name of consensus.
I think your last paragraph to me is a good indication of a direction we can go in and maybe the situation can be defused as long as we are talking about content and resources and not the failings that we see in each other and past conflicts. I should do that myself regarding your conduct so I'll end my comment here and try to be more positive myself.
Let's start anew! Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In regard to Smeat75's comment above (I won't interrupt the thread) "You know, all WP guidelines and policies aside,it is sort of disturbing to see this, it seems to show someone in the grip of an obsession.", this is not the first time this observation has been made. I direct your attention to this previous trip to AN/I on Aug. 31, 2010, the second of several, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#False accusations of vandalism and Llywrch's comment in particular which I reproduce here:

Although this thread is practically resolved, I'd like to add one last comment because I've been involved in this dispute in a small way. I hope all of us can agree that John Carter is an established editor who has done praiseworthy work in the past. Further, this article is a controversial one -- which is the case with many subjects where the verifiable facts are few & the speculations -- both expert & fringe -- are many. On the other hand, while the accusations John has made about Ovadyah may perhaps be true, in my experience in the matter I have seen no evidence of any wrongdoing by Ovadyah here. I suspect this has become one of those conflicts where John has simply become inadvertently obsessed with the conflict & now needs to walk away from this article -- both for his own benefit & the project's -- to simply trust that another set of eyes will catch any possible problems in this article. To repeat the cliche, there are 4,306,067 in the English Wikipedia, around half of which are stubs; no need to obsess over just one of them. -- llywrch (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This has all been said before, and yet it continues, almost 3 years later, without any resolution. Ignocrates (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Ignocrates, I read all of the ARBCOM statements from cases Ebionites1 and Ebionites2 along with ANIs, DRs and RfCs, although the harshness of the language varies according to the audience. It is hard to see how those involved can "get past" the damaging words that have been said. I would find it hard if I was the target. Maybe, at this point, an IBan would be best? Unless the parties can forgive, forget and move on...because if these conduct disputes reach ARBCOM, tougher penalties will be involved. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you take this bull by the horns and help to resolve this? Contrary to what John Carter seems to believe, I don't hate him at all and never have. Frankly, all I feel for him at this point is pity and sadness. He really needs some help. Ignocrates (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
(e-c) The fact that one somewhat biased party hasn't looked to see the repeated violation of both conduct and content guidelines, honestly, means nothing. Neither does his own attempt to justify his actions through the statements of others.
FWIW, you have apparently not reviewed the regular, almost incessant harassment by Ignocrates, who has described his editing as a "penance" as well, presumably taking the form of promotion of a group which has, despite my own and his best efforts to find them, apparently never appeared gotten anything like sufficient RS coverage to qualify for an article. The fact that you have apparently not even looked to, let alone looked past, the fairly regular misconduct of Ignocrates and Ret. Prof. causes me to perhaps conclude that your assessment is, well, lob-sided, based on only recent activity. I believe, honestly, misconduct of all sorts has been steadier and more regular from them than from me. Ret. Prof. also has been, as per previous versions of his user page, not only "continuing the fight" for the non-RS Tabor book and others, and has been repeatedly advised/warned by others about his misconduct, yes, even to Ignocrates himself twice requesting a single-person filed RfC/U against him. Honestly, given the stonewalling of Ovadyah/Ignocrates during the second mediation, when Tabor and the EJC were being considered for removal from the article as non-notable and non-reliable (which they have been from the beginning), and Ret. Prof.'s own misconduct elsewhere. It is also worth noting that Ignocrates has, pretty much since his return from retirement as Ovadyah, been pretty much pathological about attacking me on and off, presumably because I ruined his "penance" of trying to use wikipedia as an advertisement for his favorite non-notable group and his favorite non-RS James Tabor. The fact that he has, to date, so far as I can tell, not only never edited anything not relating to the "James" hypothesis, and has also, apparently, misrepresented sources, like Ret. Prof., leads me to think that the only way to resolve his own ongoing misconduct is through ArbCOm. Yes, he is a master of posturing, and has, ever since being Ovadyah, regularly talked down to anyone who disagrreed with him, indicating to my eyes there is a very real problem of ego and, yes, pathology there. And, unfortunately, I think if one were to review most of Ret. Prof.'s edits, one might find them just as problematic as the misrepresentation of sources and his also, rather apparent, almost obsession with thinking single books not referenced in anything else but reviews require being in articles if the reviews were not negative. In all honesty, when and if the ArbCom reviews this, I believe there is a very good chance, a probability actually, that Ignocrates will be seriously restricted from editing, and that, very likely, Ret. Prof. will be as well. I wish either one of them were apparently capable, or even interested, in doing anything other than, overtly or covertly, trying to promote books or websites or beliefs that really don't qualify as notable in and of themselves. But, in the history of both of them since I first encountered them, despite my actually having tried to encourage at least Ret. Prof. and I think Ovadyah while he still was Ovadyah to either try to get their views notable in a clear way or edit something else, they both, basically, refused to do so. If penalties are invoked by ArbCom, honestly, fine by me. That would also include almost certainly discretionary sanctions, and that's what I think is most clearly needed here. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, John Carter, it takes two people to work on resolving a dispute and you clearly have no interest in aiming at a collaboration so you could work together or at least, work peaceably on the same articles at different times. I guess you are hellbent on seeing this through to the bitter, bitter end so do what you got to do.
By the way, I've gone back years and saw instances where Ignocrates was sarcastic and was openly hostile to you and others. But ARBCOM is more concerned with recent history, not five years ago and Ignocrates has lately turned his focus off you and on to editing. I wish you could do the same but sometimes, I guess conflict is intractable. I wish ARBCOM luck in sorting through the long, tangled history of this dispute. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Ret.Prof's name has been invoked twice now with respect to two RFC/Us I recommended, it needs to be restated that (1) he was fully informed of my proposals (the second time by email), and (2) I emphasized both times that the purpose was instructional. I consider Ret.Prof to be a friend, and I only wish the best for him including on Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You should also see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ebionites/archive1 and other links to that page, where he not only said he as Ovadyah thought he had the right to add his opinions if he got it to FA, but also once again resorted to the rather silly, delusional posturing which is more or less his tradmark. John Carter (talk)
I feel badly about Ret. Prof. He sincerely listened to criticism and responded to critiques but I think he took too much to heart. He didn't want to work in an adversarial environment. To be honest, Ignocrates, I came across comments when you were at odds with him, too. But the important aspect is that you were able to move past your differences and collaborate. Ultimately, I think that is what groups like ARBCOM want to see, constructive, not obstructionist behavior. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The reason Ignocrates was willing to work with him was because, as per the hsitory of Ret. Prof.'s user page, Ret. Prof. was "continuing the fight" for Tabor. Ovadyah was, and I think probably still is, passionately in love with one of the few sources which apparently says anything which might reflect the views of the EJC. Yes, after the first arbitration, when Michael was banned, Ovadyah was able to work with him too, for the purposes of keeping some mention of the non-notable neo-Ebionitism that they both were passionately supporting in the article. Willing to work with people willing to, basically, violate guidelines with you in collusion really doesn't to my eyes qualify as being a positive. ArbCom will also, when it gets to them, see how Ret. Prof. was basically primarily supporting him, and it takes no particular character for one POV pusher to agree with someone pushing the same POV when it looks to be in danger of losing out per policy and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Your apparent obsession with James Tabor is, frankly, incomprehensible. That is no way to treat a notable scholar Talk:The Jesus_Dynasty#Tabor's religious bias and fellow Wikipedian User_talk:Jdtabor. There are far bigger problems here than just with me as an editor. You also neglected to mention that the editor who created the neo-Ebionite section of the Ebionites article was -- you, John Carter. Ignocrates (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Diff? Details? Relevance? Was it, perhaps, a way to get the material off the Ebionites article, and might the IP that was apparently Shemaiah's statement he didn't want a separate article involved in other's opinions. Not that I would expect them, because, honestly, the above comment seems to be just another attempt at diversion from the crucial issue. And, regarding the knee-jerk defense of Tabor, as has been repeatedly demonstrated at RSN and elsewhere, The Jesus Dynasty fails to meet RS standards. Although, of course, I understand the absolute need to defend the opinions which are so clearly favored by the neo-Ebionite community, which you apparently represent, at any cost, even to the point of making basically completely off-topic and irrelevant comments as the one above to serve as distractions. Also, I was referring to the attempt to recreate the Ebionite Jewish Community, again, which you were apparently involved wanting recreated, even if it did violate policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
From WP:CIR"Some people get so upset over a past dispute that they look at everything through a lens of "So-and-so is a bad editor and is out to get me." Taken to extremes, this easily becomes quite disruptive. An enforced parole of "don't interact with this other editor" may be something to try in these cases."

As I said, I do not think ARBCOM will be well-inclined to be re-re-visiting this same area for a third time. They will be looking at whether editors have matured over the past six years and the inability to let go of past differences is not a good sign.

But it is definitely time to move this conversation off my Talk Page and into ARBCOM or DRN or wherever this is headed. Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, there is a new ArbCom principle, mandated editor review, which allows editors to only make changes to an article after it has been approved by an independent admin. I have a feeling that might well happen here. Also, FWIW, I have in the past contacted editors who have retired, even Ovadyah, after he seemingly retired admitting his own lack of competence, and User:Lung salad, who, honestly, was also according to his response e-mail, forwarded to ArbCom, apparently in violation of conduct guidelines from day one on the Josephus on Jesus content. It would certainly be possible for you to try to e-mail Ret. Prof. and advise him to perhaps come back, although I might suggest that he concentrate perhaps a bit more on material that is clearly notable and of sufficient independent notable content that it wouldn't violate OR/SYNTH. We could use another few editors in religion, although, given his history, I think his focus on minor topics probably makes him one we can function without, at least if he acts the same way he did earlier. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I admitted nothing of the kind. However, I was contacted by email by John Carter, after I announced my retirement and ceased editing, and explicitly threatened. Ignocrates (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Good lord, man, have you ever learned to read, or is your blind rage about Tabor being determined non-RS and the EJC non-notable incapable of you even being able to read. I was, I thought, rather clearly indicating it was Lung salad who was in violation of policy. And yes, I did indicate after your own e-mail, referring to me in the most ridiculous and frankly juvenile insults I have ever encountered from an alleged adult, say that if you came back I would request sanctions against you. When you did return, honestly, I gave you a bit of a chance, based on the idea that you may have grown up a little. Of course, I could not have been more mistaken in that point, and that is why you are going to ArbCom shortly. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Liz, I feel for you to have this ongoing feud spill over onto your talk page. I hope this does not sour you on Wikipedia. However, this feud has gotten to the point where something must be done, since neither party seem to be able to disengage & let this matter go.--llywrch (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, llywrch. This is not about content or contributions but about editor conduct now. It's been going on for 6+ years, has already been through the ARBCOM request process twice (along with other RfCs and dispute resolution noticeboards) but it seems destined to head to ARBCOM again. While I'm sad to see that this dispute seems irreconcilable, I hope ARBCOM can definitively end this feud. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 18:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe the irreconciliability is due to one party flouting policies and guidelines for the purposes of POV pushing, if even subtle and less than obvious POV pushing, which is why I believe it will go to ArbCom. But, if you wish some sort of (admittedly, weak) attempt at throwing out an olive branch, you seem to be involved in the topic of Sociology, which is like some others a bit problematic because it isn't, well, cut and dried like some hard sciences. I live in a major city with several really good libraries. If there are any groups like WikiProject Sociology or others you might be interested in seeing lists of articles for, let me know. And, also, FWIW, Ret. Prof. does apparently have e-mailed enabled, so if you were to want I think you might be able to drop him a note requesting his return. like I have with a few others. Sometimes it can be helpful. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, at this point, it's up to ARBCOM to sort out (if you are going to file). I think this dispute has been talked to death, with no resolution in sight.
As for WikiProject Sociology, the last time I looked, there were only 3 or 4 people signed up for it and they weren't all regular editors. It's in such bad shape, it's hard to know where to start. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 00:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Speaking from some degree of experience of projects in general, that minimal number isn't that atypical. And even some huger projects, like Christianity, have a lot of people signed up, but not that many actively involved. Unfortunately. Regarding a lot of the "soft" topics, like psychology, sociology, virtually anything new-agey, and the paranormal in all its varieties, there tend to be quite a few people who have indicated an interest, often in promoting their local minister or their own particular beliefs, who show less interest in anything else, and, when they've done what they set out to do as well as they can, kinda disappear. A lot of the lists I've made so far, like the Jehovah's Witnesses list and the list of Ethiopian Christianity articles (written by someone who knows Ge'ez and French rather well, but not so much English, to the point that subject and verb rather regularly disagreed and sometimes I couldn't be sure what he was even talking about), those reference sources aren't considered extraordinarily good by anyone, but they are, seemingly, about the only ones out there on the topic. I think I looked over the Encyclopedia of Sociology some time ago, and, if I am right in assuming it's considered OK, I can try to generate a list based on it in the next few weeks. Getting some sort of newsletter like the MILHIST Bugle together for maybe some closely related groups in that field might work too, and maybe, like MILHIST, getting some sort of content going with barnstar awards. Ultimately, on finishing the "religion" related lists, I'm somewhat hoping to go on to those other, "soft science" groups as well, along with South America, Africa, Oceania, and a few other important but comparatively neglected and underdeveloped topics. Anyway, if I get tired of looking at the Jones edition of the EoR (which happens a lot now) and just want to look at something which doesn't go on about rituals and sexual symbolism of, depending on the individual culture, damn near everything, I might just do it as a bit of a change of pace. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Σ/Testing_facility/TP/Archive_4&oldid=1142407287"