ARCHIVE 5 (2012)

About my talk page comments

I hope you will consider this to be very mild constructive criticism. I have noticed you add a lot of references to primary sources directly to articles. While that is a fairly common practice, an article referenced in this way can never become WP:GA without a major cleanup. It is a huge amount of work for other editors to come along later and try to match up all the primary sources to reliable secondary references. Of course, that assumes a reliable secondary reference can be found which mentions the primary source. This is one reason why we have so many articles that are self-promoted to B-class articles and never go through peer review. Best. Ignocrates (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes a balance of both are important. Your comments are always constructive and generally more than helpful. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right about WP:HOUND

I owe you an apology about Oculi. You were right about him! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Now the question is what to do. That is part of the reason I am stepping back. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a specialist in pattern recognition, so perhaps I can see what others cannot (or choose not to) see. I believe a particular editor intends to WP:HOUND you on every article you work on until you are driven from this encyclopedia, unless you put a stop to it. Ignocrates (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it has already begun. Now the question is what is the correct response. I am going to need some guidance. I am requesting Admin help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you seek out the help of a well-known and highly respected Admin, but one with whom you have no prior edit history whatsoever. That will minimize the accusations of bias and collusion that will surely follow. See also, essays on WP:GRIEFING and WP:What is a troll? that may provide helpful background information. Ignocrates (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is little doubt I have upset a "group of editors" (sock puppets?) who are deleting everything I write. -Ret.Prof (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not an issue of "upset", please read WP:Fringe. Wikipedia is not a blog. However you can develop fringe/minority theories on specific articles about those theories if you have modern sources and maintain WP:NPOV. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have and my edits are valid. Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing & WP:HOUND - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC) .

This might be a good time to seek that outside admin help. I suggest you consider talking to Dab as a place to start. From my experience, Dab is a tough but fair admin, and he is a good resource to get this ongoing problem under control. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi RetProf re your message:

Wikipedia:Canvassing & WP:HOUND

Please stop! Bullying and intimidation are not the way to go. Ictu, Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing & WP:HOUND - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Notifying WP Project Bible/Christianity of Talk:Gospel does not count as Wikipedia:Canvassing, if you look at the Talk page head you will see that the article is part of the project. As for WP:HOUND, well, what am I supposed to say - naturally I have the articles to which you added the same fringe material on my watch-list from 6 months ago. I don't see what has changed, this is still fringe material and the WP:Weight concerns are still justified. As I said, you can develop fringe/minority theories on specific articles about those theories if you have modern sources and maintain WP:NPOV. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I srongly suggest that you drop these accusations of sockpuppetry and hounding. These are personal attacks and certainly do not help your case. If you've actually read WP:HOUND it says "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." That's not what is happening here. In ictu oculi has legitimate concerns about your edits and has a right to express those. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am again stepping back as WP:HOUND has made it impossible for me to edit. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, as continuing with such accusations would probably end up with your being reported somewhere. Of course, the reason you are being reverted has nothing to do with hounding and everything to do with your edits, including using self-published sources, original research, etc. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The accusation of harassment superficially seems like whining and a way to evade cleanup, but this is actually part of a complex dispute going back over a year and spanning at least half a dozen articles. I think both parties were WP:AGF in the beginning, but nerves have been rubbed raw due to the protracted nature of the dispute and civility has suffered as a result. Ret.Prof's decision to step back from this category is probably for the best. There are plenty of other articles that could use improvement. Ignocrates (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes one of the reasons for deleting my edits was that I was using self-published sources. Doug would you list the "self-published sources" you are referring to? - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned Donald R. Nuss, The Anatomies of God in one of my edit summaries. Listed as published by 'Universe' but actually by iUniverse. No time to go through more. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the major problem seems to me anyway to be a matter of WP:WEIGHT, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and possibly other policies and guidelines. You mention on your user page a "Hebrew Gospel tradition", which is fine. However, basically, it is hard for others to really necessarily accept that the topic merits weight in multiple articles if it doesn't have a separate article already in its own right. If it isn't sufficiently notable as per WP:N to merit its own article, there is a very real question as to why it would deserve any specific mention elsewhere. Basically, it seems to me anyway that the best thing to do is try to find the sources required to establish specific notablity for the topic to have its own article. Thereafter, once that is done, it would become much easier to determine the degree of weight as per WP:WEIGHT, and other concerns about what might at this point reasonably be considered, without that article, a non-notable subjct. John Carter (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I should have been a bit more specific above. I meant there would be very little support for a separate article or content on the subject other than a main single article, which might not necessarily be specially devoted to the topic. It could very well serve as a subtopic within an article if that seems appropriate as per WP:WEIGHT. Also, regarding this topic in particular, there seems to me to be at least a few questions. One, how is this "Hebrew Gospel tradition" different from low Christology? From what I remember of Butz' book, he more or less seems to equate the two. I could easily see an article on the history of low Christology, or something similar. Also, would not the earlier instances of it per Butz, like Freemasonry, Gnosticism and Catharism, have to be given equal weight as any more recent expressions of the idea? John Carter (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of films considered the best for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of films considered the best is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the best until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been nominated for deletion, since you participated in the previous discussion, you may wish to participate in this one, the discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (2nd nomination). Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, I really appreciate it. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 02:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not get discouraged. Hope you try a again. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Ret.Prof/archive5

Contents