User talk:ReformedArsenal/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Please comment on Talk:List of new religious movements
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of new religious movements. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the faulty support for Luke, and the book of Acts, see Peerbolte, Paul the Missionary, page 105 - and Maccoby, The Mythmaker, passim. The burden of proof is actually on you - show me some reliable historians of the first or second century who quote Luke. The "Gospel According to Luke" was not even written by Luke (it's in 3rd person for one thing). Eusebius (c. 310) wrote that mere "tradition" is why the books have those names on them (Eusebius, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, VI, 25.4-5).MithrasPriest (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The burden of proof is on the one changing a long standing article. If you believe that the citations are faulty, prove it. At this point all you did is come in and add some negative peacock words. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I already proved it, above. Luke is NOT a valid source, neither is Acts. And regarding "long standing article" please see the logical fallacy "argument from authority" and stop reverting my valid edits please.MithrasPriest (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't a debate, and Wikipedia operates on sources and precedent. The article is long standing, and changes to a long standing argument required WP:RS. Saying "no recognizes Luke" isn't an argument, and it certainly doesn't constitute proof. The article has TONS of WP:RS who consider both Luke and Acts to be reliable enough. Unless you have published sources that say otherwise, your simply making assertions. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- You asked for sources, and I supplied 3. An hour later you give me DIFFERENT reasons why my edits are to be rejected - so I assume you got your copies of Peerbolte, Maccoby, and Eusebius, and you agreed with me, so you needed other excuses to use the UNRELIABLE words of the UNKNOWN authors of Luke and Acts? I'm sorry, this IS a debate, and your talk page alone proves you are anything but an unbiased contributor! "Wikipedia operates on sources and precedent" - no, WP has rules, and "it was that way for a long time on WP" is not one of them. "Unless you have published sources that say otherwise..." - I PROVIDED THREE INCLUDING EUSEBIUS HIMSELF!!! Utter failure.MithrasPriest (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, Wikipedia editing is based on consensus. According to the policy: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.".
- Secondly, Macoby's "The Mythmaker" is strongly criticized by contemporary scholars and does not reflect the mainstream scholarly view. Eusebius does not qualify as a WP:RS any more than Luke, and he is much further removed from the events. By the way, it doesn't matter if the author of Luke-Acts was really called 'Luke'. What matters is that it was written in the 1st century by a contemporary of Paul. That fact is not disputed in scholarly sources, and that is the reason 'Luke' is commonly used as a (fallible) source for Paul's life.
- Finally, you need to be more specific about the changes you are making. For example, the addition of "self-claimed" asserts that Paul may have falsely claimed to be both a Jew and Roman citizen. That in itself requires a source and not just a general statement such as 'Acts is unreliable'. And in the sentence "Paul began to preach that Jesus is the Christ, who he believed was the Son of God", what exactly is the purpose of the qualification "who he believed was"? The article is saying that this was Paul's preaching, not that Jesus was actually the Son of God. The fact that this was part of Paul's message is really not in dispute, or you would need to provide a specific reference for that.
- PS, may I suggest that discussions like this one should take place on Talk:Paul_the_Apostle, rather than on a user talk page? This concerns suggested changes to the content of the article, and is not a personal matter. EDIT: I've copied this thread to Talk:Paul_the_Apostle, post make any additional comments there. - Lindert (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- You asked for sources, and I supplied 3. An hour later you give me DIFFERENT reasons why my edits are to be rejected - so I assume you got your copies of Peerbolte, Maccoby, and Eusebius, and you agreed with me, so you needed other excuses to use the UNRELIABLE words of the UNKNOWN authors of Luke and Acts? I'm sorry, this IS a debate, and your talk page alone proves you are anything but an unbiased contributor! "Wikipedia operates on sources and precedent" - no, WP has rules, and "it was that way for a long time on WP" is not one of them. "Unless you have published sources that say otherwise..." - I PROVIDED THREE INCLUDING EUSEBIUS HIMSELF!!! Utter failure.MithrasPriest (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't a debate, and Wikipedia operates on sources and precedent. The article is long standing, and changes to a long standing argument required WP:RS. Saying "no recognizes Luke" isn't an argument, and it certainly doesn't constitute proof. The article has TONS of WP:RS who consider both Luke and Acts to be reliable enough. Unless you have published sources that say otherwise, your simply making assertions. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I already proved it, above. Luke is NOT a valid source, neither is Acts. And regarding "long standing article" please see the logical fallacy "argument from authority" and stop reverting my valid edits please.MithrasPriest (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:John Calvin
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John Calvin. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:International Churches of Christ
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International Churches of Christ. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Acharya S
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Acharya S. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)