Wikipedia

User talk:Evensteven/Archive 1

< User talk:Evensteven
Latest comment: 8 years ago by BD2412 in topic Sabbatarianism page moves

Wiki Footprint

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Welcome!

Hello, Evenssteven, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RockMagnetist (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Requests for usurpation and establishment of SUL (Wikipedia:Unified login)

Evenssteven → Evensteven at English Wikipedia

Status:     In progress

Evenssteven (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Evenssteven (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Completed by Xeno at 18:19, Wed 11 December 2013 Evensteven (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Usurpation of username Evensteven at French Wikipedia

Request made at fr:Wikipédia:Demande de renommage de compte utilisateur/Usurpation on Fri, 21 Feb 2014 at 20:00 UTC

Request fulfilled by fr:WP user ©éréales Kille® on Fri, 21 Feb 2014 at 20:54 UTC

Unified Login Process Complete

Unified login (SUL) process verified complete. No outstanding accounts with my name across other wiki projects. Evensteven (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Community Disputes 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago49 comments16 people in discussion

Head of the Catholic Church: Jan-Feb

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Evensteven. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Early Popes of Rome as head of the Catholic Church - opinion versus fact. Thank you. --Gold Standard 00:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Making the changes

Hey! I just saw that you closed the discussion. I'm just curious: do you plan to make these changes yourself or would you like me or someone else to? Gold Standard 00:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought I would start tomorrow if I didn't see anyone else starting. But I'm not trying to claim the edits for my count. :) If you'd like to go ahead, that's fine with me. I just thought that given all the contention there had been, that I'd wait a little for any possible reaction to the closing before touching the articles. After all, it's usually better form for someone not involved in a discussion to do the closing. I was pushy where it counted; I'll try to be much more easy-going now. It seems the natural approach to anything that could be touchy. Take a look also at the original Project Christianity venue. I put a notice of closure there, but also a comment about continuation of unsettled matters. I think there may be an opportunity to handle those in a more normal environment, and wanted to test the waters before jumping in. Cheers! Evensteven (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good, I just wanted to make sure someone followed through :) Gold Standard 06:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Height : Jan/Feb

(Bagumba) Stalemate

Appreciate your comment at Template talk:Height. Unfortunately, the trend in that thread when pressed for explanations seems either be the bad-faith card or more sources that use cm. Ideas on how to proceed?—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally agree on your advice for proposals/counter proposals. I appreciate your being as neutral as possible on this and helping to facilitate, and for that reason I'm not going to get into details, other than to say I'd be comfortable putting up for inspection my record of offering suggestions to move the discussion forward. It's my opinion, but I couldn't say the same for the actions of the elephant in the room. Without pointing fingers, there is little if any good faith left in that discussion in multiple directions—that is indisputable With all the baggage accumulated to date, I can live with status quo. Nobody is being hurt by it in a BLP or NPOV type issue. Those who can't accept the current template are the one's who would have more incentive to reach out, and I would think all the more reason to be civil. Aside from this happening organically from that person, perhaps someone they trust can influence them. I thought that could be you, but the editor isn't exactly following your lead either. No pressure intended, we are all WP:VOLUNTEERs. There is no WP:DEADLINE, so I'm ok letting this wind down for now. Enjoy the weekend.—Bagumba (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I rather agree; it's not a large enough issue to continue talking about forever. And really I think the most active piece of it is going on in the wrong forum, whatever its atmosphere. The actual implementation of the cm input/output is really the question that affects the template itself. The rest lies in how the template is used elsewhere. The usage matter should be taken to that "elsewhere". But it's going nowhere until there's neutral air to discuss it in. Evensteven (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(Gibson Flying V, GiantSnowman, Jul) Just curious...

Do you have any advice on if and how I should have handled this differently? Perhaps I was a bit blasé about responding initially because it's such an obvious WP:BOOMERANG. It's a bit of a time-consuming mess (to my detriment!), so I understand if you're too busy to reply.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I only intended for you to reply with advice here. The crux of the Administrator's noticeboard discussion is whether there was an existing consensus at Wikiproject Football to never allow cm in articles within its scope, that I then edited against by introducing cm as per the sources giving the heights. Or, alternatively that my WikiGnoming of introducing, correcting and referencing heights in all kinds of articles since the RfC close amounts to "mass" or "systematic" changes.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I went beyond your intended bounds. It seems to me that once someone objects to an edit, then a discussion is supposed to start. So if a specific edit of your raised an objection, then there should be a discussion to go to, and if that discussion needed to be elevated to a project level, then it should have done so. That is the general process. If these discussions do not exist, then I think Administrator's noticeboard discussion is premature. If they do, but further edits have been pursued before consensus, then there is possible trespass. If in one of those discussions a claim has been made that there is a consensus within the article domain, or the project domain, then the discussion that produced the consensus must be brought to light. If there is none, then a "consensus" is only based on past accepted edits, and it is appropriate to require them to be confirmed (or overturned) by further discussion focused upon that specific issue. I don't know what you personally have pursued, nor GiantSnowman either. But if any editing, your or his, has continued before discussion resolution, then there is potential for valid claims to disruption on either or all parties.
As to the RFC, I think it made quite clear that there was to be no "correcting" of existing height references, and it is my position that is reasonable because there is no correct unit. One cannot correct what is not wrong. And as I said in the RFC, WP:RS cannot establish a "correct" unit, because they are not reliable sources wrt the unit used, but only to the length itself. 'No one is WP:RS with respect to the unit, because that is not the way the SI system of units (or any other system of units) works. But even if you still cannot understand or accept what I am saying about that, I think the RFC closure specifically forbade those kinds of "corrective" edits. If you have done them, then I expect you can be held responsible for violating the RFC, and (potentially) banned. Having seen GiantSnowman's unreasoned adamancy in the opposing direction, I would be surprised if he has not ended up doing the same thing somewhere along the line. I have tried to help you both to understand the unreasonableness of insistence on one unit or the other, and I hope that both of you can find a way to coexist constructively. But it will never happen while you say "cm only", or while he says "m only", and that battle must come to an end, by discipline if not by any other means. Evensteven (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I said very early on (before the RfC in fact) that metres should be used if a suitably reliable (English language) source is giving it in metres. While sometimes I have corrected wrong height (and weight) measurements, sometimes I did only change the unit to the one used in the source (it is not my fault that this is very rarely metres). This is because I'm not comfortable with situations in which a quality source is giving height in centimetres, but the Wikipedia article using it is (for some odd reason) giving it in metres. I think Wikipedia should be organically showing the relative prevalence of centi/metre usage as it is in real-world sources. This is surely a desirable outcome for a tool that's meant to be informative. Enforcing any unit is detrimental. Unfortunately {{Height}} still does this as its conversion output is set as metres. Some editors are also trying to do this for articles within their Wikiproject's scope. I thought the whole Wikipedia philosophy was to follow sources and take editor intervention out of the equation wherever possible.
Having said that, for the case at hand, I think the standing consensus at Wikiproject football has always been that either unit is acceptable as per {{Infobox football biography}}'s usage notes. Recently GiantSnowman has tried to change that via a discussion at Wikiproject Football. Since that discussion started I think Jiang Ning was the only soccer player's article I've edited. I added the height as it was not present in the article. I did not change an existing height measurement. Can this be viewed as disruptive? It's editing in line with existing consensus, but during a time when some users were attempting to change that consensus but the discussion was waning. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
AS I said at the RFC, the unit used by a source is immaterial since there is no source that is WP:RS with respect to the unit used, but only the length. The nature of a convention that establishes a general norm in favor of a unit is that when it exists, everyone recognizes it as acceptable. Clearly, that is not so here on WP, and it seems clear to me that there is no convention. I have to leave it in others' hands to decide about the nature of your edits and GiantSnowman's. Personally, I think any WP consensus for either cm or m is ridiculous, because there is no consensus in the world either, nor convention, nor is it required by anything or anyone that there must be one. Consistency is not required. That would be my personal argument in any of these editing communities. But I think I have seen enough people insisting otherwise that I don't think my view will be accepted by them either. I simply can't understand why anyone thinks this is an important issue. It is unreasoned and unreasonable, and based on flawed perceptions of how units are defined and how they work. I have no respect for the method by which these decisions are being made. But I really don't care about the outcome. For myself, I am determined to avoid editing in an arena where there is such unwillingness to consider matters thoughtfully. I have better places to be. I wish you well, but I don't expect good outcomes whatever the end decisions are. So the only advice I can offer that I consider to be reasonable is that you voluntarily withdraw as well. That way, you'll be able to contribute elsewhere. Whole editing communities can be wrong about things sometimes. But it's not the end of the world to walk away. Evensteven (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Your time and thoughts are much appreciated.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that cm is not an acceptable format - I am saying that 'm' is the preferred format for association football-related articles, and so that is what should be used. Any editor who goes around to push their own personal preference, in direct violation of community consensus, is disruptive; that is what Gibson has done, and that is why they have been topic banned. I would also like to assure you that this recent episode has not been down to any "personal animosity" (at least not on my own part), and I hope you noted that I was not one of those editors calling for stronger or wider sanctions. It's over (for now) so I would also like to wish you well. Regards, GiantSnowman 17:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, @GiantSnowman:. "Any editor who goes around to push their own personal preference, in direct violation of community consensus, is disruptive." I couldn't agree more. And I am very glad to hear you say that you don't reject cm entirely, because that was my very clear impression from the RFC in February, and the basis upon which I felt you were as equally intransigent as Gibson Flying V. I do recognize the footballers consensus as binding upon editing, but I do not recognize it as rational, but rather as emotional, based on opinion. There is no actual factual basis for coming to consensus about the use of either unit because that is not the way that units are generally designed or defined (except in special cases for certain specific scientific reasons, which do not apply here). What this says to me is that the community is unable to understand the basic nature of the issue. And really, why should it? Their interest is football, not measurement systems. So they have formed a consensus outside of their expertise, and mistakenly so. I am much in sympathy for your desire to see constructive editing reign in your areas of interest, and of your evident frustration at seeing disruptions. But I have to say I am also in sympathy with Gibson Flying V's frustration at knowing (correctly) that cm is a perfectly acceptable use of a unit for expressing human height, anywhere, any place. The community consensus is galling by being out of touch with actual application of the metric system in the world, and at variance with it. These vast numbers of WP:RSes in either direction are some evidence, the location of many of them in the US, where the metric system is only marginally understood gives undue weight and makes for false appearances. The general scope of usage makes it clear that there is no grand conventional use of one over the other in the world, and no indication if one will ever be established. So I would have a problem with anyone's editing behavior if it was pushy or non-conformant to the WP consensus, but I can also be understanding of frustrations when a WP consensus is just plain wrong. Did Gibson Flying V misbehave? I see the ruling, but I have no personal opinion because I have not watched. And I do have sympathy for him also, because he has a point that no one has been willing to listen to. And my frustration is that such things ever happen on WP - fights about opinion, not fact - disagreeableness - enormous wastes of time - and all over a matter that is less than insignificant, but is actually non-existent if looked at reasonably. And so WP has lost an interested editor and retained so many who are now hardened into intractable unreasonable positions. I think WP is the loser on all sides. But I do wish you good, constructive, productive editing ahead, as I do for Gibson Flying V wherever he may contribute. Evensteven (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The comment about the hardening into intractable and unreasonable positions is so sad but true.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Tools opt-in/opt-out at Village Pump: Apr

(Imaginatorium) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) opt-in/out discussion

Hello! I just quoted one of your comments in the new section at the bottom of this page called "Write your own script". I am not sure of the etiquette, but it seems appropriate to make sure you noticed. I'm afraid I simply cannot understand the argument about "Governance" - or any of the other informed arguments in favour of having an opt-in/out. (I ended up at http://www.38500.org/contents.htm from which I can understand precisely nothing.) Anyway, all in the spirit of collaboration - yours, Brian Chandler Imaginatorium (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew: Feb-Sep

(Ignocrates) History of scholarship on GoM

Hey, sorry I got a little snippy there. Those of us who have been an audience to this Greek tragedy for three years have had all the fun we can stand. You might find this reference useful:

  • MacDonald, Dennis R. (2012). Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias's Exposition of Logia about the Lord. Society of Biblical Lit. ISBN 978-1-58983-691-4.

This recent publication addresses the Papias question head on.

I fully support the suggestion of a historiography of scholarship on the Gospel of Matthew, which could include an analysis and summary of primary source quotations by prominent scholars of different eras and how those scholars have understood the origins of the Gospel of Matthew over time. This kind of approach is rooted in a conservative analysis of the primary literature, as opposed to the interplay between the conjectures of modern scholars. Til suggested, in the FTN discussion, that a new article should be created to capture all this historical knowledge. I think that's a better way to go too, rather than try to fit it into the GoM article. That would give us three articles: Gospel of Matthew, which is based on modern so-called "mainstream" conjectures; "History of scholarship on GoM", which has Church history plus all the conjectures about a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew leading up to the modern consensus; and Hebrew Gospel hypothesis which has all the conjectures, major and minor, about Hebraic source documents that may have contributed to the Canonical Gospels. Ignocrates (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Say, thanks. No worries about hitting the wall. I've been there too, sooner than you, so I understood immediately. I've scanned the MacDonald ref already, but it will take a little time to do it justice. I can see already that I have a considerably different approach and mindset though. I guess the historiography outline is one way to go, but I don't think it can be used as a substitute for due mention of items in the main article. It does have the advantage of providing easy links to more details, as well as space for lots of detail. Evensteven (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(101.119.15.110) Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

I'm a little unhappy about your call for a vote at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. This is effectively a WP:RFC on the Gospel of Matthew article, but one which is open only to a handful of editors. For the record, I strongly oppose your proposed addition to the Gospel of Matthew article, for the reasons outlined by PiCo. -- 101.119.15.110 (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your unhappiness, but I also have no way of knowing who you are or just what your concerns are. It was not me who closed off the discussion to IP addresses. I am not the mediator. I can't see how I am responsible. Evensteven (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not an RFC, and any consensus formed in the mediation is still up for discussion after the conclusion of the mediation. As an IP, I would recommend you register your account if you want to participate. Thanks. Andrevan@ 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven, I incorporated your suggested changes. Are you satisfied with the latest version? Ignocrates (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

(John Carter, Jul) FYI

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 9#Userspace drafts. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Archival Note: In reference to Ret. Prof.'s activities following his return. Evensteven (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

(Guy Macon, Sep) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Gospel of Matthew. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Much ado about Fearofreprisal

(Fearofreprisal, Sep) IDHT

I've noticed that you invoked WP:IDHT at least twice in reference to another editor, at Talk:Historicity of Jesus. I don't know what your intent was, or how the other editor took it, but I saw it as being poor WP:Etiquette. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who raised it, but it was appropriately done, coming after a long line of repetitious complaints to yet another editor. And I supported it, with emphasis (twice) because of its continuance, and as an agreement with what had already been expressed in community discussion. Perhaps that violated the form of etiquette, but etiquette had already been repeatedly violated, so only perhaps. A disruption can only be permitted to continue so long. If etiquette followed is insufficient to bring it to another editor's attention, a blunter expression may get attention. We give very little tolerance to vandalism on WP, and call it so outright. IDHT gets a considerably longer tolerance, but not infinite. So I'd say this falls within accepted practice. And by the way, I'm not exactly pleased to have to use it, either. Evensteven (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You spend a lot of effort on crafting your thoughts on talk page messages. Throwing in something like IDHT detracts from what you're trying to say. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Nothing impacts everyone in the same way, and I've found my approach has been helpful to others at times: I've been told so. Nevertheless, what you're saying is undoubtedly the way it can strike others also. Reconsidering is something I do constantly, because no two situations are ever exactly the same. And I will consider what you say. I appreciate the feedback. Evensteven (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(Fearofreprisal, Sep) Incivility

Your last post on Talk:Historicity of Jesus is on the ragged edge of incivility.

If you want to accuse me of edit warring, pushing POV, pushing fringe or any other violations of WP policy, please do so explicitly, and with evidence (including diffs.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

My post was not in the least incivil, and nothing close. And I did not want to accuse you, which is part of why I was not explicit. And I don't need to be lectured; you are not my tutor. Evensteven (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(Fearofreprisal, Sep) The reversion game

Welcome to the reversion game at Historicity of Jesus, where you discuss edits ahead of time in the talk page, and someone who wasn't involved in the discussion, and who has never contributed to the article, reverts you immediately.

I'm not sold on the Habermas citation. I think he's intentionally presenting religious belief (which is based on the creeds and gospels) as historicity (based on historical evidence.) But... he's a reliable source who has done his homework. So, when he says "most scholars"... I have to accept it unless I can find a smoking gun (either in his writing, or in others') that says he's wrong.

My suggestion is, if you are reverted again, then discuss further on the talk page (with a ping to Kww), and wait a day to un-revert. The WP:3RR is a strict rule. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It is no game. And I don't need you as a tutor, as I've told you before. Evensteven (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I challenge the source as unreliable, biased to the point of complete unacceptability. No one can reasonably claim that the resurrection of Christ is supported by as a historical fact. It's a religious belief, with no supporting historical documentation.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You do no such thing until you do it on the article talk page where it belongs. Evensteven (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@Fearofreprisal, since you are so concerned about strict observance of the rules, perhaps you might examine some more of them and decide how they too can be followed better. Evensteven (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it's not a game to you -- but there are rules, both formal and informal, and there are many players, including some (mostly apologists) who are very committed. My guess us that you're more a sincere Christian than an apologist. Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Why do Wikipedians' religious convictions have to come into it? Aren't we all agreed on the question of whether a man named Jesus existed back in first-century Palestine? That's really all the article is (supposed to be) discussing. Historical Jesus is where we are (supposed to be) discussing whether historians can prove miracles through the historical method. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Take it to the article talk page, @Hijiri88. It's not about me, but it's a relevant question. Evensteven (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
No, @Fearofreprisal, it's not a game, period. It affects WP in a strongly negative way. Get off your soapbox about Christian apologists. There is nothing wrong with being an apologist. There is something wrong about bigotry: a prejudicial, unyielding, opinionated, often uneducated, generally vociferous, and often openly hostile attitude or stance. By no stretch of the imagination is an apologist for any given thing necessarily a bigot, and a misapplication of that term tries to make them out to be a similar or the same thing. I haven't heard that fully from you, but there is a tendency in the characterization that you may wish to reconsider.
I will not make out to you that there is not such a thing as a "Christian" bigot. There appear also to be anti-Christian bigots. But any people who call themselves Christians and engage in bigotry position themselves to be condemned by Christian belief itself: "judge not lest ye be judged". No, not really just by Christian belief either, but by the Lord and Saviour who gave this saying to the Church, and Who by Christian belief will come again and be judge of us all, and that rightly. There are deep reasons for Christian opposition to bigotry, and those who practice it should be in fear for their soul, because it eats them alive every moment they pursue it. At least it can be said accurately that Christians who practice bigotry are betraying their putative beliefs when they do.
We get all kinds of people here on WP, and any of those who even veer in the direction of bigotry pose a threat, from vandalism to disruptive editing. There is nothing unique to articles touching on Christianity in this regard either; try politics. Would you believe sports has trouble with those who wish to express human height in meters while others prefer cm? It's all damaging. And the more that editors become possessed of their own opinions, the more it expresses a growing bigotry, sometimes over the silliest things. It's a strong word that I use, but it encompasses a spectrum that covers pale to intense color, and it does so because it is still all shades of the same basic color. So no, it's not a game. At the very least, it's unconstructive on WP. And at the most, I expect it becomes readily apparent to everyone just what the impact and consequences are.
You seem to have some appreciation of where your opinions stop and WP rules begin. I think it would be helpful for you also to consider where policy begins, and where rules end. The difference lies in legalism. I have considerable respect for rules, treated properly. I have considerably less experience seeing people (of all stripes) who know how to treat rules properly. It's why they're mostly called guidelines on WP. The point is that WP's fundamental principle is that the work is not going to get done unless people behave cooperatively and work constructively at their tasks. Guidelines try to point the way. That's all any rule has ever been good at either. Turn rules into laws, and all you produce is an excuse to find a way to abide by the letter of the law while still being able to fight. That's the game. I want no part of it. Evensteven (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with much of what you say. When I use the word "apologist", I do so in the sense of a person who has a strong orientation, and who is knowledgeable and capable in making arguments to support that orientation (I haven't gone back to look up the term's exact definition -- but this is the sense I use it in.) So, if I call someone an apologist, it's not an insult -- more a recognition of that person's orientation and expertise. For example, I could say that Ehrman is an apologist for the historicity of Jesus (actually, more a polemicist.)
Please don't take my use of the term "game" as a value judgment. It's just a metaphor. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear of your sense of "game". Your comments did appear to me to be tossed off lightly, and gave me the impression that you might think gaming the WP system to be something that could be done lightly as well. I think the metaphor is ill-constructed and inadvisable, but I accept your comment as an indication that you do not see gaming as an editing option.
Glad also for your definition of apologist, much the sense I have of it, except I see no need to include any characterization of a person's orientation. For one thing, that's not always so easy to assess. What's more, it's a path to making unnecessary judgments, which can also lead to other undesirable places. I would expect that a useful apologist ought to have expertise, be knowledgeable and articulate, but apologetics is about what the person does (or tries to do), not what his qualifications are to do it. As I said, apologetics is not bigotry, nor is it polemicism. And I am glad to hear you don't consider it an insult. I did hear a sense of opinion about apologists behind your comments. I also think Kww is confused about apologetics. He doesn't necessarily use the term as an insult either, but he does seem to consider it antithetical to being a scholar. It seems you don't, and therefore I think you're already that much closer to correct. No opinion on Ehrman as polemicist - just don't know. Evensteven (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
My opinions about apologists, polemicists, Christians, or atheists is only that they tend to have particular points of views. You're right about being a path to unnecessary judgments, but at the same time... Well, I'm reminded of Upton Sinclair said so many years ago - "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yes, that's not so hard to understand. What is surprising is that sometimes someone may change his mind anyway. What is also true is that it can be equally difficult to get a man to understand something even when nothing obviously vital to him stands in his way, except perhaps his current understanding. There's more to it all than meets the eye. Evensteven (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration, Historicity of Jesus

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 6, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 20:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus arbitration case - proposed decision posted

This is a courtesy message to inform you that the proposed decision has been posted for the Historicity of Jesus arbitration case. Constructive, relevant comments are welcome on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk).

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

6) Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) is warned to not engage in personal attacks or cast aspersions of bias and intent against other editors.

7) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) from editing Historicity of Jesus.[1] It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban affecting the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Fearofreprisal is cautioned that if they disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. They may appeal this ban to the Committee in no less than twelve months time.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) (Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Individual Disputes or Conflicts 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion

Credo card game: Jan

The edit in question concerned the Credo card game and some feisty edit-warring and POV-pushing.

(LP-mn, Jan) Nicene_Creed#See_also

I find your edit at Nicene_Creed#See_also to be lacking in any sort of logic. Would you care to share how you think my link, to a RELEVANT, EXISTING wikipedia article is in any way inappropriate?
LP-mn (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Not enough to comment here. I may add something to the article talk page if other editors also object to your link; otherwise, I'll let it go. Evensteven (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Gripe, Apr

Ignored as not pertinent, or at least not problematic.

(Martijn Meijering, Apr) Authenticity of 2 Peter

You're not supposed to reinsert a Bold edit you've made to the consensus text after you have been reverted. You need to establish consensus for the new text first. See WP:BRD Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(Gabby Merger, @First Council of Nicea, May) edit

it's actually rare when I do "null" or "dummy edits". It's not often at all. And you're wrong, and assume, when you think and say I "avoid" discussing. LOL...if you only knew me, I discuss on talk pages (editors' and articles') big time. A lot. And no harm. My only point is 1) big real consensus has not been reached, and of course 2) there's no big problem or error in putting the names of those who dealt with Arius per the paragraphs own words. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Gabby Merger, I made no complaint about the dummy edit; in fact, that was the right thing to do after the inadvertent IP edit. I assume nothing. I look. I don't care how often you avoid talk pages. That is what you were doing at "First Council of Nicea". And that is what another editor found previously in one case. That's a problem, even if it's only once; and it's twice that I know of. LOL if you wish. If you have something to contribute to the discussion, use the talk page. That's what it's there for. I don't know you much. With your current attitude, may it stay that way. But the choice is yours to make. If you have no big problem with what you're doing, then continue, and see where it gets you. I'm not alone in looking, and others see what they see also. I have stated on the talk page that I see a new consensus. Anyone is free to state there that I was premature, but I also acknowledged my conclusion was tentative. That's where your point needs to be made. Here is not sufficient. An edit comment is not sufficient. You have been warned on the talk page away from those things, and not by me. So, prove there's no problem by laying out your argument and seeing it supported by the editing community. Otherwise, the only trouble you make will be for yourself. And I am unlikely to be the one to take you to task, if it comes to that. But if it does, I will then say my say to all to whom it concerns. As things are, you are wasting everyone's time already, and that is never appreciated. Judging from your own talk page where this started, you would like to be shown "a little more respect and appreciation". The first rule is that one generally needs to show respect and appreciation before one receives any. The second rule is that your attitude is your choice. Prove what it is that you really want. Evensteven (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: Gabby deleted the above-wikilinked section on her talk page at 22:16 28 May 2014 UTC.
Not sure what the attitude is about, and you are assuming. I don't usually do null edits. It's once in a while, overall. You're overly fixed on that nonsense on my talk page, which I should have removed by now. Most of input is on talk pages when issues like this come up. You're wasting my time now, and I don't appreciate your tone and attitude. I tried to be nice and civil and I said "no harm". But look at what you do now. I only did good-faith and accurate modifications. Anyway, I'm done. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
When you are sure, I'll listen, if you want to say. Evensteven (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(Tutelary, @Voyager 1) June 2014

  Hello, I'm Tutelary. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Do not personally attack me, including saying my comments are 'not constructive'. I will not stand for it. Tutelary (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out own comment per WP:REDACT It was done in haste.

Note: Tutelary reverted this edit above, but it has been restored to visibility as I believe it ought, at least for a while. It deserves a response, and I will give one here where it belongs. The source of friction was at Talk:Voyager 1#Manmade vs. Humanmade in the subsection "Consensus?". Her reply here was "done in haste" per her message to me.
@Tutelary: my prior edit on at Talk:Voyager 1 was only placed there because that is where you left your comment. And that was the first source of difficulty, because far from its stated purpose of ceasing to argue a lost point, in fact it continued to stress the argument, and past the point of resolution there. You were making a show of how "cooperative" you were being in recognizing the consensus (and yes, you're right, that is a consensus as far as I can tell, though it might have been better to give it more time). It is my opinion that that was unnecessary. Until then, your silence was conveying acceptance; it was your re-entry that reversed that.
I have never been impolite or disrespectful of you. And I have seen no indications from you that it has been your intent to be disruptive. I am concerned with bringing it to your attention that despite your good intentions, you were disruptive anyway. It is unfortunate that this hurts your feelings, and I grant you the leeway to have been hasty in responding to that. No offense taken here either. But I am asking you to look beyond your intention, and this is not only for your benefit but for the sake of maintaining a good editing environment at WP. I too am fed up with personal attacks and viewpoints being presented as facts and arguments about personal views (about which there is never a possibility of resolution). Those are not discussions. They are timewasters. And they disrupt not only the WP workflow, but the cooperation within the editing community. A part of the cooperation consists in deflecting meaningless interaction. I am not saying "business only", because personal interactions are also a part of building the community. But I am saying that fights are destructive, and require containment, sometimes forcefully.
So, given the circumstances at Voyager, I agree that the time had come for the discussion to be shut down there. I agree with Dustin about that, but as I was interacting with you it was not proper for me to act in that way also. I do not apologize for being either vigorous or forceful about pushing for an end to the bickering there. It is a pity that your feelings were hurt in the process, but it was not I who hurt them. It was your decision to promote the POV again, and it was that action that was hurtful to the operation of WP. Do not expect to be coddled. I have enough respect for you to think you can see the point even when you sting. Is that not part of what WP:IDHT is about? That is why your edit at Voyager, after consensus, was disruptive.
In fact, that is why the whole issue of "man vs. human" is disruptive. I am quite right when I way that "mankind" has (very) long been used inclusively to construe both men and women, and that it still is. The notion that it does not mean what it means is the newcomer, only fifty years since it was widely promoted. In that time, that view has gained some currency, and among its supporters it has a different meaning. But that view is not universal, or else there would be nothing to argue about. Language changes more slowly than that, and particularly when one group tries to force their view upon others who are unwilling. That is why the issue itself is nothing more than two battling viewpoints, a battle of about fifty years now, and one which shows no sign of abating. What's a WP editor to do? First and foremost, recognize the actual state of affairs in the world. This is not an issue that WP:RSes are going to be able to resolve, because they may well be combatants themselves. It is not an issue that WP editors are going to be able to resolve, because (as we have seen) we come from both sides. Now, if there is an article where the issue is part of the subject, then this state of affairs can be neutrally described by outlining and describing opposing views. That's where WP:NPOV kicks in. In the Voyager article, however, the topic is no part of this issue. Sidestepping, such as was done in the consensus, is most effective simply by removing the point of contention where it has no place to begin with. I'm glad the community saw it that way, because it is the only way that a real consensus could be possible. No poll for "man", and none for "human" could possibly withstand future challenges based upon the whole fifty-year bickering issue that started way before WP was founded. That issue is a lost cause for everyone, and it only exists because people want to go on fighting about it. I for one am sick to death of that also. I will not stand still for hearing that fight taken up on WP, because it is poison wherever it goes. This is he first time I've been involved in it, and I'm not intent on seeking it out, but don't expect apologies from me for opposing it.
Now, I do not know if you are promoting that fight on WP, or if you merely wandered without much intention into the battle, the same way you have recently been caught in the line of fire. But if it is the former, I want to ask you to consider what you are doing in the light of what I have said. As I said at Voyager, it is not enough simply to follow rules. Collaboration is more. And you do not have to cede your position to do that. Evensteven (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to respond to this entire wall of text. This really could have been solved by me asking a simple question; why did you call my contributions 'unconstructive'? I also request that you remove the warning, else I'm going to just strike it out. Tutelary (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
That is explained both here and at Talk:Voyager 1#Manmade vs. Humanmade in the subsection "Consensus?": unconstructive, because disruptive. There is no warning. I am not warning you; I am asking. Evensteven (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
A talk page comment is not 'disruptive', unless maybe it was image vandalism with a high res image of a guy with an erection. Even if I was editing out of consensus, WP:CONSENSUS can change. Tutelary (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
There will never be a consensus for "human", just as there will never be a consensus for "man". That has been my point. My opinion of "man" is not correct, it is my opinion. Likewise yours of "human". Failing to recognize that is WP:IDHT. Arguing about it is disruptive. Evensteven (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

(JudeccaXIII, @Talk:Book_of_Isaiah) August 2014

  Hello, I'm JudeccaXIII. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Very important indeed. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the source of your frustration. You refused a response on your own talk page when I inquired there earlier today. Evensteven (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
It's best if you let it go as I have, so please quit harassing me. I don't have to answer you if I don't want to, but I can have you reported for continuing aggressive behavior towards me as you are being uncivil. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
You deleted my single inquiry on your talk page and I left it alone thereafter and will not return there. Yet now, later, you have initiated another contact on my talk page. For the time being, I am willing to talk here, and leave that option open to you. I am interested in repairing existing misunderstandings and in avoiding future ones, and welcome any interest you may have in that direction. Evensteven (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I reverted my own edit in my talk page. This edit I pointed out as sarcastic, which was a reply to my opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Isaiah&diff=621454277&oldid=621437154 Particularly this: "As a Christian, I support BCE/CE for practical reasons, so as not to offend, though I would say the same if BC/AD were practical. Neither do I find either offensive. But I think there are others who disagree. Of the offended, however, I expect that relatively few Christians or Jews are among their number, and that the issue is inflated from the outside, and again by relatively few. It has nevertheless become commonplace to accept the idea that use of BCE/CE is for the sake of respecting Jews.", then the tone changes in the reply. Obviously, you were referring to my opinion sarcastically, and most likely you noticed it because it was similar to my opinion. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I did not know that that was your opinion ("for the sake of respecting Jews", yes?); you had not indicated that, though other editors had. It was to them that I was responding, principally. I did express my opinion as being an opinion, and why I believed differently, but there was no intention of sarcasm. I did go on to wish well to those of contrary opinions, and am still sincere in that, and most particularly towards you. You know now that I don't agree with you on this point, but surely there is no reason for us to be disagreeable towards each other because of it. Hearing and considering other outlooks are very much a part of such discussions here. Also, respect and agreement are not at all the same thing. I hope that a re-reading of the discussion will reveal to you the possibility of a different intention, like the one I wished to express, kindly in tone, sincere, forthright, but respectful of contrary views, and relieved at the ending of discussion without a battle. Most of all, I intended no fighting, about any point, and I am entirely sincere in saying that I saw none on your part or anyone else's there, which is why your perception of sarcasm struck me as such a surprise after it appeared everything about BCE/CE was resolved. I hope now that we may proceed with goodwill. This medium of communication makes understanding others' feelings and intents very difficult, and I am sorry that yours were bruised. Evensteven (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Ezra–Nehemiah -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to apologize as I overreacted on something so little. Perhaps now or in the near future we could fully understand each other as editors. -- Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I heartily accept, and will certainly welcome the chance to find more of our common ground and share our views, aligned or not. Understanding is always a win for everyone. Evensteven (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Normal Community Communications 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eastern Orthodox Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atonement (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) 08:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: this one was necessary, as there are several Christian contexts for the word, leading to separate articles. Let the reader choose the one (or more) that it occurs to him/her to follow up. Evensteven (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Normal Editor Communications 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago48 comments15 people in discussion

(Johnbod, Feb) Purgatory

This is possibly the right edit, but made for completely the wrong reasons. Nothing is more POV, un-historical or generally reprehensible than to try and make historical figures conform to some bland homgenized concept of Christianity. Really you should know better. If non-Catholics like to look to Gregory they must take him as he actually was. However (see History of Purgatory, it is likely that Gregory, although one of those who helped the concept along, did not think of "purgatory" as a place in the after-life in the late medieval way. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I happen to agree with you about trying to "make historical figures conform to some bland homogenized concept of Christianity", and also that Gregory did not think of Purgatory in the late medieval way. But you're simply mistaken that Orthodoxy's view of life after death is either bland or homogenized. Gregory was the last of the popes to be fully Orthodox in his life and work, so much so that he actually admonished the Patriarch of Constantinople about his writings, and rightly so in the Orthodox view. That is how he actually was, and the events are there even in the western histories. I'm surprised you haven't put that together yet. Evensteven (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It was your edit summary: " purgatory is an RC doctrine alone; NPOV replacement language attempts to express the beliefs held in common" that raised a red flag; that is completely the wrong way to approach things, and the reverse of NPOV. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that's more understandable. Yet, the existence of purgatory is an RC opinion, a point of view. The Orthodox opinion is also a POV. NPOV is not the wrong way to approach things. There is no reverse of NPOV here. Perhaps you have thought that the edit expressed the Orthodox view? Not exactly. There is enough common ground between Catholic and Orthodox to drive a truck through, and that is where I placed the language. Evensteven (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
An extra thought too. The doctrine of purgatory seems to be acceptable to some Protestants too, although I was once Anglo-Catholic and didn't believe in it. I attempted to make the wording neutral for them too. For those Protestants who do not believe that prayers for the dead are of any avail, I can only say that Gregory did what he did, for reasons both Catholic and Orthodox find acceptable, and if they don't agree with what he did, that's fine, but not a reason to omit what he did and why. The wording must also reflect Gregory as he was. Evensteven (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

(ColonelHenry, Feb) ἀπόστολος

I started off this year with a few goals...i.e. articles I'd like to get up to GA and FA status--and 14 of those articles are Christ's apostles which are in a wide range of disarray and need a good clean-up. I aim to work on one per month over the next year or so getting them up to GA status initially (and maybe FA afterwards). I recently started by sandboxing St Andrew protocletos (the start of it at [2]) and I'd like to include some of the varied traditions (western, orthodox, protestant)...since you have a better grasp of the orthodox perspective and are rather level-headed, I'd like to work with you if you were interested. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, ColonelHenry. This area is not my strength, and I have (at the moment) few materials at hand that bear on the topic, but I am interested and would be glad to contribute as I am able. Please understand that I must work slowly (personal reasons), am sometimes unavoidably away from the Internet, and that this is a first-time activity for me on WP. But I like the goal too, and hope I can help move it along. Evensteven (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be glad to have your insight as I work the article into shape. I admit it's an area I thought I was stronger on, but the more I look back at the academic sources, I have come to realise a little more research than I expected for the project. If you're able to add a little research along the way it would be a great way for both of us to grow into a stronger position in theological articles, etc. I anticipate I'd learn more about the orthodox view from your unique perspective and insight than I would as an outsider. I completely understand working slowly...I'm in the same boat for different reasons...I have about five articles that are taking a while to develop and write because of real life stuff that have been a bit higher priority for me at present, and the apostles improvement idea is running parallel to other poetry articles, and the 20 presidents of Rutgers that I'd like to get to GA status. I think one apostle ever 4-6 weeks would be somewhat manageable, although 8 weeks is looking more likely.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I too anticipate some real stretching (learning), so a more extended time frame looks even better to me (not that I want anything to impede progress). And frankly, the more I can learn about digging up sources, the better I'll like it. Until now, I've depended most on what I have at hand, but this will require more. Seems to me like the most critical skill I need to develop further if I hope to continue having anything to contribute. Evensteven (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(109.175.220.97, Mar/Apr) Macedonia naming dispute

Hi Evensteven, sorry to bother you. I'm just curious as to why you undid the edits I previously made. Here is the link to the United Nations webite listing all the member-states: http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml As you can see, the country is listed under the letter "T", as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.220.97 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I was wrong in my impression that there might be some ethnic ax being ground here, but as far as I know, the official name of the nation is "Republic of Macedonia". After the breakup of the Soviet Union, it was admitted to the UN under the name you give as a result of a dispute with Greece over its chosen name, but that does not mean that's the name by which it goes commonly. By the way, what's your point about the "Slavic Macedonian" ethnic reference in your third edit? I have reverted your edit again. Discussion needs to move to the article talk page to resolve any dispute, but the article will need to remain in its original state until the matter is settled clearly, per usual WP practice regarding consensus. Evensteven (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The guidelines for Macedonia-related names are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you found my comments offensive. First of all I was unaware there had already been a ruling on the issue. Secondly I did not mean it in any bad way, it's just that it is a complicated issue. Since Macedonia is primarily a geographic region which is divided between the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria, there are as such Slav Macedonians, Greek Macedonians, and Bulgarian Macedonians. The term "Slav Macedonians" I found it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonians_%28ethnic_group%29 and the 3 main ethnic groups in the region of Macedonia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonians I just meant to clear things up so as to avoid confusion.

P.S. I hope I replied at the right place, I'm still new to editing and talking on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.220.100 (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It's ok by me; I took no offense. It's only that your edits seemed to fit a pattern that some abusers of Wikipedia take, with enough frequency that the work here requires some protection. I felt that the edits needed solid justification if they were to stand, and I was simply making it clear that they would need backing up in discussion (which generally takes place on the article's talk page - one opens and titles a new section there, with comment, to start discussion rolling). If I was rough on you, I'm sorry. In my ten months on Wikipedia, I've seen abusive patterns of editing many times, but you're the single exception who has ever responded to reversions with plausible reasons, which is itself a proof against abuse. So, welcome to Wikipedia.
One thing for you to consider might be getting an account, for which you can choose a handle (moniker). Such named accounts are recognized as less likely to create editing problems. Hence, edits from IP addresses, such as yours, are sometimes viewed (justifiably or not) with less weight; they come from an unfamiliar source. Over time, an editor usually becomes familiar to others by means of his/her moniker, and it becomes easier to know how to handle situations. Besides, you are apparently one person in this conversation, but have already used at least two IP addresses, so your edit history, talk page material, and anything else already begin to become scattered.
Finally, I have little real knowledge about ethnicity in the region of Macedonia beyond the fact that it is mixed and that there are sometimes conflicts or disagreements there. Before finding out about this arbitration committee decision, I was expecting to call attention to your edits and ask others who knew something concrete to take a look. I was suspicious because I had never heard of "the former Yugoslav Republic" of anything, and even if real, it seemed to grind at some point of contention. Why would a nation ever choose freely to assume such a name? And indeed, I now see that it was forced politically. I'm sure the whole situation does get complex, but I have no personal interest in that issue. My interest lay (and lies) in keeping such political or religious slants from speaking authoritatively on Wikipedia, under the policy guideline of neutral point of view. And a few people around here may recognize me as capable of being rather adamant about that. So, please understand that my interest was in protecting the article from expressing inappropriate viewpoints (or expressing them inappropriately).
I'm confident that you'll soon be able to navigate all these waters. It all boils down to reasonable discussion, really, and you're off and running there. Good luck in your future editing. Cheers, Evensteven (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. I think it would be best if I set up an account like you suggested, I did some research and it does seem very handy to have one.
I also did some research on how the Macedonian issue has been handled on Wikipedia and noticed that there has been quite a long history of edit-warring. It's a good thing that some guidelines are now in place, I believe it makes it easier for editors to navigate around such sensitive topics.
Lastly, I'm kind of glad that I got myself into this misunderstanding, because it helped me become aware of how Wikipedia works behind the scenes. Until recently I had never contributed personally, I had only read articles, and I had no idea about the mechanisms in place like rulings, arbitration committees, etc. So it turned out to be a useful experience in the end.
See you around! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.220.68 (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Glad I could help! I walked into it blind, also (not the first time I've done that here) - it can happen to anyone. And I've found that selecting a time and place to walk into a problem area can also be very educational, with a little advance preparation. Short of arbitration, there are also requests for comment (RFCs) that seek more editors to contribute ideas in a dispute, and formal mediations run by neutral, experienced editors to assist in discussion procedure and temperature. There seem to be few difficulties that haven't been faced here by someone, sometime, so there are tools to address them.
One more tip. It's the general rule on talk or discussion pages to leave four tildes (~) after the end of your edit. Those characters are automatically expanded by Wikipedia software to produce your signature (user name) and time stamp, identifying the editor. Let me know who you turn out to be. ;) Evensteven (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Will do, once I create my account! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.220.58 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

(Elizium23) Discretionary sanctions

Please note that topics related to the Balkans were the subject of an ARBCOM ruling and are currently subject to discretionary sanctions. In other words, the articles may be subject to WP:1RR and blocks or bans may be handed out for misbehavior. Elizium23 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I was completely unaware of this. Are we as editors responsible for finding out about such rulings, and is some way provided for us to do so? Evensteven (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes the talk pages will have a warning header such as at Talk:Macedonia, but since it is for all related topics and the Eastern Orthodox Church page is not directly related, not in this case. Sometimes you won't know until an editor in-the-know mentions it. You can always do a search for WP:ARBCOM rulings. As a rule of thumb, if it's an incredibly controversial topic, it may have gone to ArbCom at some point in the past. Elizium23 (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again. I just walked into this one unawares; the edits sounded fishy. I didn't even know there was a big controversy. It just sounded like someone had some kind of ethnic peeve going, a Slavic or anti-Slavic sentiment perhaps. I just don't like the articles to have slants. Thanks for the pointers, but I think I would have been blind-sided by this one in any case. I'm still not sure where the root of it is, but I'm just not interested enough to look at it more myself. I was even planning on inviting others to comment if they had a mind to do so, and leaving it at that. Evensteven (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(J. Johnson, May) Citation is a quagmire

Hi. I read very little of Template talk:Citation#Need for documentation (too long, too tedious, too painful), but your idea of "a rational approach to overhauling citations/references" caught my attention. My immediate response is akin to an airplane's "whoop whoop pull up! pull up!" alarm. You seem fairly new here, so you likely haven't quite caught on to what a gigantic quagmire "citation", and discussion of "citation", is here. Take warning: approach cautiously!

Like most editors, I initially struggled to figure out how to use citations. Unlike most editors, I subsequently tried to analyze why it is so difficult. My conclusion (in part) attributes the difficulties to unclear and inconsistent conception of just what we are talking about. But when I tried to remedy that I found a deeper problem: many editors have latched on to particular terms, concepts, practices, and desired results, and not only will not let go, they are often very sensitive to any perceived threats to their conceptions.

So while I fully agree that the documentation is problematic, the fundamental problem is deeper, and warrants fuller consideration. Send me an e-mail if you'd like to discuss this further. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

J. Johnson, no need for much discussion. I'm new enough to be trying to understand citations really thoroughly for the first time, but not so new I haven't now got wind of deeper problems. I'd still rather be bold than cautious, but I feel no shame in backing down if I encounter sincere opposition. My idea was/is to help, but without an agenda, so no one need feel threatened - I'm not pushing anything. In the discussion about documentation, I couldn't teach the other editors enough that they could see where I was going, which is not only ok but understandable, as it was course 101 in a foreign study for them. And as I've poked around at other usage patterns and approaches, I recognize the complete lack of a central unifying vision. That's ok too, as WP tends to work that way, and since one size rarely fits all no matter how well it is planned. So I see the multiple visions or perspectives as a reality I am content to live with. Moreover, I see them as an inhibiting factor in producing really relevant documentation. Explaining all those perspectives just gets too heavy - a burden in initial creation and in maintenance. I'm considering writing an essay for my user page that will describe what I know and choose, for any that want a look. It will at least cement my own understanding and memory to do that. And if anyone then wants to lift some of it for their own purposes, they are welcome to it. Someday ... Evensteven (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I reckon bad citation to be a major blot on WP's escutcheon. The problem is not different perspectives, but that they're often mushed together. So when you try to discuss something people keep coming up with different notions of what is being discussed. And if you try to specify what it is all kinds of arguments breakout on what it should be. ("Nailing jellyfish to a tree" seems apropos. Cruise the archives and you'll see plenty of examples.)
Ask if you'd like some ideas on how to look at the topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I yield to your greater knowledge. My focus is just on using citations to the best of my ability, not on solving the WP problems with it. I did try to address what I intended to be a small matter, and got further in than intended, but quite see your points. It's not so much discouragement over a quagmire, but it's just not my expertise or special interest. Evensteven (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(Marcocapelle, Jun) Andrew the Apostle

Dear Evensteven, I noticed your revert on Andrew the Apostle on May 24th. The issue is that Andrew the Apostle already has his own child category under 12 Apostles: Category:Andrew the Apostle, so the article shouldn't be directly placed in 12 Apostles anymore. Similarly for New Testament people. Hope this is clear. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Marcocapelle. I had noticed that at the time. Now, I'll admit I'm no WP expert on categorization, but I don't see a reason why the article cannot belong to both categories. Apparently, the "Andrew" subcategory appears to be useful to some, so I wouldn't quibble with its existence, nor its position as a subcategory of "Twelve Apostles", nor with the "Andrew" article being in it also. Yet to have a "Twelve Apostles" category at all that doesn't contain all of the twelve articles seems most obtuse. That would violate the most intuitive, common-sense meaning for the category "Twelve Apostles" in so great a degree that the result must surely be confusion only. To my mind, this is similar to WP:COMMONNAME, the principles of article naming that seek to provide the most natural path to information. I don't deny the complexities of organization inherent in categorization, nor the desire to see proliferation of pathways kept in check. But WP recognizes the need for article disambiguation and redirection to help with the issues involved, and categorization requires its own kind of helps as well. The main problem is that a tree structure is insufficient by itself to organize articles. Mathematicians or computer scientists would call the necessary structure a "graph", where paths among the "nodes" (categories) are permitted to contain loops. Now, it is possible, through replication of structure, to avoid literal looping, and this is what I see in some of the categorization on WP. When replicated structures are small in size, this approach does not overwhelm the intent. The thing that must be kept in mind is that "nodes" are categories only, not articles. A great deal of the flexibility that WP requires can be achieved also by permitting any given article to reside in more than one category, which indeed is clearly present. What is not reasonable is the institution of a categorization rule that absolutely denies an article the ability to be in both one category and one of its subcategories. I can understand how this rule may be desirable in many cases, but my objection is to its being absolute. The remedy is to create a policy that outlines the desirability of avoidance most of the time, but permissive when it is necessary for [insert list of reasons]. One of those reasons is to maintain the natural information path: the common name principle. And that is why the Andrew article needs to be both in the "Twelve Apostles" category, and its "Andrew" subcategory. Hope that is also clear. Evensteven (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Dear Evensteven, thanks for your answer. As far as I understand it, the appearance of a child category is not in any way inferior to the appearance of an article, so the appearance of an article and a child category of the same name is seen as unnecessary duplication. By the way, if you're willing to discuss the rules, that's of course perfectly fine with me, yet that has to happen at a different place than here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. That was just my full reasoning for the reversion. Not sure what you mean "inferior" wrt category or article names, but I do agree that cross-duplication would tend to confuse also, and does so in this case. And I don't know how much I might have to offer wrt the rules, except my observation of the importance of naturalness. But now that I've made this point, I am mostly content to defer to those who are more focused on categorizing. If a discussion has arisen somewhere over the Andrew situation, I'd be glad to know where it is and see if I might have something to contribute for consideration. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer! Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

(Marcocapelle, Jul) Judeo-Christian topics

Dear Evensteven, I reacted on the talk page of Category:Judeo-Christian topics. Please let me know how you think we can best proceed here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile I've thought about it myself as well. My suggestion would be as follows:
  1. Let me create a new category Jewish-Christian controversies. This proposed category should be a child category of Category:Judaism-related controversies, Category:Christianity-related controversies and Category:Christianity and Judaism. This proposed category already has a bunch of 'natural child categories' that are currently child categories of any (and often multiple) of these three categories and then will become grandchildren of all three categories while this new category is being created. Besides we can put a substantial number of single articles in this new category that I put in 'polemics' so far.
  2. Let me just go on slowly manually emptying the category Judeo-Christian topics if a new CfD is not permitted yet.
Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(In ictu oculi, Jul) Categories

Yes thanks, I saw that - sorry, I only cc-ed you as you were talking categories to Marco on his Talk page. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. I just didn't want there to be any chance of misunderstanding. Evensteven (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(Vanamonde93, Jul) Guatemala

Thanks friend, just goes to show you can never read a diff too carefully. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure, friend. When I find out about them, I am always surprised by the things that have slipped by my skidding eyes even after two or three checks. Evensteven (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(John Carter, Sep) Jesus articles

A request. I've been working on developing lists of topics in reference sources, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Encyclopedic articles, for some time now, and still have many more to do. Unfortunately, there hasn't been time to go through them to see that the links included and not yet included are accurate or made yet. It can often take a day or two per work listed. Would you have any interest in doing so? It might be particularly useful for purposes of content structure and developing or creating articles on topics listed there. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, John. At the moment I'm a bit swamped, and before long I am heading out of the Internet zone for a couple of weeks, so I won't have much to offer soon. I'll have to see what my situation is when I get back in early October. Evensteven (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(DMacks, Sep) Judas Iscariot

Thanks for double-checking and re-fixing! My change was part of a full undoing of a long-term vandal (not allowed to edit at all), so I did not look closely at the details. DMacks (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. I take particular pleasure in overturning vandals, too, but I also have clicked the button mistakenly (rarely) and then appreciate being reversed. Cheers. Evensteven (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(LoveMonkey, Oct) Since you brought it up

Since you offered to help. The article on Vladimir Solovyov (philosopher) is inaccurate and this kind of thing is something that points out as the bias here at Wikipedia. Solovyov never converted to Roman Catholicism he is buried in a Russian Orthodox monastery (Danilov Monastery) [3] and was buried as an Orthodox Christian with Orthodox Rites [4], [5], but there are editors on here posting that Solovyov converted and using foreign language sources that are not allow by WP:VS and also using hearsay and non peer reviewed sources even though again I pointed out that Solovyev never converted that claim it is completely baseless and the edit warring over it is ridiculous and shows that policy is not being followed here at Wikipedia. LoveMonkey 17:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please understand first that I do not doubt what you say, and also that I know nothing about philosophy or philosophers, so I bring no personal training or knowledge to the primary content of the issue. So, let's assume Solovyov was buried as an Orthodox Christian with Orthodox Rites (the primary point), at Danilov (a significant but secondary point). Now let's examine what the sources you give say in support of that assumption. Unless I miss something, the Danilov Monastery website is all about arranging accomodations for visits/pilgrimages - no supporting facts there. The two books each contain the same quote (actually the same essay, "A Brief Tale About the Antichrist"), written by Solovyov himself: "... the end of his tale is buried along with him in the Danilov monastery". I know the Russian source (1900) identifies the quote from "Mr Z." as representing Solovyov's views, and that Solovyov employs the pseudonym for himself "Father Pansophius" within the essay. That is the "he" who is described as buried at Danilov. So in essence, we have an author attesting to his own burial. I'm afraid that is not going to stand the test of WP:RS, so these sources are not going to be adequate to support the assumption, and others will have to be found.
On the bright side, you are mistaken if you think WP:RS does not permit foreign-language sources. On the contrary, it says nothing about languages. Sometimes materials in foreign languages are all that exist, but that does not make them irrelevant to English WP. Also, there are many foreign-language sources used as RS in a variety of other WP articles (not just Christianity or Philosophy), without any difficulty: it is well-accepted practice when it proves necessary. English-language sources (or translations) are preferred, of course, for easier verification, but relevant passages can be translated in a footnote (as an aid) and it is possible and appropriate for editors who can to provide and/or verify the translation. If disputed, the dispute can be about whether or not the source is reliable, or about whether or not the translation is accurate, but not about the source's original language. If you know of someone else on WP, generally of a neutral opinion in the topic at hand, who also understands Russian, that person can provide a most useful independent voice as regards the dependability of a translation. (I don't know the Russian language myself.) So, do you know a reliable Russian biography of Solovyov that states he was Orthodox, and was buried with Orthodox rites, at Danilov? If so, there's a source you want.
Finally, reliable sources are allowed to be biased (see WP:RS). It is WP that is neutral (see WP:NPOV). So WP does not directly repeat the bias of a biased source, but states the bias neutrally, as "according to", or using some other form of indirection that indicates the bias exists, but that WP is taking no stand one way or the other. WP is descriptive of what is, and it gives a true description. But it does not state truths or principles directly, unless there is no objection from any point of view. "Earth's sky, when clear, is generally blue" would probably pass, but "the earth is a sphere" would not (because a few notable people claim it is flat). So, it is not surprising that if there were any contentions about Solovyov and his relations with Roman Catholicism, there would probably be some people in the world who will try to make claims about that. If someone has provided a source for a late-life conversion to Catholicism (the old German one in the article?), then the question is, is that source a WP:RS? You can argue that point on the talk page (I'm sure you'd have to), but no one can guarantee you will win your point. If the community upholds its reliability, then it stays for the time being. Is that source biased? WP must not state the bias as though to say that viewpoint is true, but from a RS, the bias may be described neutrally in the article, and attested as "according to" that source. (The viewpoint/bias must be notable: WP:NOTE, not WP:FRINGE.) But your own reliable source, which contradicts this bias with its own view, can also be included on the same basis. WP thus ends up describing the fact that there are competing claims, and that makes for a full and balanced report of how things are in the world. It does not decide which story is true, but it does show what stories there are, and where they come from. That gives the WP reader access to the material needed to decide the matter himself, which is the best an encyclopedia can do. Clearly, we look for truth (Truth) in higher places.
I hope this does not sound like a lecture or guide to a newbie. But I am aware of a few of the editing difficulties you have had, and of the frustrations you have encountered (as I have), and I can see that a combination of struggles could have had adverse effects. The article you wrote is in excellent English, but I see you struggle to express thoughts in English on the talk pages, so perhaps you struggle to see the subtleties of the WP policies as well. It could easily be that these are made more difficult by cultural factors as well. I'm quite sure that the average Russian must express himself most naturally in a manner that can be very different from that of the average American. Having no experience with this myself, I still have personal reasons for thinking these differences to be less than daunting. When the opportunity arises, I'd very much like to try to see things in a more Russian way, and to help you to see them in a more American way (all politics aside). Evensteven (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

(Elizium23, Dec) Ruthenian Catholic Church

I thought you might be interested in reviewing the latest edits at Ruthenian Catholic Church, which involve its history in the United States, Alexis Toth, and the schisms that followed. Elizium23 (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's rather out of my knowledge area, but it could be interesting. I'll look at it. Evensteven (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the Ruthenian Catholic Church edits of the last 6 days and read the Alexis Toth article. (I had heard of his name, but the history is all new to me.) I'm afraid I just don't know enough to judge the accuracy of content changes. It does look to me like the editing comes from a different perspective than the prior text, but I'm not seeing what might be termed a real viewpoint dissonance. Perhaps you could say if it looks that way from a Catholic perspective? I can see the potential for disputation about events that involved large-scale conversions, and just can't determine if the language shifts hit any sensitive spots. Not to my eyes, at any rate.
Just from an editing standpoint, I wish there had been more sources in the article to begin with, and that some had been added with this editing. It seems to me that the biggest flaw of the whole touched sections is a lack of references. The editing seems to be done in good faith by someone who has some knowledge. But I am also uncomfortable that they have appeared from 5 different (but nearby?) IP addresses whose only contributions are to this article. If you are uncomfortable with the nature of the edits, I would say they could be challenged as unsourced, and reverted on that basis. But I also think that the prior text might be flagged for lacking sources as well. I'm afraid I can't judge very well which options might be better. If you don't want to revert, maybe the general flag and a call for sources would be a good move. I can't seem to come up with more off the top. I've spent much more effort at learning the faith and its spirituality and doctrine than its recent history. Hope this helps. Evensteven (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


(Chiswick Chap, Dec) 20th Century

Hi, and Happy Christmas. I think you're basically right (if possibly a wee bit drastic) in removing the unsourced claims - they were at best essay-ish, at worst simple opinion. I'm not convinced of the value of tag-at-the-top + tags-in-the-text, I broadly feel that the top one says it all - if there's anything there that desperately urgently needs a source to be allowed to stay, one should go and find one or else remove the claim, perhaps to the talk page if it seems a worthwhile point. But the article has become a dreadful cruftfest (is that a word?) and requires some kind of rewrite. Of course, sources, and text instead of lists, would be nice. The last thing we want is to leave tags there for another 5 years. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I concur basically. Tagfests (is that a word?) are a bane in articles, and it was way past time to address these, so I definitely agreed with their removal. At the same time, I do think they mostly pointed to some of that cruftfest :) you noted, and thought that editorial conclusions really ought to be called into question, as the original tags seemed to be doing. Since they were all so old, and no one had provided any sources, it seemed reasonable just to delete the commentary as well as the tags. If anyone cares enough, they can always find a source. I'm sure many of those opinions exist among reliable sources; they weren't blatant fabrications, just conclusions or opinions that not all share. But as such, I think statements like that are particularly needful of source backing, or else editors seem to get the feeling they can just put their own opinions in an article. The result, where it doesn't generate editor antagonisms, is a sloppy article, inclined to become a cruftfest. I agree about the need to rewrite, but I also just wanted to retain the sense that we need more sources here, a lot more sources. And if we want to rewrite without the removal of a lot more material, even basically true statements, then sources are a key. Thanks for nudging for improvement in the right direction. Cheers and good wishes (by choice, the only seasonal greeting I give is Merry Christmas, so if you like that, then may it be to you also). Evensteven (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to you too. Though I'd be happy to wish pagans a merry solstice if they prefer, or Good Yule to Scandinavians! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Goodness, I must be getting addled! Now I see again your "Happy Christmas" at the start of your message, whereas I was just looking at "all the best" when I brought it all up. Of course, I'm always glad to wish all others well, any time. It's just that I wouldn't join in a pagan solstice celebration, and it would seem disingenuous for me to make any comment on that where it was not sought, and contrary to the greeting's intent. So I just remain silent with regards other greetings. Of course, Good Yule is basically Merry Christmas, so I wouldn't have any difficulty saying that. The Greeks say (literally translated) "Good Nativity", and personally, I like that best. So here's to gentle intent: skål! Evensteven (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Well-wishing

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Seasonal Greets!

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Evensteven, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Seasonal Greets!

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Evensteven, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
Elizium23 (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Interview for The Signpost

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Christianity

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Christianity for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (rap) @ 20:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Request interview participation

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd love to see you maybe provide some comments at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews for the WikiProject Christianity interview. One thing I would particularly like someone other than me to maybe add would be something to the effect of maybe having the project try to develop a library of good relevant sources, possibly on commons and/or wikisource, which might include reference works, classics of the field, foundational and/or pivotal texts of some of the traditions, the better historical texts on the individual traditions, that sort of thing. Because I've been beating that drum kind of enough that people might get tired of hearing it from me. Anything else you might see as being relevant or useful for the interview would obviously be just as welcome, if not more so. If someone does mention it, I am going to try to start something at WT:X asking for specific texts to be included, and, maybe, worked on by editors. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sabbatarianism page moves

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This is a procedure for accomplishing the tasks involved in implementing the article move proposed here. There are three principal elements involved, to be handled in this order:

  1. Move disambiguation page Sabbatarian to Sabbatarianism (disambiguation) (preserving that page and its history)
  2. Move existing redirect page Sabbatarianism to Sabbatarian (preserving that page and its history), which requires removal of newly generated redirect page
  3. Move the article at Non-Sabbatarianism to Sabbatarianism, which requires removal of another newly generated redirect page

For the removals of the newly generated redirects, I need administrator assistance. Given the intertwining of redirects and targets and the need to keep WP targeting intact, I think it is advisable to have rapid response in those page deletions, rather than waiting around for the more standard methods. Fortunately, my procedure below compresses the two points requiring administrative action together into a time frame that can be accomplished in a few minutes, or even seconds, if we're coordinated enough. Or, the administrator can do one simple page move I could otherwise do for myself in between the two deletions, and cover all necessary help in one quick task set. Here's how that set would look:

  1. Delete a redirect page at Sabbatarian, generated by my accomplishment of item #1 above.
  2. Move the existing redirect page Sabbatarianism to Sabbatarian, preserving its history.
  3. Delete the new redirect page at Sabbatarianism generated by the move in #2, paving the way for me to complete the rest of the procedure.

Related Pages

  • Redirects to Sabbatarian, which will require edits to remove double redirects:
  • Redirects to Non-Sabbatarianism, which will require edits to remove double redirects:

Process

  • 0. Look around and make corrections to pages that link to current pages, but may do so improperly. Edit for better linking.
  • 1. Open the current listing of pages that link to Sabbatarian in a new tab. Look them over, especially the ones in the next item.
  • 2. Find the right criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and edit deletion requests into unused redirects "Sabbatarians (disambiguation)", "Sabbatarianism Sabbatarians", and "Sabbatarians, Sabbatarianism".
  • 3. Re-open the current listing of pages that link to Sabbatarian in a new tab. Look them over, especially changes.
  • 4. Move Sabbatarian to "Sabbatarianism (disambiguation)"
  • Leaves new redirect page at "Sabbatarian". Makes current redirect page "Sabbatarianism" and seven others double redirects.
  • use {{Db-g6|rationale=new artifact of page move impeding article and namespace revisions now underway: make room for an older existing redirect whose history needs preserving}}
  • 5. Notify admin help to proceed by doing these subtasks:
  • A. Delete the new redirect at "Sabbatarian" I created in step 4.
  • B. Move the older redirect at Sabbatarianism to "Sabbatarian".
  • C. Delete the new redirect at "Sabbatarianism" created in step 5B.
  • A. Look for redirects to Non-Sabbatarianism, which would now be double redirects. Correct them.
  • B. Look for other things that link to Non-Sabbatarianism and check to see if a link to a new target is in order.
  • 7. Look for things that link to Sabbatarian and check to see if a link to a new target is in order.
  • 8. Look for things that link to Sabbatarianism and check to see if a link to a new target is in order.

Talk with the assisting administrator

  • As of completion of process creation, I have also completed task 0. I will proceed to steps 1-4 while I await reply for help. Step 5 would be the help I need. Evensteven (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The process was interrupted at step 4D by the interventions of another admin, who made changes I hadn't planned on, and interfered with checking I planned to do. Those changes look like they'll be fine in the long run, although the current state of articles is not quite up to the task yet, so I'll just need to find further implications as I go on editing. This process is abandoned. Evensteven (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I will defer to your expertise on the topic, but the lede should at least briefly explain the meaning of Sabbatarianism before discussing Non-Sabbatarianism. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you were trying to do. I am currently working on the edit, but was not prepared to do it so quickly. Evensteven (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Happy editing! bd2412 T 23:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Evensteven/Archive_1&oldid=1142993901"