Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
|
|
I edited to delete a "that", and was reverted. It appears that the phrasing is ambiguous, as both I and the reverter interpreted the original text differently. What should it actually say?
The original text was: "but Justin Martyr accepted that much of Greek philosophy which he felt was not in conflict with the gospels"
with my edit it read: "but Justin Martyr accepted much of Greek philosophy which he felt was not in conflict with the gospels"
The ambiguity is in "that" in English: is the meaning of the above "but Justin Martyr accepted that < much of Greek philosophy which he felt was not in conflict with the gospels >" (i.e. he accepted an opinion about Greek philosophy), vs "but Justin Martyr accepted that much <of Greek philosophy which he felt was not in conflict with the gospels> i.e. he accepted a portion of Greek philosophy itself.
The sentence should be rewritten to make clear meaning which is intended. I don't know enough about Justin Martyr to say which is correct.
![]() | On 6 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vanada, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Madonna influenced Michael Torke's composition of Vanada, a work initially dismissed as "dangerously close to the corruption that's happening to all American music"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vanada. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 17:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
If it is a chord, specifically a public domain chord, it is not copyrighted, but if Torke created those chords he has the copyrights. If the score doesn't contain this chord, you are the copyholder then. I'll revert myself. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I can definitely say the revert was due to me being a complete idiot. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I wonder if you can have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/ID_RfC_draft. Please feel free to add material or comments (within reason). If necessary we can activate the talkpage as well. I am not intending to rush this. I also had a question to you which has been asked on my talkpage: do you think "intelligent design" is ever a term used to refer to any person, movement or position contemporary with the intelligent design movement, but not in it? I see it as a side issue, not decisive to the logic of the situation, but it is one people will keep asking about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for those sources. I would be good to get more advice about whether you think the approach has any merit, and how to use the sources. There are obvious reasons for me to think it might be a waste of time. After looking around at examples myself I see it is rather complex, but I also see no escape from that given the situation on the talkpage where the two arguments which constantly reappear are that everything has been argued before already and there is no point discussing it unless there is an RfC first. I can see that a simplistic RfC will achieve exactly what has happened in the past: nothing. The problem will then be how to apply the decisions, just as we currently have general agreement to following policies and reliable sources, but a strong feeling by some editors that the "local consensus" are not doing so. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Atethnekos. I am a regular COI contributor that has been rolling out quite a few GAs in a marketing capacity. I contribute about 50/50 COI and volunteer. I came across your COI proposal on User:Smallbones Talk page. There is something that concerns me regarding the phrasing of any "professional connection" and I wanted to share a couple examples:
I wrote the article on the Public Relations Society of America (now GA) and had to deal with some harassment on that page from a now-banned user that was claiming I had a COI, even though I have no affiliation with the organization whatsoever (not even a member). However, almost every PR pro in the US has some kind of "professional relationship" with the PRSA. The proposal as stated seems like it would have actually legitimized that user's harassment and prevented me from contributing to the article.
The same could be said for a large number of other articles. I cleaned up some promotion and made other quick improvements to Sparkpr. I think I know someone that works there, but I can't even say for sure without checking my LinkedIn. Does that give me a "professional connection"? I wrote the article on Shift Communications where I have a professional connection with the CEO, but I consider the COI to be very minor in that a conspiracy-theorist could allege that I'm handing out professional favors, but not something that should prevent me from writing the article. I use to work for Edelman (firm) about ten years ago - should I not be allowed to edit it?
Where I have a legitimate and significant COI, such as editing on behalf of the article-subject, I expect and encourage the right amount of defensiveness, speculation, etc. It should be uncomfortable for everyone. But spreading that to everywhere I have a professional connection would just legitimize the harassment and bad-faith I get in my volunteer editing as a result of my COI disclosure.
Thanks for hearing me out and sorry for the wall of text. CorporateM (Talk) 14:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Atethnekos, I think for now we should retain the prohibition on family, significant others, and roommates in your COI proposal. I looked at the objectors arguments, and I don't think that they want any policy on conflict of interest or paid editing. If people who support restrictions on paid editing believe that the family/significant other/roommate rule is too strict or too vague, then we'll remove it.
I opposed Dank's suggestion that we close discussion. The other paid editing proposals received the customary 30-day discussion period, and so should this one. Also, think about enforcement. I think that we could get many more supporters if we have a way to enforce this policy. I was thinking something along the lines of how sockpuppet investigations are conducted. DavidinNJ (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Atethnekos, sorry to have dragged you into the Sheldrake basket-case. :-) There are many similarities, to my mind at least, between your position on what 'counts' as a reliable bible-related-source, and the position of Barney/Vzaak/Ken/TRPoD over on the BLP talkpage about what 'counts' as a reliable sheldrake-is-a-biologist-source.
you say, *virtually* all of the reliable sources ... an explanation of why that is *such* a dangerous stance to take |
---|
Here is the key exchange between Paul_B and yourself:
You are using 'virtually all of the reliable sources' in the colloquial sense of reliable==truthful==factual. Your goal, stated or unstated, is to delete the Reliable Sources that the really-reliable-sources of your choice disagree with; that is what 'virtually' actually means, after all -- keep the ones that say X, those and *only* those sources are really reliable, and if some small set of the ones that are unmistakeably reliable say NOTX, then exclude them too, because 'virtually'. Barney calls the same thing 'serious reliable sources'. TRPoD calls the same thing 'academic reliable sources' or sometimes even 'scientific reliable sources'. Vzaak is the most deeply confused: he just flat out calls them 'neutral reliable sources'. Ken has been around since 2002, and is perfectly fine with deleting 'irrelevant' Reliable Sources: think of the poor gullible readers! Everybody else has the same refrain as you: we must delete these particular wrong Reliable Sources, because think of the reader, and because WP:FRINGE, and because virtually/serious/academic/scientific/neutral *real* sources say what we want mainspace to say. |
Your specific confusion, and your specific question, goes like this: "I'm sorry, what are you talking about? When in that discussion did I ever say anything about deleting anything?"
What I'm talking about is when you say 'virtually'. What I'm talking about, is the Reliable Sources you thereby exclude from being *really* reliable, and thus from mainspace.
some specific quotes from Gandalf, Paul, and 74, with your responses |
---|
At the end of the day, you were then, and from what I can tell, still are, absolutely positively arguing that Mohammed ought to be deleted from the article Theories_of_Muhammad_in_the_Bible! There are around a billion people on earth that hold exactly that *religious* belief. It is not, by any wild stretch of the imagination, a fringe *theological* belief. It is a mainstream theological belief. Wikipedia must reflect it as such. Reliable Sources describe it as such. Your argument than no true reliable source takes that view -- or at least "virtually" no true reliable source takes that view -- is just wrong. You are taking all the Reliable Sources, which includes newspapers and academic materials from *every* field of inquiry to include theology and philosophy and religious studies ... but not excluding science, humanities, general knowledge textbooks, and especially general-readership infotainment. Next, you delete everything except theology-slash-religion-slash-deconstructionist-academics. Next, you are deleting all the ones that are not Christian Textual Studies Of The Bible. Next you are deleting all of those ones that disagree Mohammed was not in the Bible. How can you not see that you are deleting sources, when you say 'virtually' and thereby include *every* source that disagrees with you? |
I realize this is a long reply. But methinks it is fully justified -- you've had this argument with many people besides myself. You have never figured out what they were saying. I have tried to put it as utterly plainly and perfectly clearly as I can possibly make it. If you read the stuff above, and your response is, no no no, I'm not saying that stuff of course ... then please read it again. You are, no question, no conceivable possibility of error, saying exactly this: "Mohammed does not belong in the religious-field-of-inquiry article about Theories Of Muhammed In The Bible". I am happy to discuss it with you, until what I am saying makes sense. But you have to take the conversation seriously, please. I have glanced at your edit-history. You are clearly an asset to wikipedia. But this is a tad subtle. You are confusing reliable==factuallyCorrect, with Reliable==factChecked.
That same deep confusion is what has destroyed the Sheldrake-page, since July, four months ago. Fairly often, people make the same mistake over in the political pages, where I used to hang out. But over on the politics-pages, it is a temporary aberration, quickly corrected... whereas on the Fringe noticeboard, it seems to be that nearly half the editors there are under the mistaken impression that WP:FRINGE and WP:RGW are indistinguishable... and useful as weapons to get their way. Anyhoo, appreciate if you made it this far. As anybody at the Sheldrake page will tell you, I'm the queen of WP:WALLOFTEXT. Appreciate your solid contributions to wikipedia, and promise to reply tersely after this initial burst. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Atethnekos, you seemed to misunderstand me. When I said "no amount of argument is going change my view", I meant my religious view. It was not meant for Wikipedia. I didn't mean that door of discussion is close. Your comment I must depart rather hurt me. -AsceticRosé 16:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
and keep up the good work on Jimbo's talk page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exhortation to the Greeks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaximenes (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) 08:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
File:Roadrunnerbarnstar.jpg | The Speedy Barnstar |
"beep beep" - Thanks for your speedy work fixing the Bibleverse template. --@Efrat (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit | |
Congratulations, Atethnekos! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki.
We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and West.andrew.g (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Atethnekos, and thanks for all the 'fixes'. It would be really helpful, however, if you could say in the edit summary what sort of 'fix' it may be - e.g. "fix cite params" so people needn't waste time checking. These might actually be labelled (again, helpfully) as minor edits, since (correct) param fixes are not controversial. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry about my edit. I always thought that, when more than one author was involved in writing an article, that the authors concerned were known as co-authors. I apologize if I was wrong about this.
I would also like to apologize for another comment I made, when I reverted your edit, for which you actually had nothing to do with in your edit of the Great Barrier Reef. My comment was actually directed at a grammatical error, on another page altogether (which I subsequently corrected on the correct article). I was very tired when I made the edits I did and this led to my unfairly commenting on it with regard to the Great Barrier Reef article. I am very sorry for this - I tried to find a way to remove my mistaken comment, immediately I discovered my mistake, but could not find a way to delete the comment. I hope that you will forgive me. Figaro (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 9 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Exhortation to the Greeks, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the Exhortation to the Greeks, an anonymous Christian text wrongly ascribed to Justin Martyr, it is claimed that Plato read Moses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Exhortation to the Greeks. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Atethnekos, do you have the full citation of the Robinson source for the The Teaching of Vimalakīrti (Vimalakīrtinirdeśa)? That way I can have a complete citation.
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
"Reviews" in Indo-Iranian Journal Volume 9, Issue 2 (June 1966), pp. 147–163. ? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plato, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Porphyry (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) 08:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I just posted a note in the SPI that you started concerning User:I'mnotthatcrazy. I agree with you that the connection is clear. However, there are preexisting cases concerning not just the "mywikibiz" account but the "thekohser" account as well, and maybe it needs to be made there. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You recently went hunting for a sockpuppet, but (as far as I can see) you never notified the target, did you? Isn't it protocol to notify the targets of SPI? - 2001:558:1400:10:F878:2746:2655:FCD4 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Will you please take a look at Talk:Analogy of the Divided Line. User Mercer.philosophy is rewriting Plato images, templates and articles. Thank you, BlueMist (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Re User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Banned_paid_advocacy_editor_using_sockpuppets_to_influence_discussions "I changed this post to avoid any misunderstanding" - can you put a diff on the end of that, so people reading it can follow what's happened? Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.157 (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For your wonderful philosophical and theological articles :). Ironholds (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
Hello Atethnekos,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Hans-Johann Glock for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Wieno (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Just a comment to say good to see an informed editor. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
Would you like to be included in the Mediation see User:PiCo talk page. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 February 2014.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hey, just wanted to say that I didn't mean to imply that you were using bias Googling. What I was describing was the process of verification of a statement, so we ended up with a lot of sources to verify the use of that term but not a focus of assessing the weight of descriptions in a broader sense. Also, when I said wikilawyering, I was referring to trying to follow the letter as oppose to the spirit of the text. I just wanted you to know that I think you've been discussing this in good faith, civility and making good arguments. I don't agree in this particular case, but you've got my respect. Morphh (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Wrong "A" name - meant Andrevan. Correcting my mistake. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.