User talk:Smeat75

Welcome!

Hello, Smeat75, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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! -- Lindert (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Commoners in the United Kingdom

Thanks for your mesage. Having supported the idea of a dab page I was wondering what was the best approach. I think that it has to be at Commoner which is the likely search term. The point is that in the UK commoner bears both the two general meanings, that of members of the third estate and the common people, as well as more specific ones, which is why a dab page is helpful. But it does not make sense to have it at the present title, which should redirect to the dab. But not something I have experience in setting up and I was hoping someone else sort it. --AJHingston (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

With profound gratitude

Dear Smeat75,

A personal note to thank you so very much for your very significant effort in responding to my request for a checklist of ToDo's on Apostle Paul. While I agreed with everything you recommended, I experienced a chain reaction of "Now why didn't I think of this"'s. Your notes were very in-depth and were 1.5 pages when printed single-spaced. Since you had said you had other things on your plate and would make the changes at some future date, I especially appreciated your making the time to generate such a thorough, well thought-out list so rapidly. If I've missed the proverbial "boat" on any of your suggestions, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be glad to go back to the drawing board and try again.

Your kind efforts have done much to counteract what have been some past bitter disappointments after having spent much time on an article, only to receive rude, crude comments and massive deletions.

I admire the "handle" that you obviously have on the subject matter. All of your comments were encouraging rather than condemning. Being a collegiate educator, I have tried to make my comments on student papers constructive and supportive, but I haven't always had them perceived that way by the student. You have inspired me to increase my efforts in that area. With gratitude, appreciation, and respect...Afaprof01 (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Evodius Euodia and Syntyche Conrad Beissel Demetrius (Bible) Impenitent thief Tertius of Iconium Anastasius of Antioch (martyr) Achaicus of Corinth Simon (brother of Jesus) Getchell Mine Bifascicular block Epenetus of Carthage Militia Christi Judas the Zealot Bune Kynurenine Carl Anderson (American football) Allegorical interpretation Mary (mother of James the Less)

Cleanup Arthur Drews Ritual The Christ Myth Merge Jesus in the Talmud Priesthood (Ancient Israel) List of Christian pilgrimage sites Add Sources Jewish Christian Mary (Romans 16:6) Judaizers Wikify Roman Catholic theology Ethics in the Bible Theodoret Expand Berber people February 2013 nor'easter Nicodemus

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Pliny page

Hi, That Pliny page needs serious help... I think it deserves a 50% rewrite really. I have been doing my best to avoid it, but it just uses Sherwin-White and overall is just hard to read. Some class project threw some material there I think. I don't know if you have time, but if you can do more than minor fixes will be good. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Authorship of Luke–Acts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Philemon

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Flora Fraser

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"Illegal religion"

Hey, Smeat75, I think I may've been the one who placed this tag. For background, see religio licita. I don't want to go on and on about this at the article's talk page, but will do so here because I hope it isn't too presumptuous to assume your interest.

To summarize the sources at religio licita, the phrase "illegal religion" by contrast implies that under Roman law, certain religions were illegal (presumably meaning their practice was banned). There are extremely few instances of bans placed on entire religions; most of the time, religions were suppressed through restrictions (on who could be priests, for instance, or how many people could gather at one time; the senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus in the 2nd century BC, for instance, severely limits but does not ban the cult of Dionysus). I won't ramble about the druids, who were indeed banned, oddly enough by Claudius, but only after other measures to constrain their influence presumably failed. There were various edicts that penalized Christians, but if from the outset ("from its first appearance" in the wording of the article) Christianity had been banned and declared an "illegal religion", none of these later, stricter edicts would've been needed. The Little Peace of the Church also shows that Christianity was not an "illegal religion" from its inception to the time of Constantine—and that's according to Eusebius and to modern papal historians. The Romans seem not even to have recognized the followers of Christ as a religion separate from Judaism at first, so how could Christianity have been illegal from the start? The phrase religio licita in its sole occurrence is Tertullian's description of the status of Judaism under Roman rule, and not a term of Roman law.

I know Frend makes this statement almost word for word, but it conflicts with the rest of the Great Persecution article, not to mention with fact and Frend himself, who observes on p. 505 of "Genesis and Legacy" that for a 30-year period leading up to Domitian, "there was no further state intervention against Christians". If Christianity had been banned, for instance, there could've been no Christians in the Roman army to become military martyrs. But obviously, during the "Little Peace" Christians must've been permitted to swear modified oaths of loyalty and join the army, or there would've been no Christians in the ranks to confront with the new Imperial zealotry of Diocletian. Christians studied at the Roman law school in Beirut in the 3rd century;[1] this was an imperially sponsored institution for the purpose of producing jurists, so Christians could hardly have been "illegals", to use a charmless term. Frend seems unable to see past the persecution narrative in making generalized statements, even though phase-by-phase he'll point out that decades went by without official edicts or actions from the central government.

So that is why I asked for a clarification, or perhaps what I'm asking for is that the article not contradict itself by using this imprudent statement from Frend as if it were fact. The rest of the article takes the position that persecutions originating from the central government were limited to certain periods, and that there was a patchwork of edicts that placed certain requirements and restrictions on Christians at times, not a blanket policy of exterminating Christianity. As noted in religio licita, there was no such thing as an official status under Roman law as illicita or licita for religions: religious tolerance was situational or a diplomatic strategy. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying at my talk page, where I've continued the conversation. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duchy of Bavaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luitpold of Bavaria (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) 14:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Upper Lima 65

I just wanted to make you aware that this editor, with whom you've had a number of editorial disputes has been recently blocked as a sock puppet of banned editor Dalai Lama Ding Dong. As such, any and all of his contributions can and should be undone. Beta Jones Mercury (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism RFC

It actually slipped my mind. Do you want to start it? Carrite (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I will if you like but you are a much more experienced editor than I am and more familiar with all these procedures and so on, also as I say what concerns me is not plagiarism so much but the fact that copying from hundred year old books creates crap articles.Smeat75 (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed the basic problem, not to mention they are very hard to change when each line is not sourced to the original (weak, dated) source. I'm pretty busy for about two weeks but will see about launching something at that point. best, —Tim. /// Carrite (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Philip K. Dick

Hi - per this edit [2], allow me to share my views, if you don't mind. The ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:20th-century American novelists cat is intended to diffuse fully the ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American novelists cat - which means, all novelists - sci fi or otherwise - would be in that cat (or the appropriate century) - so there shouldn't be a case where there is a novelist anywhere in the tree who *isn't* in one of the novelist-by-century cats. But this also means that it is not a promotion - there is no special prize for being a "novelist" as opposed to a "sci-fi" novelist - I think the current moves to remove that particular form of ghettoiziation are healthy on that point. I think the next step would be to remove him from ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American novelists, but I've been beat up for doing such things so am trying to slow down...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as he is not categorised solely as a sf writer I do not mind. PKD wrote some non-sf novels and his greatest works transcend genre.Smeat75 (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in the new scheme which is sort of happening, *all* novelists will be categorized as novelists - and then, in addition, as genres. To me, that makes more sense - it's never really fair to say a given author is *only* in a given genre - as an exclusive - they can be writers of that genre, but they are also just plain novelists, right? In any case, PKD will remain safely in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:20th-century American novelists, which is rapidly becoming *the* place to be. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Genesius of Rome

Here's another one that Butler declared "wholly fictional" and the Catholic Encyclopedia decided had little or no historicity, and yet our article makes a much more enthusiastic endorsement. Not really what Wikipedia should be in the business of doing! I looked at the Acta Sanctorum entry (which the CE noted as the source), and have no idea where the supposed dialogue comes from. I don't have time to fix it properly, but am interested because he's identified as a mimus and I have a draft on that mode of performance that I'll get around to posting some day. Anyway, I'm here because if you see any sources on this figure (who is conflated with Genesius of Arles), I would welcome a note. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the long story about the conversion onstage, etc., is a re-telling of the seventh century "Acts of Genesius" and the source is a sub-page [3] of one of the references in the article.[4] The bit about how Roman actors held degraded positions and did not perform the great tragedies very often, but instead did lewd and naughty things onstage comes from another subpage of that site.[5] It seems that, as with a lot of these stories, there was a name in a martyr's list and a church built in the martyr's honour at a fairly early time, but entirely fictitious stories developed / were made up / got mixed up with other martyrs over the hundreds of years before the "Acts" were composed. Yes, that article needs to be redone - there are so many that do! (sigh)Smeat75 (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the 7th-century Acta account says very little, as the CE recognized. My guess is that the Society of St. G. website has lifted this material from the fictional treatments that are mentioned in the article—I mean, the modern treatments that consciously developed the story as stage drama. If I get a chance to work on the article, it would be interesting to learn more about those. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oral gospel traditions

I quoted you in the Blindingly Obvious and I hope I did not hang you out to dry, but what you said made a lot of sense to me. I thought a heads up would be appropriate. Thanks again for your contribution to our topic! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Norma discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decca (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) 00:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your evidence

I posted your evidence on the talk page diff. If you do not want it there, please forgive me and remove it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!Smeat75 (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Tertiary sources

I have responded to your comments at User talk:Ret. Prof.. As I said there, I believe it is in your own best interests to not only read the various content guidelines, but also more than a few of the conduct guidelines, and I sincerely hope that you do read both. John Carter (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have commented at Ret. Prof.'s talk page. Let me be honest. At no point in this conversation have you indicated exactly where you believe the source is not used as you believe fit. Also, you seem perhaps constitutionally incapable of understand that wikipedia guidelines to not support the contention that, basically, each and every word spoken by a person who generally meets reliable source is necessarily RS itself. Personally, I would have no objections to having a further, serious, instance of harassment to raise against Ignocrates, given his fairly well-documented history of POV pushing, and believe that there is a very real chance that this might bring about an even stiffer sanction against him than might otherwise be given. But you might also read WP:BOOMERANG, which I believe is probably relevant here as well.

Like I have said elsewhere, if you have any specific instances where you believe guidelines have not been met, please produce them. To date, you have not done so, and that itself is less than optimal. Otherwise, if you are willing to face the potential consequences of such an RfC/U against yourself, by all means feel free to do so. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I say, go for it. Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, Ignocrates's comments on his user talk page in which he clearly violates AGF and once again seems to indicate his rather laughable belief in his own psychic powers should be recognized for what it is, paranoid bullshit. He has been more or less an SPA promoting the beliefs of a non-notable group for some time, apparently, as per User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence, as some form of penance for leaving or being removed from that group, and for his fairly regular harassment since his beloved Jesus Dynasty was, in accord with policies and guidelines, removed as the non-RS it clearly is. The thread at Ret. Prof.'s talk page began because of his really dubious comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity, and his talk page history indicates and elsewhere indicates he has a problem understanding or adhering to guidelines in general. Actually, if you were to actually make some effort to understand all the guidelines and policies around here, which to date I am far less than sure you have done, you might recognize your own concerns are addressed by them already. Ignocrates is having a case against him prepared for ArbCom because of his seeming failure to follow virtually any guidelines or policies for some time, particularly regarding recent harassment and stalking. To date, you have not displayed such monomaniacal obsession, so at this point I would just write you off as someone with whom I have a disagreement, about which there have been a number of people. You, for all I know, which isn't much, because you've never said anything concrete, might actually have a rational basis for some of your complaints, although, from what you've said, I can't say I have any real reason to think so. If you do, then, honestly, you would probably do better with filing a regular RfC on the topic, or going to one of the noticeboards. But, yeah, if you do start an RfC, and it is found poorly based, if Ignocrates is involved, that would be added to the case against him I am preparing. Once a case is in ArbCom's hands, they pretty much do what they feel best regarding all matters brought to their attention, which would include that. I can't say that you would be specifically addressed in a decision, but their history is that they can and do enact decisions based on all information presented to them. If your complaint is about the oral gospel tradition, then I think the best thing to do might be to consult the leading reference works, like the 2012 Coogan Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible and other reference works which have received high praise from the academic community, and see what weight they give the idea, and in which contexts, and present that information. It would be much more useful than arguing on user talk pages for no good purpose and other forms of less-than-productive, and potentially counterproductive, insults and less than productive commentary. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Your limpid threat against me doesn't bother me in the least, if you think that will somehow discourage me from participating in an RFC/U against you. Quite the contrary, your posturing and threats only reveal the depth of your fear of being exposed to community ridicule and admonishment. Ignocrates (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates, I realize that truly pathological self-absorption is one of the few things that can be expected from you, given your overwhelming history of such, but believe it or not the comment was directed at the person to whom it was sent. And, logically, if you were serious about your own threats about filing to ArbCom, as you also have made repeatedly, you probably would have done so by now, rather than try to cover your tracks later. I believe honestly that given your own history, the likelihood of a site ban or topic ban of you is probably the most likely outcome, with perhaps some sort of rebuke to me for having not acted against the b.s. you regularly spew earlier. Your own posturing and then retreating indicates that you are probably more afraid of ArbCom involvement than I am, which, under the circumstances, is possibly one of the few truly logical thoughts I can remember you having ever shown around here. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand why you pour out this bilge for public consumption, but you can't really believe it. Once the case is accepted and we move to evidence, you are not going to know what hit you. Ignocrates (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates, that last comment above is nothing but bilge, but, given your own history of denial of reality, I can believe it. Denial of reality is kind of all you have been about for some time now, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone seems to have forgotten about WP:NPA. There is almost a psychology textbook case of demonizing ones opponent and being completely oblivious to ones own faults. This is to everyone, how can you possibly think that your own words and behavior won't be scrutinized by an ARBCOM review? All parties to a conflict are subject to critique and possible sanctions. Before throwing mud at each other, remember that all of your comments are archived and can be used as evidence against you. Yes, you, too. And you.

I think an ARBCOM review will explode in your faces and I recommend instead that one or both of you just back away from this article, for your own sake, if you want to avoid a topic ban. I am really surprised it hasn't already happened. Move on, life is too short. Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I know Liz; however, the needs of the encyclopedia outweigh the needs of one editor, and after 3 years of internecine conflict, I'm at the point where I think it has to play out this way for the good of the encyclopedia. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the rather longish history of POV pushing, dishonesty, and I believe collusion to violate policy that the above editor has displayed over the years, and that can be and I think has been rather clearly documented, I agree with him that, if he insists on continuing to edit the way he does, it probably does have to play out this way for the good of the encyclopedia. Whether I am myself going to be sanctioned for basically having made the apparently irrational assumption that someone's behavior might improve, as a reason for not having requested the earlier accepted arbitration when the mediation closed, is another matter entirely. I full well expect all behavior, my own included, to be scrutinized. However, I also believe that the other outcomes of an Arbitration are probably more important than any sanctions that might or might not be levelled against me, and, like I said, I think having discretionary sanctions in place on early Christianity is something we very much need, and honestly the only way to effectively get that is through ArbCom placing them there. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, just noticed, in passing, why you are so concerned regarding this topic, the Jesus article. You know, a reasonable person might have actually indicated that before, but I guess doing so never occurred to you. It probably is not the best source to use for that statement, but it is, in general, probably minimally acceptable. Not everything that meets WP:RS is necessarily the best source to use. I didn't check on the nature of the specific book involved, so I don't know if it was one of the academic or popular sources, but in general, I think most people would agree that if it isn't an "academic" work, but rather a "popular" one, it might be better to seek an academic work, unless, for whatever reason, there is a really wonderful quote from the source which someone thinks really needs to be used. There are at least a few such cases I can think of. You might also notice that I commented at the noticeboard regarding the topic ban, where I indicated it might not be the best way to go here. Honestly, if you could prepare evidence for ArbCom which would be useful in helping them choose to place discretionary sanctions on the broad topic of early Christianity, I would certainly welcome it. User:Lung salad, whom Ignocrates knew well and tenaciously supported despite his kind of obvious problems, and a few other editors have really gone nuts with POV pushing over the years regarding this topic, generally in support of really fringe theories or trying to give undue weight to really minor ones, and I think a lot of people would agree that having sanctions in place on this topic, like exist for Scientology and a lot of others, would probably make it a lot easier to develop a lot of it. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)