User talk:Liz

Welcome!

Hello, Newjerseyliz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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!

Come here and I'll point the spout at YOU!

Don't call names, you puny idle-headed bugbear!

You have been noticed using opprobrious epithets. It's payback time from the Shakespeare Insult Generator! To activate the Insultspout and receive fresh insults, click here. Note that all insults generated by the Spout are guaranteed literary and cultured, unlike the nasty things you said, you loggerheaded hasty-witted mammet.

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Richard Cromwell (actor) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and supporter of [[Alcoholics Anonymous]] in the Los Angeles Area. {citation needed|date=July 2013}} Cromwell continued with his ceramics production business, with noted corporate clients during this

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT

Hello, Newjerseyliz. You should follow WP:BLPCAT. Don't violate it, as you did here (which clearly warned not to violate it) and have done elsewhere. The policy is clear. If you continue to violate it, I will continue to revert you, and eventually report you at the WP:BLP noticeboard. Consider that my main response to this post you left on my talk page. You might also be interested in reading this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. You obviously are not new to editing Wikipedia (stating "good-faith" is one example), so you may already know of the WP:BLP policy. And if you do...again, follow it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I promise to follow guidelines and I hope you will start to leave a meaningful edit summary each time you revert another user (and you seem to spend a lot of time reverting other people's edits).

It is bad form to repeatedly revert another editor without providing an edit summary explaining WHY you are reverting them. "Assume good faith" goes both ways. But when a person does 7 back-to-back reverts on my edits without explanation, it becomes hard to believe the other user is acting in good faith.

I do appreciate you going to WP:EGRS to continue the discussion. As seen in the comments from the users there, the criteria for categorizing based on EGRS is still a topic that is being debated. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I consistently revert users without an edit summary because, when doing so, I am usually using WP:Huggle, or, to a lesser degree, WP:Rollback, to revert vandalism or other very problematic edits. And in those cases, providing an edit summary usually is not required. Considering that you had removed the hidden note explaining why Amber Heard was not to be placed in the lesbian or bisexual category, and you placed her in the bisexual category anyway, I had reason to not think that your editing was in good-faith. To me, your editing signaled "I'm going to categorize people how I want. I'm definitely not a new user; I'm using a new account to go about editing in a way that I know is controversial." I've certainly seen that type of editing before with old or new accounts. See this matter, for example. When I am reverting non-vandal or other non-very problematic edits, I usually do provide an edit summary. I was not going to provide the same, or a similar, edit summary over and over again for someone I believed to be editing disruptively. I assume good-faith when I have a reason to assume it; because of your removal of that hidden note, any assumption of good-faith on your part that I could have had was gone. I also see that you are even more familiar with Wikipedia than what you stated at WP:EGRS. It is only this year (for a short time thus far) that I have mostly started reverting vandalism and/or other problematic edits when it comes to my editing Wikipedia. What I mostly do for Wikipedia is shown on my user page. I still do a lot of article expansion and/or cleanup work on this site in the interim and there are more Wikipedia articles I plan to take to WP:Good article status.

As for WP:EGRS, yes, editors there continue to debate categorization matters, but they are generally in agreement about WP:BLPCAT, as seen in the section immediately before the aforementioned discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Newjerseyliz, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Newjerseyliz! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A faux block from a vandal

Block/Unblock This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. Liz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: It is not clear to me what I have done that is "disruptive,", what Admin has blocked me (and to whom I can appeal), and how long this block will last. I can't change my behavior without it being explained to me what the problem was. If it concerns the conversation with Flyer22(above), I have not done any editing in Categories in that for two days, after a long conversation about this topic on the WP:EGRS Talk Page with Bearcat. I do not know what prompted this block this morning. Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Accept reason: You were never blocked, sorry for the scare. You are also free to remove this unblock request if you prefer. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC) WP:Edit conflict with Bongwarrior; see here: Nopole64, before my edit conflict with Bongwarrior, I was going to state that, "It seems that I should report you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Or I encourage Newjerseyliz to do so. You are not an administrator. Newjerseyliz did not warrant a block, and was not blocked because you do not have the power to block anyone at this site, especially being an account that was created today." You are now indefinitely blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry Liz, you were never blocked. I had removed one of the block templates, and just realized that there were two so I've removed that one also. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Bongwarrior. I'm open to being corrected if I did something wrong but apparently, a random user just putting a { block } tag on someone's Talk Page doesn't actually mean one is actually blocked. I did take it quite seriously! Thank you for rectifying the "prank". If it's okay, after a day or two, I'll remove this discussion from myo Talk Page. Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC) The fact that you were able to edit both User talk:Anomie and User talk:AnomieBOT means that you were not blocked; a blocked user can only edit their own User talk: page, nothing else. Also, your block log (linked from the top of your contributions page) is clean, so no block was ever imposed. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Well, if you look at my Talk Page contributions, it looks like User talk:AnomieBOT placed a block on my account. Coincidentally, another user placed { block } on my Talk Page around the same time so you can see how I could jump to the conclusion I had been blocked. I had never been blocked (or threatened with a block) so I had a lot of questions and was upset. It was only upon investigation that I discovered it was bogus. I didn't think about the fact of where I could or could not edit. But thanks for your insight! Newjerseyliz (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC) I've left an expln for the activities of AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) at User talk:Anomie#Why has your bot blocked me? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ip + nym

Hi Liz - I know you're not doing something nefarious, but posting in the same discussion sometimes with your nym and sometimes while logged out is a bad idea, as it gives the impression of two people. I'd suggest signing your IP edits, or just remembering to log in when participant in a discussion where Liz has already showed up. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I'm usually an IP but I had to be registered to file an Article for Deletion and I have a really bad habit of opening up dozens of tabs. So, on some of them, I'm signed in and on others, I'm not. But I agree that it doesn't look good. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC) @Liz

RE. old contribs: I kinda wrote the 'it's easy' text before actually giving it a go. It's not hard but it is nontrivial- it's a little bit ridiculous that there isn't a tool for it. Just dumped your old IP stuff to User talk:Newjerseyliz/Oldcontribs. Nevard (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. It's kind of startling to see it all listed together like that. Though I'm surprised that you can create a subpage for my account, Nevard. Are you an Admin or can any user do this to another account?

Thanks for showing me a solution. Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Any registered user (admin or not) may create subpages in user space, even if the parent page is not "their own". However, subpage names ending in .css or .js (see the sections on Personal CSS and User scripts at WP:CUSTOM) may only be created by their "own" user, or by admins. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's actually kind of bizarre, since I don't know if you'll necessarily get notifications - thus couldn't someone create User:Redrose64/attack and you wouldn't even know? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Redrose64, but it seems very odd to me. I realize that anyone (who isn't blocked) can post to a user's Talk Page, it doesn't seem right that I could go to your user page and create a subpage on any subject I want. In that case, I think that right should belong to the user and Wiki Admins. Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC) (looks like we were posting at the same time, OWK)

The user rights are listed at Special:ListGroupRights. The relevant rows are those described as

• Edit pages (edit)
• Edit your own user CSS files (editmyusercss)
• Edit your own user JavaScript files (editmyuserjs)
• Edit other users' CSS files (editusercss)
• Edit other users' JavaScript files (edituserjs)
• Create pages (which are not discussion pages) (createpage)

Somehow the "createpage" right would need to be modified to exclude other users' user pages. I can't do that, and I don't think it can be done in the present MedaiWiki installation; a request would need to be filed at bugzilla:. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose64, this is disconcerting to read and I hope that people haven't taken advantage of these abilities to harass other editors. I would think that the ability to "create pages" would have some limitations.

As for me, I neither have the knowledge, experience on Wikipedia and time to take this on as a crusade. I'm just very surprised. Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up - since you don't have a static IP, someone else could take that IP and then start editing, and since you're sort of "claiming" it, those edits would be linked to you. Its a slim chance, but it's possible nonetheless. Just a friendly note. If you want to keep it, may be worth asking your ISP for a static IP. cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought you had earlier suggested that I associate that IP account with this one so that people wouldn't think it was a sock puppet. That's the only reason I identified it as my account and link to it from this page.

I'll see if my ISP offers a static IP. Thanks for your help. Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I did suggest that - just realized that even in spite of you doing that, you could still lose your IP. If you want to keep it, you should talk to your isp. They may request payment - not sure.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

AFD of Juanin Clay

If you get a moment, could you head over to this article and complete the AFD? You tagged the article here, but I can't find the debate or a rationale for deletion. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought a bot would pick it up and create a page. What do I do next? I appreciate your help, I find the AfD instructions confusing. Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Tell me why you want it deleted, and I can complete the rest of the steps for you. A bot can list it and complete templates, but can't guess at your reasoning - and the reasoning is a big part of the process. AFD can be a bit obtuse, on occasion - but it's no problem. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

She just doesn't seem like a notable actress. There are hundreds (thousands?) of actors who have a smattering of film and TV credits. She didn't have a long-running or sustained career. I realize the article is a stub but I don't foresee it being expanded or worked on further.

As for the AfD, I don't know how to get it listed on the page with all of those values in parentheses (like (Talk) ). I have posted one AfD successfully but it took me hours to figure out how to get it listed properly and I don't recall the steps I took (beyond posting the tag on the article page). Thanks for the patience and help. I'd like to do more work on the AfD and Categories for Discussion levels. Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

On the page Juanin Clay, in the box headed "This article is being considered for deletion", you should find a list of four steps. You've done step 1; in step 2, click the first blue link (Preloaded debate) and this opens an editing window. Leave most of that alone; change the |cat=U to |cat=B but most importantly, change the word "Reason" to your reason why the article should be deleted (more on deletion reasons at WP:DELETE). Then set the edit summary to Creating deletion discussion for [[Juanin Clay]] and save the page; we can handle the remaining steps. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose64, I would NOT have figured that out! For the one successful AfD I posted (for Brenda Venus) it was a trial and many errors. I think I just went to AfDs and cut and pasted wikitext. Still ended up posting it wrong the first time. Is there a reason it is so much more complicated that CfD? Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think I'll be creating a lot of new articles (that seems like a perilous undertaking) and finding typos and awkward grammar to correct is haphazard so I'm really looking for some way I can help on the organizational level. I hope AfD and CfD could be these areas once I learn from the masters.  ;-) Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, of the four steps that I mentioned, you've now done step 2 and I've done step 3.

I think we can omit step 4 (Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|Juanin Clay}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).), because the creator was 68.68.182.95 (talk) who isn't likely to be watching for such messages. There have been other contributors; but most of them made only minor changes. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought I did all steps, as I put WP:NOTE as a reason why the article is being suggested for deletion. I didn't know I had to notify everyone who made a major contribution on the article. Is this done for every AfD? Man, this is complicated. Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to notify all the contributors. Typically, only the original creator is informed, but it's courtesy to also inform major contributors. I've notified three who seem to have put more in than most. Hopefully, anybody else who's interested will have the page on their watchlist. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I notified some of those same people so I'll go back and remove the tag I put on their Talk Page. Thanks, again. Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you all have it under control. Good work! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 04:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, happy to help. No problem at all. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deborah Pratt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | children = [[Troian Bellisario]] (b. 1985) (b. 19<br>Nicholas Bellisario

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shooter (mixed drink), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Midori, Pousse Cafe and Uboot (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) 11:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:American child actresses

The close was as a keep, so nothing has to be done. If you don't believe that we need any child actress categories, then your next step would be to nominate Category:Child actresses for deletion. Which will actually need to be an upmerge of all of the children categories so that they get kept in the by country actor tree. The end result is that to be clear, you will need to nominate everything or at least some of the subcategories. The remainder could be done as speedies if your proposal receives consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed. Either one of the two proposals would be an improvement over how things are right now. If I wanted to move the male child actors out of Category: Child Actors into Category:Male child actors, is they a way to do this with a bot or script? There are 1200+ articles that need to be recategorized in order that there is some consistency in the way that the gender is categorized. That's an awful lot of work. Newjerseyliz (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

• Arbitration report: Fourteen editors proposed for ban in Tea Party movement case

• Traffic report: Greetings from the graveyard

• News and notes: Chapters Association self-destructs

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Freedom of Speech

• Featured content: Mysterious case of the grand duchess

• Discussion report: CheckUser and Oversighter candidates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Commentary

For what it might be worth, feel free to comment wherever you want. Ignocrates is going to Arbitration because of his really dubious history of conduct, including I think fairly clear dishonesty. So far as I can tell, Smeat seems to be dealing more with the "fringey"/minority view of the oral gospel tradition, which, as someone who hasn't myself checked the Coogan reference, published last year, I have to admit might not be as "fringey" any more. But, yeah, even academics, and highly regarded ones, have been known to be advocates of fringey beliefs, like Carl Sagan and global cooling, as I have already mentioned. There are questions of WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and a ton of others which might apply here. As someone who is, primarily, these days going through the relevant reference works to see what they cover, and to what extent, I am pretty much only active onwiki a few days a week, because compiling those lists takes a loooong time itself. Those reference sources, particularly the most recent ones, taking into account any reviews of those sources or other statements in the academic literature subsequent to publication, are in general counted as being the best sources to indicate WEIGHT around here. There may be a rather valid case for increased coverage of the oral gospel tradition in some of our articles, I don't know. But it would definitely help if people actually discussed how to add or modify the content, rather than engage in basically useless talk page blather and threats, like Smeat and Ignocrates have in the really unusual stated "threat" of an RfC/U. IN general, as per the third pillar of wikipedia, we are an encyclopedia, and I think a review of the policies and guidelines would indicate that most if not all of them are more or less designed to convey the impression that our content should mirror the content of the most thorough and recent reference sources possible, making allowances if there haven't been any since a major finding. Particularly with the 2012 Coogan book, counted by the American Library Association as one of the best reference sources of 2012, I kinda doubt there are problems there, but I haven't checked the reviews to see if some articles or topics were seen as being insufficient or prejudicial coverage, either.

And, FWIW, like I think I told Nishidani elsewhere, what I am trying to do right now is to get together lists of articles in highly regarded reference sources for the various projects, and then, hopefully, when they're done (if I live that long) reviews of those sources, indicating their strengths and weaknesses. I think the likelihood of people being willing to help with the latter will increase if there are more of the former, but still think that having clear ideas of what is and is not included in reference sources is probably one of the more basic things we need around here, and something that still hasn't been done outside of one list of articles in Britannica. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion about User_talk:Ignocrates#RFC/U evidence? Ignocrates (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You know, I'm embarrassed to admit how many years worth of argumentative posts I've read, going back and forth between you two. It was like watching a trainwreck and I was left wondering, "Why can't either of these guys just step back, shake the dust from their shoes, and move on? Are they actually getting some satisfaction from the incessant arguing? Are they enjoying it too much?"

This conflict has gone beyond reliable sources, it's downright hatred and contempt now. There is little pretense of actually listening to each other to negotiate compromises. There is too much bad blood, too much history and disrespect that has been shown.

I will go to ArbCom when this ever gets filed because I'm genuinely curious as to how the committee members will ever look through the dozens of diffs I expect will be posted, the voluminous exposition on how "disruptive" the other editor is being, that they will have to parse through. I expect that several other well-intentioned editors will get pulled into this as participants and will have to decide what they will say about this business which has gone on now for years.

John, I realize that you think this argument is about what is a reliable source. But that is just the hammer you are using to pound Ignocrates over the head. You have made some valid points and there have been intelligent editors & Admins who have agreed with you. But you dismiss Ignocrates' (and others) attempts to address your concerns. I sincerely believe that you will continue to obsess about this one article as long as Ignocrates participates in editing it. It will never be good enough for you because of his participation in the process.

I think you will find that the focus of the ArbCom will not be on the nuances of what is a reliable source but instead upon the behavior and misconduct of all of the participants in this long, long dispute. My only suggestion is to keep your comments to ArbCom brief and to the point and not dig yourself into a deeper hole.

Good luck to you both. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, John, I've looked at your some of your work as an Admin and I think you've done some excellent work. You have offered measured and thoughtful guidance and advice. But, for whatever reason, you have lost perspective on this one article which is too bad. I think your efforts are well spent on the other work you do, like putting together lists of sources. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

On further investigation, I've found that John Carter and Ignocrates have already been to ARBCOM twice in the past 6+ years over Ebionites-related content. I didn't realize you two had already pleaded your case in several dispute forums and that there was an ARBCOM history, at least related to appropriate sources (RS) on Ebionite articles. I stand by my opinion that this has become a personal, bitter stalemate between the two of you but I see now that all parties are already familiar with the dispute resolution process and I was mistaken to assume otherwise. But I think now the primary sticking point is conduct, not content and any future case will result in mediators scrutinizing past behavior.

I had just been looking at Talk Page comments going back two years between the involved parties. To see that this dispute goes back to 2007 makes me realize that this disagreement in much more complicated than I knew. I don't envy any mediator sorting through this all. And I was mistaken to think I had an understanding of the extent of this dispute and years of conflict that has led to the present situation. I will leave it to well-intentioned Admins and Mediators who have much more experience than I to determine responsibility for the current impasse and solutions for moving past it. Newjerseyliz (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

John Carter wrote : "So far as I can tell, Smeat seems to be dealing more with the "fringey"/minority view of the oral gospel tradition" well, that's wrong. I am interested in quite a few topics, and one of them is early Christianity and the relationship to the Roman empire and Christian origins. "Smeat and Ignocrates ... the really unusual stated "threat" of an RfC/U" Just to let you know that we have dropped that idea as you have to have two parties to a dispute, Ret Prof is not here and I was not party to disputes on Gospel of the Ebionites. "I think a review of the policies and guidelines would indicate that most if not all of them are more or less designed to convey the impression that our content should mirror the content of the most thorough and recent reference sources possible" I don't agree with that at all. One of the best things about Wikipedia in my opinion is that it can be easily updated with the latest information using, for instance, the most recent works of recognised authorities such as Bart Ehrman. I would echo what Nishidani said here [1]"Tertiary sources are fine as well, though the problem there is that encyclopedias, reference texts and the like are always slighted dated compared to cutting-edge scholarship (b) are often too synthetic and gloss over the details and controversies in a generic way, and, (c) in fields, and I'm sure many colleagues here have the experience, where I have a thorough knowledge, I rarely leave off reading a generic encyclopedic entry on some aspect of it without an irritated feeling that much is missing, or at a too high level of synthesis. Thus secondary sources, and by that, optimally, peer-reviewed contemporary scholarship, should form the basis of our transcriptive work. There the only relevant issue is covered byWP:Undue." Smeat75 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That all makes sense to me, Smeat75. It can be difficult for the typical layperson to get ahold of secondary sources, especially journal articles. But I'd rely on them more than encyclopedias because the author has to lay out his argument and, believe it or not, the scrutiny of peer-reviewed journals is more exacting than for encyclopedia articles. I know of one topical encyclopedia, present in all research libraries, where most of the entries are written by graduate students. That doesn't undermine their scholarship (they may be more on top of new research than full professors), it's just that they were the ones who were eager to contribute and write entries. Heck, I've written entries for encyclopedias when I was in graduate school, too (see Encyclopedia of African-American Religions) and that was because I was a good friend of one of the editors. Of course, he edited down my contributions, but all of the research was mine and I was a second year grad student. Okay, I'm off on a tangent, just here's another vote for secondary sources. Yeah! ;-) Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I echo Smeat75's concerns. The idea for this new Religion MoS is to take the content from 5 or 6 reference sources (i.e. religious dictionaries and encyclopedias), pull out the content they have in common to create an "average" article, and then summarize it with close paraphrasing and call that our best FA work. Anyone else need a barf bag? This is not only misguided; it is dangerous to the very spirit and purpose of Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In general, I think it is a bad decision to prioritize reference sources that one is familiar with and make them the definitive source to be used in all occasions. For example, I pretty much wore out the Encyclopedia of Religion in the university libraries where I worked but it has a "History of Religion" POV that is heavy on abstraction and light on detailed analysis. The encyclopedia entries reflect not only the particular stance of the contributors (who, luckily, are identified--it isn't always the case) but also the editing team. It was a great source to begin to learn about a topic in the field of religious studies but it was deficient in giving in depth examples or a broad range of perspectives on a subject.

So, my point is that even though I probably made copies of something like 70-100 articles in the EofR and am very familiar with it, I wouldn't recommend it as the definitive source of information except as representing the stance of scholars with a History of Religion perspective. It's not the best source of information if one is examining religion from a textual, historical, sociological, cultural, or practice perspective (it's pretty good on anthropological subjects).

This position can make it challenging to write articles since each author is limited to her own library and what resources can be found in libraries and online. But that's why Wikipedia is collaborative, so a number of editors can bring together the resources they have at hand. Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you would notice, nowhere did I say we should make it the "definitive source of information", and, honestly, I rather regret the implicit assertion to the contrary by you. You might have noticed that I did mention the reviews as well, which have had some serious reservations about several of the articles contained therein, which I believe I also mentioned. I also remember saying, probably on the talk page of WikiProject Religion and Nishidani's talk page most recently, that the most recent edition of the German RGG, now called Religion Past and Present, and the old HERE are counted as being basically the other two of the three best, most comprehensive sources out there. Regarding Ignocrates' continued harping on the irrational and I believe completely unfounded motivations behind my actions, I simply note once again that not only is he apparently incapable of AGF'ing anyone other than himself, but once again seems to be taking recourse to his apparently repeated ability to read the minds of others. Regarding whether it is the best only from that perspective, I think I already said that as well. Now, I realize that Ignocrates has made a habit of using the talk pages of others to engage in irrational attempts at misdirection from the matters of his own dubiously acceptable behavior for some time now. That is the primary reason I have asked one of the ArbCom clerks to draft the request for arbitration against him. However, to basically point toward the facts that he, in what I can only call his blind stupidity, chooses to ignore, I have been more or less the sole creator and developer to date of the pages in the Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, and have made a list, more or less reproduced at User:John Carter/Religion reference sources, indicating the other sources which have been either included in the "reference works" article of tne EofR or in the American Library Association's yearly list of outstanding reference sources. So I believe Ignocrates' hysterial, paranoic, and completely irrational accusation above is clearly and directly contradicted by the evidence. But, that's not particularly new with him. I am still working on the list of articles and subarticles from the EofR primarily because of the incredible length of that source, and the really incredible number of subarticles, as well as the number of articles which have been changed from one edition to the next or added in the second edition. There are a number of other sources, which I have also at least started lists of articles on, primarily when the specific volumes of EofR aren't available, and which are at various levels of completion, and will be added as they are finished. As I indicated somewhere, I have also recently started to copy out articles from HERE for inclusion in WikiSource, because at least one or two of the reviews of the EofR said some of the articles in the HERE were still the best ever written. But, if one were to review Ovadyah/Ignocrates' history of contributions, which have more or less limited themselves to the "James" hypothesis for a more Christian early Christianity, the fact that under his previous name, Ovadyah, he indicates that he e-mailed the founder of the Ebionite Jewish Community, now Ebionite Community, about the development of the article apparently in a way which supports that group, and is even said by an IP on the talk page to have been a member of the group, I think we can see why Ignocrates has pretty much ignored the Nazarene Ebionites, who, apparently, don't agree with the EJC Ebionites.

"Ignocrates ... irrational...dubiously acceptable behavior ...blind stupidity....Ignocrates' hysterial, paranoic, and completely irrational accusation" You know, all WP guidelines and policies aside,it is sort of disturbing to see this, it seems to show someone in the grip of an obsession. You seriously need to chill out, take a step back, do not look at anything to do with Ignocrates or Ebionites for several months, this bitter feud obviously isn't good for you, and I do not mean to be condescending. There are plenty of other articles on Christianity on WP that need improvement.Smeat75 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you were to review the history of edits to Ret. Prof.'s user talk page, you would see the number of times several editors have tried to reason with him, to, apparently, not a lot of gain. You will also find in the history that I specifically told him that I, unlike Ignocrates, who had indicated he would "protect" Ret. Prof. and has later twice called for RfC/U's against him, apparently thinking both times it only requires one person to do that, I indicated that I would tell Ret. Prof. before taking him to any boards, so I was honor bound to do so. That was the nature of the comment. I very much wish that some editors would see the history of at best dubious conduct and attempts at misdirection which has, pretty much, been the essence of Ovadyah/Ignocrates from the start, along with the paranoia and more than occasional dishonesty, and that is why the ArbCom clerk is preparing the statement to be made for a request. I might do the same myself, and probably would, if the number of reference sources I have at least started on, and the number of articles I am trying to start for WikiSource, weren't taking as much time as they are. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The reason for the lists of sub-articles, by the way, is that in previous discussion at I believe the notability guideline talk page on the subject of Buddhism, I was told that in general named subsections of "thematic" articles can be used as indicators of notability on some of those topics, so having an indication regarding which subtopics might themselves be notable seems reasonable as well. Particularly with the EofR, and to a lesser extent some others, those interminable lists of sub-articles, sub-sub-articles, sometimes to three or four or more levels of outline, is why some works take sooo much longer than others. And, of course, under no circumstances would I say that we would be only limited to them either, but that they might be usable in such a way. Also, I guess, in all honesty, following policies and guidelines, I think most of our content could, roughly, be said to be best when it basically just says what other existing encyclopedias or reference works say. But there are a lot of them, like I think I told Ret. Prof. once about two a month, including updated volumes, in religion/philosophy/mythology alone. On any topic which is covered extensively in multiple reference sources, the number of times we would need content in our main articles on topics covered by them to include material not included in them is probably few and far between. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I want to AGF, John Carter, and you have clearly put a lot of work and thought into your interests and putting together resource lists. But it is hard to look past your negativity, WP:PA, WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and WP:HARASS tactics, not just with Ignocrates but you also said horribly harsh comments to Ret.Prof that led him to quit Wikipedia because you disagreed about one source! That was a debate that had gone through the dispute resolution process but it still was a sticking point that was big enough to cause one of the main editors to withdraw from further participation.
And discovering that these disagreements have gone on for 6+ years (with some of the same and some different) parties is not a good sign of being able to collaborate with others and compromise in the name of consensus.
I think your last paragraph to me is a good indication of a direction we can go in and maybe the situation can be defused as long as we are talking about content and resources and not the failings that we see in each other and past conflicts. I should do that myself regarding your conduct so I'll end my comment here and try to be more positive myself.
Let's start anew! Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In regard to Smeat75's comment above (I won't interrupt the thread) "You know, all WP guidelines and policies aside,it is sort of disturbing to see this, it seems to show someone in the grip of an obsession.", this is not the first time this observation has been made. I direct your attention to this previous trip to AN/I on Aug. 31, 2010, the second of several, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#False accusations of vandalism and Llywrch's comment in particular which I reproduce here:

Although this thread is practically resolved, I'd like to add one last comment because I've been involved in this dispute in a small way. I hope all of us can agree that John Carter is an established editor who has done praiseworthy work in the past. Further, this article is a controversial one -- which is the case with many subjects where the verifiable facts are few & the speculations -- both expert & fringe -- are many. On the other hand, while the accusations John has made about Ovadyah may perhaps be true, in my experience in the matter I have seen no evidence of any wrongdoing by Ovadyah here. I suspect this has become one of those conflicts where John has simply become inadvertently obsessed with the conflict & now needs to walk away from this article -- both for his own benefit & the project's -- to simply trust that another set of eyes will catch any possible problems in this article. To repeat the cliche, there are 4,306,067 in the English Wikipedia, around half of which are stubs; no need to obsess over just one of them. -- llywrch (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This has all been said before, and yet it continues, almost 3 years later, without any resolution. Ignocrates (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Ignocrates, I read all of the ARBCOM statements from cases Ebionites1 and Ebionites2 along with ANIs, DRs and RfCs, although the harshness of the language varies according to the audience. It is hard to see how those involved can "get past" the damaging words that have been said. I would find it hard if I was the target. Maybe, at this point, an IBan would be best? Unless the parties can forgive, forget and move on...because if these conduct disputes reach ARBCOM, tougher penalties will be involved. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(e-c) The fact that one somewhat biased party hasn't looked to see the repeated violation of both conduct and content guidelines, honestly, means nothing. Neither does his own attempt to justify his actions through the statements of others.

FWIW, you have apparently not reviewed the regular, almost incessant harassment by Ignocrates, who has described his editing as a "penance" as well, presumably taking the form of promotion of a group which has, despite my own and his best efforts to find them, apparently never appeared gotten anything like sufficient RS coverage to qualify for an article. The fact that you have apparently not even looked to, let alone looked past, the fairly regular misconduct of Ignocrates and Ret. Prof. causes me to perhaps conclude that your assessment is, well, lob-sided, based on only recent activity. I believe, honestly, misconduct of all sorts has been steadier and more regular from them than from me. Ret. Prof. also has been, as per previous versions of his user page, not only "continuing the fight" for the non-RS Tabor book and others, and has been repeatedly advised/warned by others about his misconduct, yes, even to Ignocrates himself twice requesting a single-person filed RfC/U against him. Honestly, given the stonewalling of Ovadyah/Ignocrates during the second mediation, when Tabor and the EJC were being considered for removal from the article as non-notable and non-reliable (which they have been from the beginning), and Ret. Prof.'s own misconduct elsewhere. It is also worth noting that Ignocrates has, pretty much since his return from retirement as Ovadyah, been pretty much pathological about attacking me on and off, presumably because I ruined his "penance" of trying to use wikipedia as an advertisement for his favorite non-notable group and his favorite non-RS James Tabor. The fact that he has, to date, so far as I can tell, not only never edited anything not relating to the "James" hypothesis, and has also, apparently, misrepresented sources, like Ret. Prof., leads me to think that the only way to resolve his own ongoing misconduct is through ArbCOm. Yes, he is a master of posturing, and has, ever since being Ovadyah, regularly talked down to anyone who disagrreed with him, indicating to my eyes there is a very real problem of ego and, yes, pathology there. And, unfortunately, I think if one were to review most of Ret. Prof.'s edits, one might find them just as problematic as the misrepresentation of sources and his also, rather apparent, almost obsession with thinking single books not referenced in anything else but reviews require being in articles if the reviews were not negative. In all honesty, when and if the ArbCom reviews this, I believe there is a very good chance, a probability actually, that Ignocrates will be seriously restricted from editing, and that, very likely, Ret. Prof. will be as well. I wish either one of them were apparently capable, or even interested, in doing anything other than, overtly or covertly, trying to promote books or websites or beliefs that really don't qualify as notable in and of themselves. But, in the history of both of them since I first encountered them, despite my actually having tried to encourage at least Ret. Prof. and I think Ovadyah while he still was Ovadyah to either try to get their views notable in a clear way or edit something else, they both, basically, refused to do so. If penalties are invoked by ArbCom, honestly, fine by me. That would also include almost certainly discretionary sanctions, and that's what I think is most clearly needed here. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Michaelzeng7's talk page.
Message added 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Michaelzeng7's talk page.
Message added 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Very tedious job, so it's always nice to get positive feedback :-) Serendi^podous 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I can imagine. Tracking Twitter trends exposed me to a lot of music fan gushing that I wish hadn't eaten up as much time as it did. I'd be happy to never see another Excel spreadsheet but I know they are unavoidable. Your work is appreciated! Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Took your advice

I took your advice and went to WP:NPOV/N. Please keep a watch on Gospel of the Ebionites. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that. It seems like you guys have gone round and round on these issues. I hope you get some definitive answers. Newjerseyliz (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I am super-impressed with how professional the guys have been at NPOV/N. The feedback has been useful and at the very least it's due diligence for the next round of dispute resolution. Ignocrates (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tammy Duckworth

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tammy Duckworth. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)