User talk:Ret.Prof

'Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil. If you want to accuse me of a anti-Christian bias:

Please read this.

At Wikipedia we must all try to edit from a NPOV. On occasion my Faith has been called into question. Indeed some have honestly wondered how I can write what I have about the Historical Jesus and still be a Christian. The answer is simple, my relationship with God never had anything to do with history or archeology. Let me explain... Christianity not relevant in our modern world As a young litigation lawyer, I believed in God, but felt that Christianity was no longer relevant in our modern world. Jesus' teachings such as "Thou shalt not kill" "Love your enemy" "You can not serve both God and Money" were just not relevant in these modern times. I believed in the death penalty, war, material wealth. I did unto others before they did unto me. I did not get angry, I got even...and a bit! Spiritual awakening Then, a series of events made me reconsider my beliefs and come to the conclusion that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was still relevant today. I read a great deal about people who still believed in the Gospel, including Mahatma Gandhi, Dr Martin Luther King Jr., etc., etc. This led to a Spiritual awaking that forever changed my life. South Africa It was here, working for Archbishop Desmond Tutu, that my faith was put to the test. Could love and non violence really bring down the Apartheid government? We were out-gunned, out-matched in every way. What the Archbishop was preaching made no earthly sense. Yet before my eyes I witnessed this racist government fall. As I stepped out in faith on a daily basis, I experienced God in a real way. In my heart I came to believe that the Gospel of Christ was the most powerful force in the Universe. The Roman Empire never stood a chance. Nor did the British Empire in India, or, for that matter, Segregation in the South. Twelve Step Program Several years later I was approached by a group who wanted to use my Church. They explained to me that their program was basic Christianity without many of the offensive "buzz words" that had been added over the years. Confessing that we were miserable sinners became "We admitted we were powerless over alcohol or drugs etc -- that our lives had become unmanageable." Faith was changed to "Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity." Accepting Jesus Christ as our Personal Saviour became "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him." Accepting that we had all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God was changed to "Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves." Making our confession was reworded to "Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs." Repentance became "Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character." Bin saved became "Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings." "Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all." "Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others." Continued confession became "Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it." "Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out." Born Again & Witnessing became "Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to others, and to practice these principles in all our affairs." This simplified "Gospel" has transformed the lives of millions. It is truly powerful regardless of the packaging. My faith finds form in Anglicanism because of the freedom from "strict dogma", but I have seen the power of Christ in all denominations. Walking with Christ for these many, many years has given me a faith that allows me to edit Wikipedia from a NPOV. The reason is that my faith is not based on the "historical evidence" that has survived to 2012 but rather it is based upon my experience over a very very long time...

.

.

.

Merge discussion reopened

Since no one else had the decency to inform you, you should be aware that In ictu oculi reopened the proposal to merge your Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article into the Gospel of the Hebrews, in what now appears to be a proposal for deletion. Although you were not informed, a notice was given to the original proposer, as well as several selective notices to editors who were previously in favor of deletion of the original article, here, here, and here, in what, to my mind at least, seems like a rather obvious attempt at collusion. Ignocrates (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Copying material from one article to another.

Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted

template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.

You copied material from Oral gospel traditions into a new article Christian Oral Tradition. As it is clearly a duplicate of the same topic, I've redirected it. You also seem to have ignored the consensus on the original to stub the article. Please don't try to undo consensus in this way. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Licensing Breach? Copying? Undo Consensus? Now I am really confused! I never copied material from Oral gospel traditions to the Christian Oral Tradition????? Also, even though my name APPEARS in the edit history, I NEVER edited Oral gospel traditions?????? What is happening????? I truly apologize for any wrongdoing on my part. There is no need to block me as I will voluntary stop editing until things are sorted out. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no way that your name could appear 283 times as an editor in an article[1] without those edits coming from your account. In fact you created the article[2] so if you think you're confused you can imagine how confused I am. That could explain why the same material appeared in Christian Oral Traditions. The problem is that if you look at Talk:Oral gospel traditions it was agreed to remove that material and turn the article into a stub. You then created the new article Christian Oral Traditions despite that decision, using the same material. Could you think again about denying editing Oral Gospel Traditions? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's calm things down here a bit and assume some good faith. As there has been at least one page move (see below), it's likely he's not lying. Article history is your friend. •••日本穣^? • 投稿 • Talk to Nihonjoe • Join WP Japan! 21:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the links and something is very wrong! - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You just have to click on the history tab here. Ignocrates (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Licensing Breach, Copying, Undo Consensus. It does look bad. I am recusing myself from further editing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you ever edit Oral tradition and the historical Jesus? It appears the current Oral gospel traditions was moved from Oral tradition and the historical Jesus at 13:50 on 29 January 2012‎ by User:History2007. •••日本穣^? • 投稿 • Talk to Nihonjoe • Join WP Japan! 21:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think you have cleared my name!! Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

@ Ignocrates...It has been pointed out that you doubted my word and wanted an RfC/U for Ret.Prof. Do not feel bad! In your shoes I would have done the same. I looked really, really, really guilty!! If bureaucrat Nihonjoe had not figured out that the edit histories for Oral tradition and the historical Jesus and the Christian Oral Traditions had been tampered with, I would have been finished at Wikipedia! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC) PS In my relationship with you, I have always found you to be fair and honorable!

Thank you. That is the nicest thing anyone has said to me in almost 8 years of editing. I proposed an RFC/U for two reasons: (1) it allows other editors to offer constructive criticism - ideally, a constructive dialogue - which may lead to improvements in your editing, and just as importantly, (2) it compels other editors - who may have an axe to grind - to put their cards on the table. If they have an opportunity to express their concerns and they don't take it, that will be mentioned later at ANI or in arbitration. I learned a long time ago in the business world that the best way to deal with snipers is to bring them out into the light. Ignocrates (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Before you resume

In the spirit of collegiality, I suggest you take a look at User_talk:BruceGrubb and familiarize yourself with the details of this dispute and the cast of characters who played a role in it. Should you decide to return to editing, I fear there is a significant risk that you will be "Grubb"ed. I hope you will think carefully about how to come back with your eyes open. Ignocrates (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)... I have. The concerns that you have raised are legitimate. Also, trolling hounding, personal attacks and collusion have some merit. I just noticed John C is an Admin! In any event I have chosen to assume good faith. I am being careful in my edits. My protection is very much up to those bureaucrats who patrol Wikipedia. Thanks again to Nihonjoe! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Special Thanks

Due to Nihonjoe we all seem to be getting along much better! Your help is much appreciated by all of us. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Ignocrates

Ret.Prof, I can't afford to expend more time and energy fruitlessly attempting to mediate the dispute on Oral gospel traditions. I have articles of my own that need to be finished before I can take on more responsibilities. Imo, admin Nihonjoe was just passing by and isn't going to do anymore for you. However, the person I contacted this morning, AGK, is an 800-pound Gorilla on this encyclopedia. If he can't take steps to ensure that editing article content is an open and fair process then no one can, and Wikipedia really is an intellectual desert. Best of luck to you. Ignocrates (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

AGK informed me that he can't become involved in a dispute until his term is up on the Arbitration Committee. I will try to identify another highly-skilled outside mediator as a final action before I recuse myself as an informal facilitator. After I see the GEbi article through WP:FAC and the GHeb article through WP:GAN (two knocks on wood), I may return to this article as an active editor to improve and expand the content. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The consensus on AGK's talk page is to begin with WP:DRN and take it from there. That is probably going to be seen by ArbCom as a necessary first step on the road to arbitration anyway. Since the hoo-ha has temporarily died down, I would probably wait on this article until Dunn's new book comes out before you resume editing. I expect there will be renewed attempts to discredit Dunn and all the other major authors on the topic, as well as the topic itself. That is tactic #1 used so often in this category - undermine the editor by undermining the sources. If that fails, expect a shift to tactic #2 - poison the well by attempting to undermine your personal integrity. I have removed the article from my watch-list, so drop a note on my talk page if there are any overt attempts at deletion in the interim. Ignocrates (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, if DRN is not able to mediate the expected resumption of this dispute (I suspect they will become quickly overwhelmed by the complexity), you can request editor assistance from admin Keilana as an outside mediator who has experience in dealing with complex disputes. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Re tactic #1 & tactic #2 mentioned above: Most unsettling. Yet I am going to assume good faith. Several bureaucrats and admins are aware of the situation. It seems over the past week you, have taken a bit of a beating. It seems no good deed goes unpunished! Most unfair. Sorry Ignocrates! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. That's life in the big Wiki. The "beating" I took over this article is nothing compared to how I am used to being treated. At least I don't have anyone else sending me threatening emails (yet). I don't think outside observers of this complex dispute understand how much it is rocking the foundation of certain people's deeply-held beliefs. Ignocrates (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right. It is probably why material from Ehrman is deleted so rapidly from Wikipedia. My solution has been to be kind, proceed slowly, and focus on the reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I find you interesting. Kazuba (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I am once again both amazed by the Ignocrates' dishonest obsessive misrepresentation of fact. Ovadyah/Ignocrates, I realize your delusional self-aggrandizement and almost paranoic overreaction to your dedicated and obsessive editing of only articles related to the broad topic of the Ebionite Jewish Community, with which you have been obsessed from the beginning of your first account, as per the first edit to your user page, makes it extemeley unlikely that you will ever be able to either acknowledge your own deficiencies, fairly obvious violations of NPOV, and general stupidity. But, bluntly, now that you have determined to continue your own hysterical cries of mistreatment at the talk pages of pretty much everybody you have been in contacted with lately, I will say that there is no reason for those of us who have been called the devil's stupider younger brother and the like to ever go out of their way to try to get you to perhaps learn how to act like a mature, rational adult. You are, apparently, not interested in doing so, and that is the reason an ArbCom request regarding your conduct is on the way in the near future, probably this weekend or early next week, as time permits.

Ret.Prof., as I have already noted there, your own misuse of the Christianity noticeboard for soapboxing is yet another in a comparatively long line of problematic edits you have been warned about in the past repeatedly. Once again, I urge you to actually read the relevant conduct guidelines pages and sourcing pages. I find it nothing less than incredible that you, who say you have a law degree, seem to believe that citations to Ehrman are removed as part of some sort of conspiracy. His popular books are, at this point, about as reliable as newspaper quotations from someone who regularly testifies as an expert witness. The source himself is highly regarded, and no one would say otherwise, but popular literature which does not undergo peer review, like most of his books are, is not academic literature, and WP:RS favors the latter. He is, basically, in his popular literature about on the same basis of reliability as Tom Cruise's sometimes overenthusiastic statements about Scientology - the person is knowledgeable, but the source is questionable.

I sincerely hope that you engage in conduct which more clearly indicates a basic understanding of policies and guidelines in the future. At this point, I see no particular need for any further warnings regarding your sometimes very dubious conduct. Should you continue to engage in such misuse of talk pages and the like, I can't see any reason not to take it to a noticeboard or some other, more formal, place for review of outside editors. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)