User talk:PiCo
Disambiguation link notification for September 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Book of Ezekiel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tammuz (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) 14:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
GHeb article tagging
As a co-author, how do you want to handle the unbalanced tag on Gospel of the Hebrews? John Carter's tag-spamming follows a predictable pattern of disruption. It is a clear case of ignoring the input from the recent content RfC, which reaffirmed the previous consensus, and edit-warring against that consensus. Ignocrates (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- John Carter's concerns can be handled on Hebrew Gospel hypothesis - there could be a hatnote on Gospel of the Hebrews directing readers to the other related articles (Ebionites, Nazoreans, and Hypothesis). I'm about to undertake a fair amount of air travel (hate it - like to arrive, but not to get there) so will be more or less out of touch for a few days. PiCo (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that's another way to resolve the dispute that would work. As of now, the article is pointing to the History of scholarship section of the Jewish-Christian gospels article. Ignocrates (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- And that pointer is insufficient to meet guidelines, as I have pointed out on the talk page, I believe more than once, that pointer, wherever it is, does not meet the standards of WP:SPINOUT. PiCo, I regret that the often infantile behavior which unfortunately is to be expected from one party has spilled out to your talk page. I do hope that you have been looking at the noticeboards where one editor who recently took shots at you is being bereated rather soundly. If, by chance, that person's conduct played a role in your retirement, I think there is a very real chance that that person will not be a problem much longer. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's a curious argument to make since Jewish-Christian gospels is the parent article and Gospel of the Hebrews is the WP:SPINOUT from that article. Face it John Carter, you are synonymous with Randy from Boise - the archetypal editor who literally knows nothing about the subject - yet you continue to pick at a point relentlessly that can be rather easily be resolved in multiple ways that would receive majority support. Ignocrates (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ignocrates, as can be seen by the fact that you chose to make this comment here, where it does no good, instead of making a reasonable comment in response on the article talk page, it is you who are apparently indulging in sheer bullshit for the purposes of WP:STONEWALL and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you consider the article to be a spinout, then by all means, as per guidelines, it should probably then include a hatnote at the top of the article, "see main article Jewish Christian gospels". I realize you have little familiarity with basic rationality, as, basically, your entire history of editing betrays that. It works both ways. And I also note once again how you indulge in your apparent telepathy in the above comment, indicating that the psych
oic Ignocrates can read minds, and know what will and will not get support in advance. LOL. John Carter (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ignocrates, as can be seen by the fact that you chose to make this comment here, where it does no good, instead of making a reasonable comment in response on the article talk page, it is you who are apparently indulging in sheer bullshit for the purposes of WP:STONEWALL and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you consider the article to be a spinout, then by all means, as per guidelines, it should probably then include a hatnote at the top of the article, "see main article Jewish Christian gospels". I realize you have little familiarity with basic rationality, as, basically, your entire history of editing betrays that. It works both ways. And I also note once again how you indulge in your apparent telepathy in the above comment, indicating that the psych
- That's a curious argument to make since Jewish-Christian gospels is the parent article and Gospel of the Hebrews is the WP:SPINOUT from that article. Face it John Carter, you are synonymous with Randy from Boise - the archetypal editor who literally knows nothing about the subject - yet you continue to pick at a point relentlessly that can be rather easily be resolved in multiple ways that would receive majority support. Ignocrates (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- And that pointer is insufficient to meet guidelines, as I have pointed out on the talk page, I believe more than once, that pointer, wherever it is, does not meet the standards of WP:SPINOUT. PiCo, I regret that the often infantile behavior which unfortunately is to be expected from one party has spilled out to your talk page. I do hope that you have been looking at the noticeboards where one editor who recently took shots at you is being bereated rather soundly. If, by chance, that person's conduct played a role in your retirement, I think there is a very real chance that that person will not be a problem much longer. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that's another way to resolve the dispute that would work. As of now, the article is pointing to the History of scholarship section of the Jewish-Christian gospels article. Ignocrates (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
PiCo, I checked the article history of all four Jewish-Christian gospel articles. The articles on the three individual gospels were all created independently. Both the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans were created as stubs in mid-2005. The Gospel of the Hebrews stub was created in 2004. Links between the three stubs were added a bit later in 2005. The Jewish-Christian gospels article was created in 2007. Although it was created last, it appears that the intent was always for the Jewish-Christian gospels article to serve as an overview that linked to specific details in the three individual gospel articles. I don't see how WP:SPINOUT applies here. Therefore, hatnotes should not be required, but I don't have a problem with using them either. Ignocrates (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia should be the perfect laboratory for students of source criticism.
- It's not so much that hatnotes are required, as that they're useful. PiCo (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
GAN discussions
Pyrotec has indicated he will be finished with the review of the GHeb article shortly, so we will need to be prepared to respond to his requests for changes (if any). As co-nominators of the article, we should have a talk page space where the two of us can discuss sources and specific changes to the wording of the article to meet GA criteria. Where would you like to have those 1-on-1 discussions (i.e. your place or mine, or the article talk page)? Ignocrates (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Here is fine. PiCo (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Very good. If you can take the lead on crafting the additional wording (or rewording), I will track down any sources we might need. Let's put the revised content supported by references in final form here before we migrate it to the article. Ignocrates (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- You can contact me also on alex.masterley@yahoo.com (no, my name isn't Alex Masterley). PiCo (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Very good. If you can take the lead on crafting the additional wording (or rewording), I will track down any sources we might need. Let's put the revised content supported by references in final form here before we migrate it to the article. Ignocrates (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi PiCo. I did not contact you before, as you asked me to do, as there was nothing that needed any input. I've now effectively finished the review and I've added a few comments only in respect of minor changes(?) to the lead and other place(s). The article in its current form is basically a GA, perhaps a bit higher, but I think the lead could be tweaked a bit. I might be wrong in what I'm suggesting, so if I'm completely wrong tell me so on the /GA1 page and I award GA-status, otherwise every thing else is up for discussion on the /GA1 page. However, there is the problem of that "flag". I don't really like flags, but it all seems quiet at the moment on that front (well to me). Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. if you are Alex Masterley, then I've been following your antics in Mega Bank, on and off, for years in the Telegraph. Pyrotec (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
In the interest of efficiency, I have responded to Pyrotec's requests for changes by making additions (hopefully improvements) to the content. PiCo, you may want to go over them and wordsmith these additions later. The improvements to the body address the original purpose of the tag (imo), but the purpose seems to be continually shifting. In any case, I recommend removing the tag at the conclusion of GA review. However, I can't be the one to remove it (as I am in arbitration). Ignocrates (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- @ Ignocrates, please let me know when you're ready for me to have a look at the text. PiCo (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please take a look. I would like to finish this up today if possible so Pyrotec can move on to other reviews. Ignocrates (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations on the promotion of the GHeb article to GA! A bot should come along in a day or so to tag the article. The initial effort you put in to pull this article out of the refuse pit was worth it. I think the pathway to FA will be a lot more difficult, as Pyrotec said, but it is not impossible as I once thought. Way to go! Ignocrates (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
GHeb RfC
We need to wrap up this RfC over the Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews#Scope of this article. Taking into consideration the recent changes made to the article to comply with GA-review, can you succinctly restate your proposal regarding the scope of the article in a new subsection so that all interested parties can vote on it. That way people will clearly understand what they are voting on or they can make a specific new proposal. It's tendentious for editors to troll the talk page and object to everything. Ignocrates (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- And it is equally tendentious to comment hither and yon without making any sort of effort to address the concerns raised. John Carter (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is an example of the very behavior I intend to put an end to in arbitration: your jumping on my statements and questions and spinning them before the recipient has a chance to respond. Ignocrates (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is also a display of your own regular prejudicial biased attempts to spin comments to avoid actually dealing with the facts of your own statements. You said, and I quote here "It's tendentious for editors to troll the talk page and object to everything." You have provided no evidence of "trolling," and honestly your abuse of the completely irresponsible and excessive word "everything" is more than anything else I believe an indicator of your own inability to actually deal in a responsible manner with the reservations of others and clearly one of the most obvious examples of "spin control" on your part I can imagine. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was making a general statement about the need for specificity when making proposals during the RfC. Please calm down. Ignocrates (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to not only be losing your composure, and that is now I think the second time your edit summaries say nothing but that. And, honestly, I don't think anyone under the existing circumstances would come to the conclusion that you were referring to anything else. And you seem to have once again ignored the fact, as already pointed out on the article talk page, that it was you who started the RfC, after the fact, over a single comment of mine which was never intended to be the start of an RfC. So, basically, given your later comment, the person you seem to be criticizing is, basically, yourself. While I agree your conduct in starting the RfC after the fact, with no indication of what it was you wanted discussed, was and remains highly problematic, I have to wonder what earthly good it might do to start a thread here criticizing your own conduct in this regard. John Carter (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to forget that you had already posted a request for comment at WT:X: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Gospel of the Hebrews. All I did was broaden the pool of potential participants in the discussion afterward (check the time stamps). I don't understand the basis for your objection, unless you were trying to create a local consensus. Ignocrates (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, not a memory lapse, just a preliminary call to attention prior to an RfC, although I notice once again how you seemingly refuse to address matters of substance and once again jump to unfounded conclusions based, apparently, on your frequently indicated ability to read the minds of others and to jump to unfounded conclusions that any statement made on a noticeboard is inherently what you jump to conclusions it is. I actually have already indicated on the article talk page that I was intending to start the RfC later, after some discussion and after finding additional sources. I guess you never bother to read the statements of others, but that also is no surprise, given your history. And you once again make a completely unfounded assumption that the single preliminary statement I made was intended to be the start of an RfC, which is not supported by the evidence. I realize that, in this one particular instance, you don't want to claim responsibility for your own actions because they were clearly less than appropriate, but that does not mean that you can attempt to misrepresent the statements of others as what you think they were intending to say, based, seemingly once again, on your own amazing belief that you can read the minds of others. John Carter (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to forget that you had already posted a request for comment at WT:X: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Gospel of the Hebrews. All I did was broaden the pool of potential participants in the discussion afterward (check the time stamps). I don't understand the basis for your objection, unless you were trying to create a local consensus. Ignocrates (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to not only be losing your composure, and that is now I think the second time your edit summaries say nothing but that. And, honestly, I don't think anyone under the existing circumstances would come to the conclusion that you were referring to anything else. And you seem to have once again ignored the fact, as already pointed out on the article talk page, that it was you who started the RfC, after the fact, over a single comment of mine which was never intended to be the start of an RfC. So, basically, given your later comment, the person you seem to be criticizing is, basically, yourself. While I agree your conduct in starting the RfC after the fact, with no indication of what it was you wanted discussed, was and remains highly problematic, I have to wonder what earthly good it might do to start a thread here criticizing your own conduct in this regard. John Carter (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was making a general statement about the need for specificity when making proposals during the RfC. Please calm down. Ignocrates (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is also a display of your own regular prejudicial biased attempts to spin comments to avoid actually dealing with the facts of your own statements. You said, and I quote here "It's tendentious for editors to troll the talk page and object to everything." You have provided no evidence of "trolling," and honestly your abuse of the completely irresponsible and excessive word "everything" is more than anything else I believe an indicator of your own inability to actually deal in a responsible manner with the reservations of others and clearly one of the most obvious examples of "spin control" on your part I can imagine. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is an example of the very behavior I intend to put an end to in arbitration: your jumping on my statements and questions and spinning them before the recipient has a chance to respond. Ignocrates (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)