User talk:Joaopaulopontes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. For one thing, if you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! John Carter 21:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


The additions you made to the above article were removed by others, I believe largely because you did not provide an independent reference which substantiated your claim. As you may or may not know, any such unsourced statement can be removed. Also, the comments from those reverting your addition indicate that discussion of the group you added has been had already, and that, for whatever reason, it was found to not belong on the page. If you wish to add such content, it would help your cause dramatically if you were to first create the article on the group you wished to add, providing references which would be good enough to ensure that it is not deleted. Then, it would certainly be possible that that content would be added to the Ebionites article, and, in fact, likely that even those who reverted its insertion today would consider adding it themselves. For your own sake, it is probably advisable to wait to add such information until then, as the three-revert rule indicates any party who adds content like that three times is almost instantly eligibile for at least a short-term block. John Carter 21:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I can help, since I have reverted this several times now. First of all, we have nothing against your group. In fact, I am happy personally to see more Ebionites participating on Wikipedia. It's just that providing a link to your own website is not considered a source of independent evidence. The key difference is to have verifiable evidence of notability provided by sources outside of your group. Take for example, First of all, the content for the EJC stub was not written by members of this group or even Ebionites generally. It was written by independent editors who became aware of and interested in modern Ebionites. Secondly, all the references are non-Ebionite sources and what they have to say about the EJC. Give it time and you will become noticed, but you can't attach your name to a Wikipedia article to achieve notability. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but it's better than a block for user misconduct. Ovadyah 21:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Some questions regarding the degree of reliability of certain sources relevant to the Ebionites have been made on that articles talk page. You have had some previous interest in the article, and I believe you may have input which might be useful. Please feel free to review the material and make any statements you wish regarding whether the sourced material does or does not qualify as "fringe" or not. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Welcome to en.Wikipedia. You added "Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, 1:26:1-2, and 3:11:7 and Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 3:27, and Epiphanius, Panarion, 30:3:7 and 30:13:2" as a ref to Gospel of the Ebionites, however please see WP:PSTS, these are not ref footnotes. Can you please remove them and replace with a secondary or tertiary source? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I left a comment about the same thing on the article talk page Talk:Gospel_of_the_Ebionites#About_the_use_of_primary_sources. The problem is twofold: 1. we don't remove content supported by reliable secondary sources (along with the sources) without discussion on the talk page, and 2. we don't replace it with content that is not supported by WP:RS. If this practice were tolerated on WP:GA quality articles they would no longer be considered GA. Ignocrates (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)