User talk:The12thMan

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


Hello The12thMan, and Welcome to Wikipedia!Bouncywikilogo.gif

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...


The12thMan, good luck, and have fun. --Cognate247 (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png


January 2012

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Vejlefjord’s Request [edit]

Would you, please, take a look at User:Vejlefjord/Theodicy and the Bible (3rd draft) and give me your opinion? Is the draft ready to go live? If not, please tell me what you think needs to be done as specfically as you can. Thank you. I will check back here next weekend. Vejlefjord (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Vejlefjord’s Reply
I hope this is where I should reply. If not, please tell me.
Thank you for taking the time to give me your suggestions.
You raise the much discussed question about whether to quote or paraphrase. In the school in which I taught and in the guidelines of universities with which I am familiar, term papers were to more paraphrases than quotations. The point was to judge whether students had absorbed the material into their brains. So the article’s using so many quotations makes it different from a term paper written according to the guidelines that I have seen.
I have used many quotations, but I have tried to work them into sentences that would be clear sentences if the quotation marks were removed. (You can judge how well I have succeeded in this.) I have used quotations rather than paraphrases for several reasons. (1) I don’t trust paraphrases because too often, when I have checked the work cited, I find that the paraphrase distorts the source. (2) Wikipedia guidelines say: “Gather references both to use as source(s) of your information . . .” and then state “the consensus of experts.” (The vast number of books by “experts” on the topics of my article and the fact that there is so much disagreement preclude a “consensus” and make giving a balanced view difficult.) I take the Wikipedia guidelines to mean that an article is not intended to show how much the author knows but to give readers a view of what the “experts” say. One university tells students to quote in order “to show that an authority supports your point.” Do not the Wiki-rules require “expert” support for every point? If an article read as if were coming from the author/editor’s own knowledge, there is a cry of Original Research. Another school’s guidelines says, “If a passage from a source is your primary evidence, quote it.” Isn’t “primary evidence” what the Wikipedia requires of everything in its articles?
This may have been more on the quote vs. paraphrase issue than you cared about, but I thought your comments deserved a serious response. To repeat my original request, at this stage, all I want to do is get the article to a point at which it can “go live” without being deleted or userfied. So my question is if the article went live (even without the tweaking you mention), would you be willing to remove the new article template? Would you defend it if there are attempts to delete or userfy the article? Then other editors, maybe including yourself, can make it a better article. This scenario would relieve you of providing “detailed feedback” to me and relieve me of spending more hours (hours that I don’t have) on the article.
While I was writing the above, I received this message: “Yes, I would say that the article ‘Theodicy and the Bible’ can go live now. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2012 (May 9, 2012UTC).” Would you concur?
Thank you again. Vejlefjord (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus[edit]



I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi The12thMan! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)