| Revision as of 02:27, 16 June 2013 editIgnocrates (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,170 edits archive← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:01, 15 July 2020 edit undoGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers381,921 edits →Precious anniversary: 7 | ||
| (410 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{retired|date=January 26, 2015}} | |||
| == Archives == | |||
| == Arbitration clarification request closed == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hi Ignocrates, just letting you know that I've ] in which you were named as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 10:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Post-AE block future plans == | |||
| ] | |||
| @{{u|Chillum}}, please restore my deleted user page but leave me blocked for now. I'm having a hard time getting past what {{u|HJ_Mitchell|Harry}} did to me, so I'm not ready to return to editing. I'm taking a year off, and I will decide sometime next year to either return to editing on some different categories or just say the hell with it. See you in 2016. ] (]) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :Okay, done. ] 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Workpages == | |||
| :I also put a clarification in your block log to make it more clear that the arbcom block is expired and the current block is voluntary. I neglected to make that clear in the previous block log. ] 16:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ⚫ | ::Thanks for clarifying in the log that the indef block is voluntary. ] (]) 19:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Precious anniversary == | |||
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| {{User QAIbox/auto|years=Seven}} --] (]) 06:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Name change == | |||
| My original username, Ovadyah, which I have edited with since July 2005, was apparently too ethnic for some editors, leading to inappropriate talk page speculation about my religious beliefs. Therefore, I have changed my username to the more Wiki-appropriate name of Ignocrates. ] (]) 01:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I liked your old name. Where do we stand with the Ebionites? If you have the time, please critically evaluate the sources on my user page. - ] (]) 11:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's great to see you back. I thought you had retired from Misplaced Pages. Sorry, but I'm not the right person to ask about the Ebionites article. I have abandoned that article permanently to the idiots and trolls that dominate this encyclopedia. Best. ] (]) 15:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is a shame. -- cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 16:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| As part of the "new me", I'm going to be a lot harder on uninformed, yet relentless, editors, who confidently edit on subjects they know nothing about. The problem is not my lack of good faith; it is their lack of competence. And ] on Misplaced Pages if we are going to prevent this encyclopedia from regressing to the mean or worse. ] (]) 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==GHeb and GEbi== | |||
| Sure I'd be happy to go over them some time. I'm assuming it's all very brown-bread and in line with Schneemelcher and SBL sources now? ] (]) 04:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow, that was fast! Yes, very brown-bread and in line with Schneemelcher and SBL sources. No surprises. You can check my progress at ] if you like. My pace is slow and steady. There is a lot of reading involved going through all these sources. I finally broke down and checked Klijn (1992) out from the university library. I am in the process of reading the book cover to cover. Thanks for being willing to help out, and I appreciate any suggestions for reviewers. Best. ] (]) 04:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::My compliments for the way you are drafting the page. It is going past GA towards FA class in my view.] (]) 21:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| == GEbi FAC review == | |||
| The ] article is currently being reviewed to verify that it meets ]. You can help to improve the article, leave suggestions for improvement at ], or participate in the review process ]. ] (]) 16:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't say I'm wild about the referencing layout you've gone for, but in my opinion you should stick to your guns. See ]. As long as the referencing format does the job – which yours most definitely does – then those like me who prefer other layouts can jolly well put up with it. As you have followed the format used in a recently-promoted article (G Harrison) you are fireproof. This question should, IMO, have no bearing at all on eligibility for FA. I'll look in at the FAC tomorrow and put my highly-supportive two penn'orth in. (If, for ''future'' articles, you are at all interested in how I, as a moderately frequent submitter to FA, prefer to do my referencing, have a look at ]. I think this method of referencing is clean and simple, but to each his own.) – ] (]) 19:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Will do. I would like to use a format that most editors who write FA-quality articles consider to be best practices. Thanks. ] (]) 20:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Support duly added, along with a few well-chosens in favour of your ref formatting. I'm not going so far as to ''recommend'' that you follow my preferred ref formatting in future. I am a bit of a dinosaur, and many of the best editors prefer using cite web/cite news/cite journal templates, though I find them a dreadful fiddle-faddle to put in. Have a look at edit pages of FAs by ] such as ], his most recent solo FA. And there are editors not wholly unhinged who favour the sfn device, though I can't make head or tail of it. In short, for any new articles you create I'd find whatever suits you best and stick to it ''contra mundum''. For existing articles you overhaul, I'm afraid you're stuck with the status quo for ref style: see ]. – ] (]) 12:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I'll try to get to reviewing your changes tonight but I don't see any reason that this article shouldn't be considered FA now. Hopefully I can share that on the proper page before the bureaucratic rules dictate it's "time over" for this review. ;-) -- ] (]) 20:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for letting me know. It would be a shame to have it simply "age off" into an archive after all this work. ] (]) 20:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Recusing myself == | |||
| I am recusing myself from further editing on the ] article and current or future articles that have anything to do with lost or hypothetical Hebrew Gospels of whatever. Otherwise, I will be following ] into retirement or vanishing like ]. Please don't post on my talk page about any of these topics in the future. ] (]) 02:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:01, 15 July 2020
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages as of January 26, 2015.Arbitration clarification request closed
Hi Ignocrates, just letting you know that I've archived an arbitration clarification request in which you were named as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Post-AE block future plans
@Chillum, please restore my deleted user page but leave me blocked for now. I'm having a hard time getting past what Harry did to me, so I'm not ready to return to editing. I'm taking a year off, and I will decide sometime next year to either return to editing on some different categories or just say the hell with it. See you in 2016. Ignocrates (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, done. Chillum 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I also put a clarification in your block log to make it more clear that the arbcom block is expired and the current block is voluntary. I neglected to make that clear in the previous block log. Chillum 16:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying in the log that the indef block is voluntary. Ignocrates (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Seven years! |
|---|