Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:02, 25 March 2013 editIgnocrates (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users11,170 edits →Before you resume: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:25, 25 March 2013 edit undoJohn Carter (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits →Before you resume: commentNext edit →
Line 90:		Line 90:

	In the spirit of collegiality, I suggest you take a look at ] 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. ] (]) 18:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)		In the spirit of collegiality, I suggest you take a look at ] 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. ] (]) 18:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
			:Noticing how Iggy seems to be trying to caste covert aspersions regarding the "cast of characters," and how he seems to be once again indicating that he has a degree of irrational paranoia, I guess I should say that comments of this type are one of the few things I have recently seen him use other people's talk pages for. You might also be interested in reviewing his own history, including several of the frankly irrational and basically useless comments he made at ], and what seemed to at least me to be his clear and almost unavoidable POV pushing for the opinions of the ], a group which has, despite the best efforts of at least me to find sources for it, nothing remotely resembling a claim to notability, and deal with him with your "eyes open" as well. I think it is worth noting that, as one of the people who was actually ''less'' involved in Bruce's ] article, it was obvious from several of his comments that he had a clear POV regarding the topic, and one which, honestly, seemed to disagree with the presiding academic consensus. That's fine. However, he also at times used the article talk pages for harangues on his beliefs, and regularly, unfortunately, made irrational and unacceptable claims of expertise on the article. That, coupled with his transparent POV pushing, and conduct in general, led if I remember rightly (I haven't checked) to his being made subject to lesser sanctions, and then later being site banned because he insisted on using sockpuppets in defiance of those sanctions, which results in a more or less automatic site ban.
			:Honestly, I and I think pretty much all of the other senior editors around here ''welcome'' seeing encyclopedic content of any sort developed, provided that that content, unlike ''certain editors'' edits to the ] page, actually meets our guidelines. At least partially on the basis of helping to establish what is encyclopedic both in terms of content and articles, I have been creating pages like ] to indicate what is and is not covered in other highly regarded reference books. That particular page is currently being revised to be more in line with ] and others I have worked on subsequently. But I think most of us would agree that it is probably a bit higher priority for us to create basically good articles about the most notable and significant topics relevant to a subject, and then have a better idea of how to go about creating other articles for the sake of comprehensiveness. Although it will probably be a few weeks before I get the revised Bible article list finished, I and I think everyone else would welcome seeing the missing and poorly-developed articles there worked on, making it easier for everyone to know what is still missing. And, also, by the way, although I can't swear to this, I saw in the recent Lindsay Jones ''Encyclopedia of Religion'' several separate articles on the "History of study" of various religious thoughts and groups. I can't swear that they necessarily establish notability for similar such articles here, but I can and do think that it would make a good deal of sense to have several articles of that type relating to various Christian topics as well. But, it probably would be more useful for everyone if we worked on the main topics first, and then developed additional "branch" articles later. ] (]) 18:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:25, 25 March 2013

'Misplaced Pages does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Misplaced Pages 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 Christian bias:

Please read this.
At Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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...

Please read this.

At Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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...

Talk Page Archives:
Archive 1 (2008)
Archive 2 (2009)
Archive 3 (2010)
Archive 4 (2011)
Archive 5 (2012)
Archive 6 (2013)

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.

Misplaced Pages's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Misplaced Pages, 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

Text and/or other creative content from was copied or moved into ]. The former page's now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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 Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. 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 without those edits coming from your account. In fact you created the article 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)

inre 1906 (film)

Hello, Ret.Prof. You have new messages at Talk:1906 (novel)#Merger proposal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI

MacDonald, Dennis R. (2012). Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’s Exposition of Logia about the Lord. Society of Biblical Lit. ISBN 978-1-58-983691-4.

You might find this interesting reading. Ignocrates (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like a great read. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:47, 21 March 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)

Noticing how Iggy seems to be trying to caste covert aspersions regarding the "cast of characters," and how he seems to be once again indicating that he has a degree of irrational paranoia, I guess I should say that comments of this type are one of the few things I have recently seen him use other people's talk pages for. You might also be interested in reviewing his own history, including several of the frankly irrational and basically useless comments he made at User talk:Jayjg, and what seemed to at least me to be his clear and almost unavoidable POV pushing for the opinions of the Ebionite Jewish Community, a group which has, despite the best efforts of at least me to find sources for it, nothing remotely resembling a claim to notability, and deal with him with your "eyes open" as well. I think it is worth noting that, as one of the people who was actually less involved in Bruce's Christ myth theory article, it was obvious from several of his comments that he had a clear POV regarding the topic, and one which, honestly, seemed to disagree with the presiding academic consensus. That's fine. However, he also at times used the article talk pages for harangues on his beliefs, and regularly, unfortunately, made irrational and unacceptable claims of expertise on the article. That, coupled with his transparent POV pushing, and conduct in general, led if I remember rightly (I haven't checked) to his being made subject to lesser sanctions, and then later being site banned because he insisted on using sockpuppets in defiance of those sanctions, which results in a more or less automatic site ban.

Honestly, I and I think pretty much all of the other senior editors around here welcome seeing encyclopedic content of any sort developed, provided that that content, unlike certain editors edits to the Ebionites page, actually meets our guidelines. At least partially on the basis of helping to establish what is encyclopedic both in terms of content and articles, I have been creating pages like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Bible/Encyclopedic articles to indicate what is and is not covered in other highly regarded reference books. That particular page is currently being revised to be more in line with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Neopaganism/Encyclopedic articles and others I have worked on subsequently. But I think most of us would agree that it is probably a bit higher priority for us to create basically good articles about the most notable and significant topics relevant to a subject, and then have a better idea of how to go about creating other articles for the sake of comprehensiveness. Although it will probably be a few weeks before I get the revised Bible article list finished, I and I think everyone else would welcome seeing the missing and poorly-developed articles there worked on, making it easier for everyone to know what is still missing. And, also, by the way, although I can't swear to this, I saw in the recent Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion several separate articles on the "History of study" of various religious thoughts and groups. I can't swear that they necessarily establish notability for similar such articles here, but I can and do think that it would make a good deal of sense to have several articles of that type relating to various Christian topics as well. But, it probably would be more useful for everyone if we worked on the main topics first, and then developed additional "branch" articles later. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)