Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:58, 3 December 2013

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{Talkback}} on my page as I may have missed your response. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

This is Chris troutman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archived discussions

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter (June 2013)

ICHTHUS

June 2013

From the Editor

Starting this month we will start a "Focus on" series, where we will try to "bring Jesus back" and focus on him. For five consecutive issues we will focus on one aspect of the study of Jesus. The goal of this series is to inform our members of what the project contains and highlight those articles which have reached quality and stability.

From this month until November we will focus on the historical Jesus, a topic which has been the subject of much discussion on article talk pages, as well as the general media. This is an important topic, and we have a good set of well referenced articles on that now. Then, starting in December we will focus on Christ, and the spiritual and theological elements that the title entails. Following that the review of the life and ministry of Jesus in the New Testament, his miracles, and parables will take place. And each month the "Bookshelf" will mention a book that fits the theme of the month.

We hope you will enjoy this journey as we present a new aspect of Jesus each month. And given that as the number of project pages increases, the ratio of those watching the pages declines, we hope that more of you will watch some of these central pages that help define this project.

Church of the month

The current building of All Saints' Church, Winthorpe in Nottinghamshire, England which was completed in 1888, is at least the third version of the church, which dates back to at least the early 13th century.

Good articles and DYKs
The article Jesus received the good article mark last month, as did Cleeve Abbey. A number of churches were featured on the main page in the DYK section in May, namely St. Lamberti, Hildesheim, Karja church, Braaby Church, St Patrick's Liverpool, Vlah Church, Freerslev Church, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption, Mata-Utu, St. Michael's Cathedral (Sitka, Alaska), St. Lamberti, Hildesheim, Karja church, Braaby Church, St. Pierre Cathedral, Saint-Pierre, Mont Saint Michel Abbey, St Patrick's Church, Liverpool, Vlah Church, St Catherine of Siena Church, Cocking, Catedral Nuestra Señora de La Asunción, Roholte Church, Notre Dame Cathedral, Taiohae, Leicester Abbey, Caracas Cathedral, Caldey Abbey, King's Mead Priory, Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Hong Kong) andAll Saints' Church, Winthorpe, as well as the hymn What Wondrous Love Is This.

Focus on...

THE
HISTORICAL JESUS

Did Jesus exist? Did he walk the streets of Jerusalem? The Historicity of Jesus article answers these questions with a firm affirmative. Historicity does not discuss if Jesus walked on water, but if he walked at all. The issue was the subject of scholarly debate before the end of last century, but the academic debate is almost over now. As the article discusses, virtually all academic opposition to the existence of Jesus has evaporated away now and scholars see it as a concluded issue. The discussion is now just among mostly self-published non-academics.

In 2011 John Dickson tweeted that if anyone finds a professor of history who denies that Jesus lived,he would eat a page of his Bible (Matthew 1 he said). Dickson's Bible is still safe.

The article discusses the ancient sources that relate to Jesus and how they fit together to establish that he existed. The evidence for Jesus is not just based on the Christian gospels, but by inter-relating them with non-Christian sources, and the fact that they all "fit together". Moreover, the existence of Jesus is not supported just by Christian scholars and in recent years the detailed knowledge of Jewish scholars and their discoveries (e.g. Shlomo Pines' discovery of the Syriac Josephus) has proven highly beneficial. We encourage you to read and follow the article, for the existence of Jesus is central to the existence of Christianity.

From the bookshelf

Just a few years after its publication, Van Voorst's book has become the standard comprehensive text for the discussion of ancient sources that relate to Jesus and his historicity. This detailed yet really readable book has received wide ranging endorsements - Blomberg and Harris separately referring to it as the most comprehensive treatment of the subject.

Did you know...

• ... that Johann Sebastian Bach wrote the initials "S. D. G.", for Soli Deo Gloria, at the beginning and end of all his church compositions to give God credit for the work, and that Handel at times did the same?

Calendar
The coming month includes days dedicated to the honor of Beheading of John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, the Nativity of John the Baptist, and Saint Barnabas.

Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity.
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe remove yourself from the listhere

EdwardsBot (talk)

Please comment on Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA

I have opened a new RFC at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates. —sroc 💬 08:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleting an inbound page

Hi Chris,

I am ready for my wikipedia page to go live, however, you told me not to copy and paste but to move the page. Before that, however, I am supposed to request the inbound page to be removed. How do I do that?

Also, what if I copy and paste very specific parts of the page as opposed to the whole page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamishigbin (talk • contribs) 02:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Obamishigbin: There are a couple things in play. Since the article you want change (Shelley E. Taylor) already exists, you are welcome to be bold and make edits as you need to; it would be inappropriate to have that page deleted. Be sure to use the edit summary when making changes. As you make incremental changes, another Wikipedian may revert your changes after which the issue can be discussed and a solution identified. However, if you wanted to make a wholesale rewrite (paste your version in, replacing the current content) you would need to post a message on the talk page notifying other editors what you intend to do and give them a couple days to respond, thereby avoiding potential upset.

Additionally, you are using your user page as your sandbox and vice versa. The edit history is primarily only important in the main namespace, so once you've made the changes you need to, you can copy the content from your sandbox into your user page.

By the way, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes on talk pages so editors can tell who wrote what comment. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism Question

Hi Chris,

As I'm editing the Misplaced Pages article on Normative Social Influence, I noticed that the very first paragraph is the exact same as the definition found here: http://www.definitions.net/definition/Normative%20social%20influence

Not sure who plagiarized who, but how should I proceed? Should I just strip the first paragraph from the Misplaced Pages article, and resummarize it in my own words?

Thank you for your help! Jblim23 (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! Definitions.net has plagiarized Misplaced Pages and I can tell because Misplaced Pages has cited the quotes in the lede, thereby proving where Misplaced Pages's content came from. I've run into this problem where the same unsourced quote was used in Misplaced Pages and other documents and it became impossible to tell which came first. There's no need to re-write anything as several mirrors and blatant intellectual thefts of Misplaced Pages content exist so you'd always find cases like these. I'm glad to see you're keeping your eye out for this sort of thing. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iran–Iraq War

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iran–Iraq War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Updating a stub

Hi Chris,

Normally I would just look this up on my own, but I figured it would be easier to just ask you. I am going to add quite a bit of information to the disconfirmed expectancy page later this weekend once I have finished polishing it up in my sandbox. When I do that, should I remove the STUB tags from the page/talk page? What is the general protocol for that?

Thanks, Adam Blake (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:STUB, there isn't a hard-and-fast rule for how much content makes a stub. I would say that if your improvements make the article more than a blurb, it's not a stub anymore. Choose any of the listed possible criteria at WP:STUB if any of those grab your interest. The DYK stub criteria is a good example. Regardless, be bold and remove the stub template if you think it makes sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I removed the stub tag from the page, but on the talk page the Psychology Project has it rated as class=stub. Can I remove that? Adam Blake (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That's controlled by WikiProject Psychology. Any single member of the wikiproject can change it, but I would leave it to them. Another editor will come by and rate the article and update the listing. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Galicia

Dear Chris. Please see my response to your message on my profile. That will be much apreciated--Martina Moreau (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Rudy redux

You might not ever want to hear from me on this subject again, but I think I've now completed my gradual expansion of the Rudy Boesch article to reach the level of comprehensiveness I envisioned during the GA review. I'd be curious to know what you think. I've tried to keep to your article formatting and citing style as much as possible. I've also kept in mind your reluctance to embrace SEAL memoir sources, by using them when I think warranted but always attributing them in-text, and by buttressing them with more general sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"You might not ever want to hear from me on this subject again..."

You are correct. You've already had dozens of successful GA noms and this one appears to have been just another GA nom to you. This GA nom meant so much to me as it would have been my first successful nom and I'm bitter. I wish you had done your job as a reviewer per the published standards and later added additional content for an A-level review rather than hijack my effort. Moving the goalposts like that has helped drive me away from the GA project. Please do not review any nomination of mine in the future and don't contact me unless there's a real need. Don't even bother responding to this reply as I prefer not to hear from you.

Objectively speaking, you did a good job of incorporating all those memoirs. Mentioning the sources in the text is a good way of prefacing the material. I've not read those sources so I can't speak to how hard it was to find those mentions of Rudy or how accurate they are. As a history major, I find articles like these problematic because they're so recent and the sources are all probably unreliable. In 100 years we'll be able to use official documentation and those primary sources will have been vetted by good secondary source analysis. You added a lot of content to the article and it certainly gives a better impression to the reader of who Rudy is. I think you used an even-handed approach to address the claims that Rudy was brought in on the show as a ringer by Burnett. I note that you changed all instances of SEAL Team TWO to SEAL Team Two. I don't know why the Navy insists on capitalizing TWO, but I thought that sticking to their conventions for their organization made more sense despite looking silly. I am glad you kept the lede section emphasizing Boesch's military career over his appearance on Survivor even though he's more widely known for his time on the TV show than his naval career.

Regardless of my bitterness, you ought to submit this article for GA or better review. Rudy deserves more press and I think your efforts deserve credit, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A week has gone by but I am still as dismayed by the intensity of your reaction as I have been by anything that's happened to me in eight years of WP. I've gotten bad negative reactions before, but generally by editors who are obnoxious, unstable, troublemakers, or socks. You are none of those, so clearly something has gone really wrong here. I know that WP has a norm that "Don't ever talk to me again" requests should be honored, but in this case I'm going to take a chance and violate that norm, because there are three things that I think are important to say:

1. I am really, genuinely sorry about what I did on this GA. I should not have jumped in and begun significant contributions to an article I was reviewing. I went wrong by taking two truths – that GA reviewers have always been encouraged to step in and fix review issues directly if they want, and that no one owns articles and others can always join in – and combining them. But this results in too many blurred lines, and occurs at the moment (article submitted for review) when stewardship feelings are naturally at their highest on the part of the nominator and thus most likely to result in hurt feelings. And more than most editors, I believe that "ownership" or "stewardship" or whatever you call it is not such a terrible thing – without it, you wouldn't ever get really quality articles. The uncomfortable truth is that in fifty GA reviews, I've done this not once but three times, and although the outcomes have varied (one seemed to end up well, one started well but ended not so, and this one was a disaster), I should not have been doing this at all. So in the future, I will limit any edits on articles I am reviewing to superficial typo and formatting fixes and the like and nothing more.
2. What I should have done with the Rudy review is fail the article outright, list everything I thought was missing from it, and walk away. Because this is the article I saw at the beginning of the review. It is 650 words long and, in my view of the GA 3a "broad in its coverage" requirement, was completely lacking in that respect. It leaves out important elements of the subject's life and, more crucially, gives the reader no inkling of why he became a legend within the SEALs and one of the most popular contestants ever on a popular television show. (By comparison, the current article, which in my view does do this, is 3,100 words long.) And given that, as we both agree, sources are difficult for this subject, there was no way all the missing material was going to be found and added within a week, the usual GA review waiting period. At that point, if I had done that, you could have, at your own pace, researched and added the things from my review you thought worthwhile, ignored the things you thought were not, and nominated the article again to see what the next reviewer thought. And whatever happened then, you would have still felt the article and the nomination was yours.
3. Don't let what happened in this episode drive you away from the GA process! I get that you feel extra bad because it was your first try, but WP can be a rough-and-tumble place at times. My first FA attempt was torn to shreds. Another was subjected to four hundred edits in a week by someone who had very particular views about grammar and usage. I've had GA and FA negative reviews I could and did learn from, others I could respect even if I disagreed with them, and still others I could not respect at all. It all comes with the territory; any of the WP review processes are by definition highly variable and reviewer-dependent. You've just got to get up, brush off the dirt, and try again.

Anyway, the most important thing I am trying to say is that I really am sorry for my lapse in judgement that led to all this happening. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Ed tags

I noticed that you put the educational tag on the Atkinson-Shiffrin memory model talk page. It links to the 220 Social Psych course that I am in right now, but I didn't edit that page for the course, I expanded Disconfirmed expectancy. I'll go put the tag on the page I did edit, if you think it's necessary, but I don't know that it belongs on the Atkinson-Shiffrin page as I just edited that like any other Wikipedian would. I'd hate any reviewer to just assume that I am another high school student or undergrad --- it might unwittingly (or wittingly) bias them when they are reviewing the page, and I don't think that's very fair. In fact that's why I didn't put it on the talk page for the one I did for class---I may have been required to do it for class, but I put in a bunch time and effort researching other Misplaced Pages articles and attempting to conform to all the standards and whatnot, and I really don't want someone reading that article to see that tag and discredit it (however slightly) because of it. I think you can understand my concern.

Anyway, like I said, if you want me to put it on the one I edited for class, I can do that. The other article though, I edited on my own for my own reasons...

Best, Adam Blake (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's message templates are meant to communicate good-to-know items to other Wikipedians, not prejudice them against your work. Misplaced Pages in fact does not have a program for high school students, so no one assumes that you are in primary education. Still, I understand your point. I reverted my edit on the Atkinson-Shiffrin talk page. If it's an issue for you, you may remove the message from 'disconfirmed expectancy' although I insist that no one thinks less of you for being a student. Please continue editing as you have been. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I sounded a bit disdainful there in my last message. I had just read some disparaging remarks about student editors on Misplaced Pages talk:Student assignments. I might go suggest some rewording to the lead on Misplaced Pages:Student assignments. The very first sentence seems pretty negative (not that it isn't a valid statement, I just don't know how I feel about it being the first thing you see on the page). Not a big deal though. I think the most frustrating thing is that it looks like some educators are dropping these assignments on students like another term paper, and learning to write in a neutral, well-sourced style is a pretty tough thing to do. Anyway, this project has definitely gotten me more interested in Misplaced Pages and editing here (as you can see I've already gone on to other articles and I actually have a queue lined up). Thanks for volunteering your time and helping our class out with both the general and the more technical issues! Best, Adam Blake (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Riga supermarket roof collapse

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Riga supermarket roof collapse. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Original Research

Hi Chris. Belated welcome back to Misplaced Pages. You may recall that, back in September, you suggested that I had tried to publish original research in the Thomas More article. That accusation is completely untrue, and I would appreciate it if you could withdraw it. You responded at the time, which I appreciate, but you didn't withdraw the accusation regarding original research. In fact you compounded it by suggesting that I had attempted to edit the More page "according to my own opinions" and that I had done so "as if what believe is unquestionably true". As it happens, you're mistaken on that score too: there are very few things I believe to be "unquestionably true" - Cogito Ergo Sum and Pythagoras's theorem would be two contenders, and I'm not even certain of those - so the idea that I regard my beliefs about Thomas More as being beyond question, let alone that I would edit Misplaced Pages accordingly, is very wide of the mark. But I don't want to spend too long debating your assumptions about what I believe. All I want is to tackle once and for all the suggestion that I attempted to publish original research in the More article. Could you therefore please substantiate that accusation or withdraw it. I think I've been quite patient in waiting two months (and counting) for this to be resolved. I fully accept that you felt the need to take time away from Misplaced Pages in October, and realise that you could not respond at that time, but now that you are back I'd appreciate it if you could resolve this outstanding question. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. You deserved an answer long ago and I failed to get back to you. I had begun developing a reply but I wanted to be precise since there's been disagreement. Sadly, I was overcome by events. I've already posted to the More talk page so the audience can see it there. I'm going to be brief, so please no tendentious replies.

Take for instance your deletion. You went on a long explanation of why you thought that content was biased. You never provided sources beyond your own belief about More. You never provided any academic criticism of Marius's book.

I previously brought up your deletion at Catherine of Aragon. The text communicated what the cited sources said. It's not up to Brooklyn Eagle on behalf of the English-speaking world to determine the sources didn't mean what they said. As I suggested back on 8 October, you are welcome to remove improperly sourced content or use the inline templates to raise questions about particular sentences. I've looked at your edit history and I agree that often you've helpfully removed POV and bias from various articles. This time I think you're stretching too far, especially considering you haven't brought a single source with you after all these weeks.

In conclusion, if you felt I claimed you were writing original research, consider that rescinded. I think you can go on at least using inline templates and raising questions on talk pages about POV issues. And please, adopt a nicer tone. I'm trying to appreciate your zeal for getting this right but you don't come off well at all and it makes a difficult discussion needlessly harder. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)