Misplaced Pages

Greetings Misplaced Pages Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Misplaced Pages Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Misplaced Pages Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Misplaced Pages Librarian

Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Check this out

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/10/30/profile-tony-the-marine/ Not bad, right? Tony the Marine (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Museo de Arte de Ponce

This edit you made concerns me a bit. You have never edited this article before, now you are suddenly following my edits from Cornelius P. Rhoads to here. While we may have our differences referent to Cornelius P. Rhoads article you now seem to be taking my edits personally instead of discussing them in a civil manner. I don't think I have to talk much sense into you, since you appear to have made at least some sense yourself in the past. I hope we don't have to end up in a long-winded conversation on what appears to me to be a rather silly situation. I hope ego-inflation is not at play here. I believe you are an admin and I am a long-time WP editor. I hope you have a fairly acceptable explanation for this new behaviour, specifically your following me around which constrants my ability to edit[REDACTED] without having to worry that someone is follwing me around in bad faith. Do you have a reasonable explanation for this? Mercy11 (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You can see the results of the ANI discussion for yourself, so I am not going in that. I am here to make a proposal. Perhaps this can be a fair compromise. I think is a win-win for you no matter how you proceed, so I don't know how you could reject it. My time and yours, I think, is best editing than fighting. So here is my proposal:

How about if you get your way in the Cornelius Rhoads article relative to the Ewing edits and I get my way in the Museo de Arte de Ponce article relative to the AAM accreditation? I am no fool, and understand what it means if you accept (You, in fact, get what you wanted at Cornelius Rhoads for wikihounding me at the Museo de Arte de Ponce article). But I am willing to put this behind me. Mercy11 (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Procedural accept

That's the first one I've done - when you moved and renamed, you left the request open. I've closed it as a procedural accept. (I was trying to accept while you were moving things...) I do a lot of procedural declines, though. Peridon (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sarcastic

Andrevan, in RE: to THIS, I am not being sarcastic. But I am asking myself, how much longer before you can start thinking more in AGF mode? Mercy11 (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're not being sarcastic, you're just wrong. If you are saying you are going to revert Parkwells' edits and he can go to ANI, well, that's anti-wiki, unproductive editing. Andrevan@ 04:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, Andrevan, I didn't say I was going to revert Parkwells edits. I am not sure why you can't give up the idea that the only way to work with me is to do a non-AGF. As for you comments HERE, if you think I have a pattern of editing protectively, I don't: I am well within the guidelines of WP:PG and WP:BOLD. I really don't know what continues to bug you so much. Perhaps you are still hung up on The FBI files on Puerto Ricans?

I know you are the author or WP:DAQ, but remember essays don't have the force of P&G. Perhaps you can nominate it to P&G and then we will all have to live by DAQ also. But until then P&Gs is what rules. As for the WP:RFC/U thing, well,,,, anyone has the prerogative of listing there. I cannot take that right away from you. I hope this helps, Mercy11 (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know the FBI files thing as well. DAQ - which is in many ways a counterpoint to BOLD - is also a counterpoint to the point I'm making to you, which is you need to stop pushing a Puerto Rican nationalist POV in your edits by aggressively reverting anything that differs from your preferred version of the article. Andrevan@ 05:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Response needed

Hello Andrevan; I'm not sure how to respond here, hope you can help. Thanx Mlpearc (powwow) 06:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Advice

Andrevan, you know that you are among my earliest friends in Misplaced Pages, so as a friend I am going to give some advice. I know, you didn't ask for it and that you don't have to take my advice, but here goes. I believe that the situation between you and User: Mercy should stop. You are both good editors and it is counter productive to Misplaced Pages that you both keep bumping heads. It may seem to those following the discussion (which I am not) that you may be wikihounding him. Don't get me wrong my friend, I am not saying that you are, but others may think otherwise. Let it go, as I said, it is a pity that the situation has gotten personal amongst you both, good editors. That is my humble advice. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response. As I stated before I haven't followed the discussion and I don't even have the articles in question on my "watchlist" which is why I really don't know what is really going on. My interaction with you has always been the best. I hope that things get sorted out between the parties involved. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Puerto Rico-related articles

If you need sources for something related to Puerto Rico remember we have a WikiProject for it at WP:PUR. I personally specialize in politics and economics. While Tony (Marine 69-71) specializes in history and military. You can find about our specializations at Template:WikiProject Puerto Rico participants. Putting a {{cn}} is fine but many of us don't have the time to check articles every day so just contact us directly on our talk page and we will help you out. If you have an issue with someone from WP:PUR feel free to channel your inquiries through me. I will help you out as a neutral uninvolved editor with references and what not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor

Andrevan,

I have noticed that you made several changes to the Briarcliff Manor and Briarcliff High School articles. May I ask if you were at any time a resident of the village? I inquire because I have recently been writing a draft of the Briarcliff Manor article, and I would appreciate your advice and input. In any case, I would also appreciate your input as a seasoned editor and administrator. You may find my draft on my userpage here: User:Ɱ/sandbox7.

Thank you. --ɱ (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Ɱ's talk page.

Hello. You have a new message at Ɱ's talk page.

User name change

Hello. Thank you form changing my user name from Yerevanci to Yerevantsi as I have requested at Misplaced Pages:Changing username/Simple.

However, I'm still having a problem. Even though my user name has been changed, it still appears as Yerevanci. Why is it so? Does it take some time to change? --Yerevanci (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is fixed now. All I had to do was log out and sign in with my new username. --Երևանցի 21:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Links to userspace

Please don't link to your userspace from the main article space. Andrevan@ 18:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Adeptzare3 (talk): The Prisoner of Benda

Adeptzare3 (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC): The link is to the article namespace now.

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6

Rename

Thank you for taking care of that for me! Gloss / talk 05:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Misplaced Pages Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi 14:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please step away from the dead equine and stop making the kinds of insinuations about others that you've now posted on several different talk pages. No matter the propriety of the username in dispute, your comments are not acceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you've now amended your comment and partially apologized, so thank you for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Resign please, and leave wikipedia

Just seen this. I'll have you blocked and desysopped for that bullshit if I can. "I Have no idea if they are mysoginist...". You utter, utter piece of scum. Pedro :  Chat  23:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Removing the sysop flag

Hello Andrevan. I am curious; when removing the sysop bit, regardless of circumstances, is it standard to leave the user with no rights at all? Wouldn't it be more proper to restore the flags the user held prior to becoming an admin? In my opinion it would.—John Cline (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Changing username

Hello, I'd love to change my name from קרוקס to Crocsh, Thanks. קרוקס (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

vanish

Thanks. My interpretation of events was that the user was too unfamiliar with policies to make such a request and too distraught to receive instruction. Dlohcierekim 15:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Saturday: NYC Art And Feminism Misplaced Pages Editathon

WP:VG Interview

This hasn't hit the mainstream yet, but today is an important day for WP:VG. We've reached our 10 year anniversary! The WP:VG Newsletter crew are interested in running a feature this quarter on the early days of WP:VG and because you are one of the earliest contributors to the WikiProject, we need your help. In the last 10 years a lot has changed and we'd love to hear your perspective on it. One of the biggest changes may be your level of participation in the WikiProject or even in Misplaced Pages generally. This is why I'm contacting you almost 2 months before the newsletter is due to come out (it's due on April 2). I'm hoping that you'll have time somewhere between now and then to answer a few general questions reflecting on WP:VG and Misplaced Pages in general. Please contact me here if you would be willing to answer a few questions for our anniversary article. If you can participate, please mark this beside your name on the list, and if you can't participate please also mark this on the list by deleting your name or overstriking it. I hope this will be a fun and interesting quarter for the WP:VG Newsletter! Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• PS - If you'd prefer, I could also contact you by email. Let me know if that would be more convenient for you. -Thibbs (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Great! I'll drop a note here on your talk page when I've got a draft of the questions posted. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Hi again, I've posted a preliminary set of five questions at my sandbox (linked above) so that you can get a sense of what kinds of questions I'll be asking. The final interview will probably be 10 to 15 questions in total. -Thibbs (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Next step

Thanks! What should I do next as filing party? - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think if we don't start this process soon, there will be no point to mediation. Ignocrates (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Question

Sorry for asking this, but whom would I be obliged to contact in the mediation committee to indicate that I believe the mediator in a case might be, perhaps, not one whose good offices as a mediator are necessarily apparent in their actions? I have to say that some of your own comments call into question your own ability to fairly mediate a matter of content. Also, while I recognize that you are an atheist, and honestly don't give a damn about that one way or another, I very much believe that there is a possibility that the discussion is getting out of control, and that your own attempts to perhaps seek to impose your own will on the parties of the mediation is strongly indicative that your good offices as a mediator are under some degree of question. Please see the talk page of Christ myth theory about Saint Barbara and the like where I try to indicate that my motivation is more as a historian, not as a religious believer. I am the first to acknowledge, by the way, that no reference book is necessarily the single best source for anything. I have seen several reviews of several such sources indicating that a specific article was written by someone in a limited field who was among the only living people who knew the subject, and that the group editors/board of editors of multiple reference sources don't always proofread or critique articles once they have been assigned. So, yeah, some articles are recognized as being biased from the word go. But your some of your recent comments call into question whether you as an individual are capable of seeing all the parties in the mediation as capable of being fair, and, honestly, I don't think that you necessarily have the evidence to support that. And, also, by the way, I would appreciate a direct response regarding where you as an individual place the apparent priority of WP:CONSENSUS among all policies and guidelines when the group involved in developing that consensus includes only a very small number of editors and where, honestly, the subject is one which few if any people know personally to any reasonable degree? John Carter (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

While noting your appeal to authority, an article I believe you should read, on my talk page, I very seriously question whether you as an individual are so necessary empowered by your position that you are in a position to tell others "the way things work around here." I also notice that you seem to be showing a remarkably ill-advised hope to resolve the situation before all parties to the mediation have even commented, as per my own comments on the talk page, and am now, seemingly, once again, because in your little condescending comment on my user talk page you didn't answer it, I am forced to once again ask you, as a functionary of MEDCOM, who I would contact to express my concerns that you as an individual are not necessarily demonstrably qualified to mediate in this matter? And, if it isn't asking too much of you, do you think you might actually allow all the parties to the mediation to at least respond to proposals before you attempt to "reach compromise" before they can express their opinions, which I repeat you seem to be doing in this particular instance? John Carter (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see my talk page, in which I responded to your implicitly stated belief that somehow you as an individual are in a position to not only mediate, but also play judge, jury, and executioner, Sunray's talk page, in which I request that another mediator be assigned to this matter, and the mediation talk page itself. Also, maybe, you might at some point review the academic journals relating to religion, in which you would find almost instantly that many if not most of the books published recently in the field of Christianity are in some way promoting fringe theories. Whether you as an individual know the field much or not, I think you would realize that, unfortunately, there really haven't been that many recent "discoveries" in the field of the early Christian era, that there are an incredible number of professors facing "publish or perish" threats despite the fact that there isn't that much new to publish anything about, and so, unfortunately, most of the books published as anything other than overviews or recapitulations are going to be, in some way, advancing of fringe or distinct minority theories, particularly taking into account the widely disparate beliefs of some of the 20,000 Christian denominations/groups estimated to exist today. John Carter (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

I believe it is infinitely more reasonable for me to ask you how you believe you are justified in showing the unconscionable gall to call me a troll on my own talk page, and then to show the lack of courage to stand by your own comments by revising it to simply calling me "silly". It also very, very much approaches, if not in fact clearly violating, WP:NPA based on your own rather biased and less than knowledgeable opinions. Equally problematic is your apparent refusal to abide by policies and guidelines in your own conduct of this matter. Please stay off my user talk page until and unless you yourself, who seek to try to tell others how to behave, insist on such unacceptable behavior of your own. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If you insist, I still think you might be a troll. But I agree that was a borderline personal attack so I removed it. Andrevan@ 21:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

YOu removed it two minutes after the comment above, as can be seen . I also notice how you as an individual seem to be almost obsessed with this conversation, rather than perhaps actually reading some of the material in the relevant mediation and making an effort to see if some of the contentions put forward by some of the parties are actually supported in accord with policies and guidelines, which has been repeatedly asserted by multiple parties and which you have yourself, to date, apparently not bothered to address or perhaps even make an effort to attempt to review. So, you still think that I might be a troll. Fine. I will refrain from saying the words which your conduct is increasingly convincing me apply to you based on your own recent conduct. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew

Suit yourself, though I have been editing Gospel of Matthew, which is the main mediation focus. -- 101.119.15.65 (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I was about to create a section to notify you that an IP (101.119.15.110) left me a complaint about the mediation on my user talk last night. I thought you should know of anything that might be related to the mediation, and considered it possible that others might be seeing stuff like that too. Then I saw this. So if anything ever comes to having to pursue the possibility of inappropriate behavior from IPs, here you have another datum. Evensteven (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I made some additions to the GoM article, as we discussed in mediation, per WP:BRD. Unless someone is apoplectic over them, I think we will be able to close the mediation soon. I can't see leaving it open indefinitely in the hope that Ret.Prof may one day return. Ignocrates (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, has indicated on his talk page that he is recusing himself from further editing on the Gospel of Matthew article, see diff. Therefore, I think we have returned to normal editing, and the original purpose of the mediation is at an end. Thank you for your assistance as mediator in helping to bring about a resolution to this protracted content dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing?

Hi Andrevan: It appears that the mediation has wound down. Did you want to make a final comment on the case talk page before closing? It seems to have been a successful mediation, no? Sunray (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Interview ready for responses

Hi Andrevan, April 2 is coming right up and the quarter is drawing to a close. Sorry it's taken me a bit of time to get this together. In reference to this previous discussion, the interview is now completed and I was hoping you could share your thoughts when you get a free moment this weekend. The numbering in the interview may change as I edit the thing into perfect shape after the responses have all come back, but the questions will stay the same and of course I won't modify your or anyone else's responses. You can respond here, at my talk page, or within the interview itself. Whatever is easiest. Thanks again for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks again. I've imported your contributions into the final product which can be seen here here. The newsletter is due to go out tomorrow today, but feel free to modify your answers or fill in any more any time up until it's published. -Thibbs (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC) (updated -Thibbs (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
• OK It's been published now. Thanks again for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciated your thoughtful participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Quick question

Hi Andrevan,
WP:VG's Newsletter department is looking for editors to interview for our Featured Editor column, and your name has come up in discussions during previous quarters as a likely candidate. From your edit history it is apparent that you are not currently as active an editor as you once were, and it's completely understandable if you don't have the time to be interviewed any more. But if possible, we'd love to hear your story from you.
The interview consists of some 15 questions that you can answer however you like and which you can tinker with up until the newsletter is published. Our hope is to have a small number of interviewees cued up for upcoming Featured Editor columns so your interview would most likely appear in a future issue. You can review previous interview questions here to get a sense of the kinds of questions you would be asked. If you see this note, please let me know at my talk page if you would be willing to answer some questions for the Newsletter. Thanks! -Thibbs (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

On clouds

I am utterly appalled at this ignorant comment....

...there's no such cloud as a cumulostratus, let alone a fluffy one. Stratus clouds are flat and featureless, in fact. I expect far better knowledge of clouds from the elite few who judge our positioning under them. – Juliancolton |  22:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits at BN

Hi. I just wanted to say thank you for your recent edits at BN. I particularly appreciated this edit. I'm glad that you're still around and I hope you're well. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Barnstar

Just a minor thing

On this page, you referred to User:Fluffernutter as male ("his unease"). They are in fact female. It'd be nice to be accurate on that. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 24: Westchester County Edit-a-thon

Please check it out, and sign up if you can come: Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Westchester.--Pharos (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users

Dear Andrevan,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Arbitration

I have made a request for arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bullying

You knew about the new ArbCom civility case, right? I don't expect to say anything there, and my only real concern is maybe differentiating for separate penalties some of the things lumped together on that page, but feel free to! add anything you think appropriate. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

@Andrevan: I am working hard at following your sound advice! Gone is the Text-walling and I will be careful to (1) use only high quality reliable sources, and (2) accurately summarize what they say. Before actually adding material from Casey 2014 to the article, I posted this reference in the Bibliography under General Works. I also suggested we take a week and carefully read this scholarly work to see if we can use any of Casey's material. Their reaction was swift and immediate:

1. Delete Casey 2014 from the Bibliography,
2. To bury me under a mountain of comments that are so very wrong, that it would appear many of editors do not even have a copy of Casey.

Could you help us once again?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...Today I just removed a broken link and was reverted by a user account created a couple of months ago. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

One hat only please

I think this comment you made on the talk page at Talk:Gospel of Matthew makes you "involved" as an editor, and therefore, unable to serve in a future capacity as a neutral mediator. Of course, anyone is free to participate as an editor, yet you mentioned several times you know nothing about the subject. What hat do you see yourself wearing here? Ignocrates (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It certainly does not make me "involved." The comment is not on content but about process and policy, and done in the context of informal mediation requested by participants. Andrevan@ 15:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no one requested your participation as an informal mediator but Ret.Prof. Therefore, you have some kind of agency relationship with him, and are acting as his advocate. You are not "informally mediating" anything, since no one else requested or agreed to your participation. Let's be clear about that. Ignocrates (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)