User talk:TheEditrix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear TheEditrix: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! —User:ACupOfCoffee @ 07:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Christian prophets

Hi there, there are a couple of problems with that article that you started just now. Could you please weigh in on its discussion page. Cheers! Dr Zak 16:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Destubbulation

With regards to the unstubbing of Daisy Dukes, hey, works for me. But if this is a boilerplate that goes on all Talk pages on which you do this, I'd double the B in "disenstubbified," thus preventing it from being pronounced with a "stoob." --Darksasami 21:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh! Amusing. I'll do it. The Editrix 21:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Could it be said that you're on a "disenstubbification jihad"? ;-)

"Clothing controversies" seems to be a good category... Churchh 12:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental suit

Hi, I noticed that you've removed Category:Clothing from Environmental suit, and I'm assuming that this is because Category:Environmental suits is a subcategory of Category:Clothing. However, it's also a subcat of Category:Protective gear, and it would appear that they should both be included per the Topic Article Rule (per Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories). I've raised the issue on the article's talk page also. Regards, Ziggurat 04:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow badge

Sorry TheEditrix, I reverted your categorization of YB. I don't think a badge/tag really belongs to clothing categories. If you disagree, let's discuss it at Talk:Yellow badge to see what others think. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. The Editrix 15:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European clothing (historic)

What is the point of the "European clothing (historic)" category? I really don't see any principled criteria by which you moved some articles out of Category:History of fashion and left others in. The "bloomers (clothing) got its start on the American continent, and in various later derived forms has been worn on all continents, basically... Churchh 03:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The History of Fashion category was impossibly long and confused. The European clothing (historic) category was added as an attempt at making a parallel with clothing for other ethnic groups, as listed in the Clothing by nationality category. The European name was used decidedly, to distinguish it from the Western wear category that applies primarily to frontier clothing. Without this subcategory, every item in the Clothing by nationality category would have to likewise be listed individually under History of Fashion, making it even more convoluted. The European subcategory appropriately places items of European influence under both History of fashion and Clothing by nationality. The Editrix 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, categories don't have to be short and rigidly narrowly defined; many categories are large or slightly grab-baggy, and that's not a problem in itself -- it may be a problem in certain cases, but is perfectly fine in other cases.

Second, your desire to promote "clarity" was not aided when you gave your new category a stupid name -- since it is apparently your intention to include many items of apparel which were not confined to the continent of Europe, or (as in the case of bloomers) were not even first worn in Europe, and I still don't see the slightest rationale for which items you took out of Category:History of fashion and those which you left in.

If you had confined your new category to "Die Tracht" (or European national costume), then your new category would make perfect sense (see Talk:History of Western fashion for discussion of "Die Tracht"). Unfortunately, you did not confine it to "Die Tracht".

Third, the overspecific microcategorization which you seem to be indulging in on many articles is not necessarily very helpful. For example, you left Empire silhouette with the categories "Greek clothing" "1960s fashion" and "European clothing (historic)", yet many non-Greek women have worn Empire-line dresses in decades other than the 1960s on continents other than Europe. The advantage of having less narrow and less rigidly-defined categories is that you don't have to spend too much time overthinking the exact categorization in such cases.

Frankly, I really see no value or advantage that the "European clothing (historic)" category has over establishing a "European national dress and local costume" category, and moving everything that's not European national dress and local costume back into the general "History of fashion" category... Churchh 01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I patiently explicated the value above. Second, I don't appreciate the personal tone of this discussion. Use of terms such as "stupid" are inappropriate, and violate the terms of WP. Civilized discourse is the order of the day. I look forward to your retraction. The Editrix 14:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if you had actually explained things instead of merely "explicating" them, then it would have been more helpful. I still see absolutely no value whatsoever which the category "European clothing (historic)" (with its very poorly-chosen name) adds over what a "European national dress and local costume" category would add -- and I still see absolutely no rationale or factual basis for what items you rather arbitrarily chose to move from "History of Fashion" to "European clothing (historic)" [sic] vs. what items you chose to leave behind. That being the case, I foresee that I personally will have to spend several hours of intensive Wikipedia editing doing nothing but following around behind you, and cleaning up the category messes which you have left behind -- and that you personally have rather gratuitously added to my work-load. Churchh 04:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Weighing in here: I understand that "History of fashion" is fairly "fuzzy" (since not all historic clothng is fashion). However, I agree that "European clothing (historic)" really doesn't fit clothing worn in America or equally in America and in Europe.

In a case like this where a category is in widespread use, I would rather see some discussion about redefining that category (perhaps by proposing "History of fashion" as as a category for deletion) and then an opportunity for discussion around the pros and cons of various alternate category structures before anyone goes to the enormous amount of work required to change all of those articles (or to change them back).

Could we discuss this on neutral territory and see if we can reach consensus on a scheme? - PKM 02:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll be glad to discuss this anywhere whatsoever where Editrix can supply a meaningful answer to the following two questions --

1) What factual or logical basis was there for the items which she chose to move to the (poorly-named) "European clothing (historic)" category and the items she chose to leave in the "History of fashion" category? (This really seems almost entirely semi-random and whimsically arbitrary to me.)
2) What real point is there in placing an item only in certain rigid and narrowly-defined microcategries, if its existence or use goes far beyond those particular categories?? (Tagging "Empire silhouette" with the exclusive microcategories "Greek", "1960s", and "European (historic)" for example.)

So far, all of Editrix's "explications" haven't thrown much real light on the answers to these two questions... Churchh 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You may be sure, Churchh, that I'm growing increasingly weary of the hostile tone of your comments here. The Editrix 15:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then we're even, because I've grown increasingly fatigued with your obstructiveness and refusal to offer any meaningful explanation of your somewhat unhelpful actions. Churchh 16:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've patiently answered both of your questions, above,

No you haven't -- for question #1 you tossed around some vague mumbo-jumbo about somebody possibly hypothetically confusing the concepts "Western Wear" and "Western fashion" (which certainly didn't convey any particular explanation to my mind), while for question #2 you haven't offered up the slightest answer of any kind.

and don't see that your continuing interrogation is anything more substantial than harping.

Well, that's unfortunate then, because I'm going to be making efforts to resolve this issue as long as it remains unresolved.

Please re-read my comments, above, and note the careful descriptions included in the relevent category headings. Please consider taking a deep breath and coming back in a week or two, or in whatever timeframe is required for you to converse without hostility. Thank you. The Editrix 15:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This "European clothing (historic)" nonsense has gone on for close to a week (since 15:17, 8 June 2006 to be precise), during which I've taken a lot of breaths, and it still doesn't make any more sense now than it did then... Churchh 16:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a detailed explanation of the prior category scheme and its merits (or lack thereof) and a detailed explanation of the proposed category scheme within the fashion project template is fully appropriate and normal. Taking unilateral action without such a discussion is just asking for trouble with the project's other editors. The appropriate course of action at this point would be to cease editing/reverting, present a fully developed proposal for discussion on the project's talk page, and implement the consensus opinion on the matter. Mistakes have been made, but there's no reason why we all can't step back and start over along the proper path.

And my own opinion on this matter? I don't give a fig for fashion. I just like to see reasonable processes followed by intelligent people in the spirit of collegiality (or at least with minimal out-sticking of tongues). Rklawton 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Since "Editrix" has been silent on this page for three days now -- while very actively editing on Wikipedia in the meanwhile (and industriously accusing me of "edit warring" on a dozen different article talk pages!) -- and therefore has STILL not given us the slightest meaningful explanation for her uncooperative unilateral actions, I can only assume that she has no real meaningful explanation to offer. If she doesn't take her obligation to explain her actions which others may find questionable very seriously, then I'm afraid I don't take her very seriously. Churchh 13:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The History of Fashion category was impossibly long and confused. The European clothing (historic) category was added as an attempt at making a parallel with clothing for other ethnic groups, as listed in the Clothing by nationality category. The European name was used decidedly, to distinguish it from the Western wear category that applies primarily to frontier clothing. Without this subcategory, every item in the Clothing by nationality category would have to likewise be listed individually under History of Fashion, making it even more convoluted. The European subcategory appropriately places items of European influence under both Category:History of fashion and Category:Clothing by nationality. The Editrix 17:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malay and Malaysian

Hello. I've noticed that you are trying to merge Malaysian culture and Malay culture into one category. It is important to realize Malaysia and Malay are two different terms describing two different things. Malay is not necessarily Malaysian and a Malaysian is not necessarily Malay. A citizen of Malaysia is called Malaysian and not Malay. Malay is an ethnic group, not an adjective to Malaysia. This is a common misconception by outsiders. I hope you could revert all your edit concerning the two categories. __earth ^(Talk) 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, Earth. I'll admit I'm not Malay myself, but I am the former editor of two large Malaysian tech publications, so I'm relatively familiar with the two terms. I combined them because the category is about culture, rather than government. There are still a couple of items in the culture category that would really be better suited to the political category I was hoping to work on in the next couple of days. (National flag, for instance).

But if you feel strongly about making a separate Malaysian Culture category (though I'd contend there IS no "Malaysian" culture; just Chinese, Indian and Malay cultures), I'll leave it alone and not revert any edits you make. My argument would continue to be, though, that while there is definitely a Malaysian government, there's no separate Malaysian culture. But since I'm not Malay (or even Malaysian <grin>), I'll bow to other opinions. The Editrix 17:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC), pining for her former office in lovely KL.

There is a Malaysian culture. Malaysian culture is the interaction of different groups that make up Malaysia. For instance, DeepaRaya or Kongsi Raya or Manglish is definitely Malaysian and not Malay. And then kiasu definitely not Malay but rather, it's Malaysian (and Singaporean). So too are Ah Beng. Without the interactions between Malay, Chinese, Indian and other ethnic groups, all these terms wouldn't exists. So, I have to say that to call the result of those interaction as Malay culture is inaccurate.

It's just like American culture. It's a result of interaction of Anglo-Saxon, African and many other cultures. Without those interaction, the US would have no culture of their own. If Malaysia has no culture of its own, then a lot of countries wouldn't have a culture of its own.

As for flags, maybe it should fall under Category:Government of Malaysia but that itself does not warrant a deletion of a category. __earth ^(Talk) 10:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If making "Bandanna" the article fixes it...

If making Bandanna the main article works for you, then great! I'm going to wait a few days before requesting the move, though, to give others an opportunity to weigh in. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Then again, I'm going to go ahead and request it, because that process has a built-in waiting period to allow people to support/oppose. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The Editrix 16:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cat:Western wear should now be fixed, without moving any articles, Septentrionalis 17:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good move. Thanks! The Editrix 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I just found out about that technique recently myself. Septentrionalis 19:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Gregoire

Mike Gregoire was redirected to his spouse as he is not individually notable. There need be no consensus to redirect in such cases. Deizio talk 22:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the premise, so consensus absolutely needs to be reached. The Editrix 23:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As you put "vote to keep" on the article talk page when there is no open vote on his inclusion I think you might be a little confused as to what's up here. Deizio talk 22:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I may be confused, but I see no consensus on your redirect proposal. You said aye, the original author said nay, and you -- if I remember correctly -- then redirected it. Am I misremembering? -- The Editrix 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, check out WP:BIO and if you can prove he meets the criteria then add evidence and remove the redirect. If you don't have further evidence that he is individually notable the consider leaving the redirect intact. Note that being married to a notable person does not confer notability. Or, as I stated on said talk page;

"The trouble is, this guy is not notable, and notability is not contagious, genetic or passed on through bodily fluids."

Of course, if you're serious about keeping the stand-alone article in its current state then I'll be happy to split the difference and put it through AfD. Nice one. Deizio talk 22:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

He's as notable as 90% of the people on the list of spouses of US governors. And insofar as he's from a large state, he's as notable as most of the people on the First Ladies list. Why do you have a beef with him, and not with any of the other governor's spouse? You'll pardon my saying so, but it seems personal. An enemy of yours? --The Editrix 22:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I do pardon your saying so, check out my userpage and you'll be hard pushed to find a reason I would have a "beef" with the spouse of the Governor of Washington State, USA. From my position of utter neutrality, this guy is non-notable and in the absence of any policy or guideline that makes a governor's spouse automatically notable then WP:BIO applies. I believe that the size of state is irrelevant, as I understand it there is one governor per state and therefore all states are technically equal in that respect. Also, one should resist the temptation to go down the "If A is notable, why not B?" route, WP articles are judged on community policies and guidelines, not their relative notability to other articles which is at best entirely subjective.

In this spirit of blunt questions; Without regard to any other article, do you personally believe that Mike Gregoire satisfies the criteria set out at WP:BIO? Deizio talk 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you reverted again. Oh well, AfD time. Deizio talk 23:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. And I still don't know why you're more focused on him than on any of the other spouses of governors. It's a puzzlement. The Editrix 23:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I checked your user page, as you requested. Perhaps you could help me understand why your "spouses don't confer nobility" argument doesn't apply to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh? The Editrix 23:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually serious? Without mentioning the obvious, I'll point out that Philip is royalty, having been born "Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark". That's before becoming the de facto King of the United Kingdom. Damn, I mentioned the obvious. Going deeper, a quick glance reveals Philip meets not one but at least 4 of the criteria at WP:BIO, e.g.;

The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. (e.g. instituted the Duke of Edinburgh's Award)
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
An independent biography
The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

Mike who? ;) To answer your previous question, I guess I just love getting into random articles. I think I could now name 3 governors, and the other 2 are named Bush and Arnie. Deizio talk 23:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good discussion. Thanks for the input! --The Editrix 19:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Christ as source of "A Course in Miracles"

Thanks for your attention to this article. Yes, the article needs help. If you'd be interested in suggesting any changes, please do. Please contribute whatever you think would improve the article. Another editor and I are currently in an edit war over this article, and it is getting exhausting. Andrew Parodi 21:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offer of Arbitration

Thank you for the offer. Yes, please offer any help you can with this. It is getting incredibly frustrating. Thank you. Andrew Parodi 22:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait to see whether the other disputant wishes to participate. I'm keeping my eye on it! <smile> The Editrix 23:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is jl, the other editor. You seem well qualified to handle this dispute. I participate.

Jl2200 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm basically done attempting to reach a compromise with the other person. I've decided the only way out of it is to just end the dialogue with that person, because he/she isn't even listening anyway so it is a waste of my energy. That person is hostile, insulting, and obviously not interested in communicating with me. I hope that you can keep an eye on it and perhaps, if you are an administrator, do what you feel you must do in order to curtail their abuse. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi 01:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well. That's WP for ya. Frustrating, ain't it? --The Editrix 19:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I actually don't live in DC...

I actually don't live in the Washington DC area, though I do spend a lot of time up there, and I'm trying to find a job up there so I can move up there. I'm actually from the little town of Stuarts Draft, Virginia right now.

Also, I left a message on Talk:Kerchief. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job, all of us! <smile> ``The Editrix 19:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the arbitration

You were very helpful with that page. In the course of your participation, and then in the course of further arguing with the other person, I realized that it simply is time for me to leave the page altogether. It's not worth the stress and aggravation. I think that my contribution was simply to get the article started and to maintain it in the face of attempts at deletion. I think it will be up to others to expand and improve it. I just don't have the time for the headache anymore. Thank you, though. It was refreshing to work with someone who was neutral. -- Andrew Parodi 21:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I was happy to help. --The Editrix 19:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catégorie : Mormonisme

Le tableau intitulé "Christian denominations" n'a pas sa place en tête d'une catégorie mais devrait être inclus dans un article. Cette insertion représente un abus, c'est pourquoi je serai amené à le retirer. --Frederic Sorhaitz 11:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Je suis ignorant d'un tableau intitulé "Christian denominations." À quelle page vous référez-vous? Pouvez-vous répondre en anglais? -The Editrix 13:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Je me référais à cette page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mormonism

Pour moi, vouloir imposer la présence du tableau "Christian denominations" est de l'anti mormonisme primaire et la manifestation de l'hégémonie des religions issues de l'Antiquité et de la Réforme. --Frederic Sorhaitz 06:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Regrettablement, "l'anti mormonisme primaire" et "la manifestation de l'hégémonie" sont des expressions peu familières à moi. Je comprends leurs définitions anglaises. Peut-être elles ont une signification différente en français. Désolé! --The Editrix 19:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

J'admets que ces expressions sont fortes, mais c'est avec la même force que je ressens votre action de détournement sur Wikipedia. --Frederic Sorhaitz 08:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] curious

About this comment you made on AfD:

Strong Keep. It's not unremarkable, and significance is noted. User Ste4k appears to be on an anti-ACIM jihad, as this is one of a long list of AfDs this editor is suddenly proposing, all using an identical list of "concerns," above, and all from the same general topic. I have no personal interest in ACIM, other than that I assisted in arbitrating a dispute, and have since noticed Ste4k's unusual activity here. -The Editrix 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Where were you when I was cleaning up the porn sites? Did you make the same comments then? I seriously think that you should try to speak and get to know somebody before making assumptions, presumptions, and accusations. Just because you happen to believe that something is important, doesn't mean that everyone else in the world has ever heard about it. okay? thanks. :) Ste4k 09:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for caring. Unfortunately, I have no interest in porn sites, so I can't really account for my whereabouts when you were visiting them. If you truly need to know, give me the dates and I'll do my best to recall. I appreciate your kind thoughts. --The Editrix 16:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laments for Josiah

Laments for Josiah is a nice article. Did you use any sources when you wrote it that you might be able to add to it? If not don't worry, I'll just add a tag so that any passers-by who know of a good source will see that some are needed!Inner Earth 18:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Very kind of you. Thank you! I've added other sources...and could add a dozen more. I'd appreciate your taking a look through other Lost books of the Old Testament -- in particular, the two that are currently undergoing debate, to add your perspective. --The Editrix 19:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox vestments

Hello, you haven't responded for 4 weeks over at Category:Orthodox vestments. Gimmetrow 13:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! -- The Editrix 19:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture

Please have a look at your article. It has been flagged as an article for deletion. I feel this is a grievous error. Fiddle Faddle 20:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You're a star. Thanks! --The Editrix 02:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Lost books of the Bible"

Hi there, this [1] and the references cited there got me thinking about the motivation for all the articles on books mentioned in the Bible that are no longer extant. It seems that some Mormons assert that books have been lost from the Bible and that thus the Bible is imperfect. If indeed that is what you believe it would be worth including that assertion (together with suitable references) in a suitable article.

It also seems that your interpretation of the Bible is very literal, and your viewpoint is that some of the traditional authors did indeed write the books attributed to them. Passing that off as fact would be original research, but since we conveniently report what people say it would be absolutely within limits to state in the appropiate article that scholar so-and-so or adherent of such-and-such a denomination believe this-and-that. On the other hand, content forking, as you did with articles like Lost Book of Enoch and Lost Book of Jasher, when we already have articles on the Book of Enoch and the Sefer haYashar is discouraged. CHeers! Dr Zak 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your assumptions about my affiliations border on rank bigotry. If that's your motivation for making AfD nominations, shame on you. --The Editrix 01:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Those articles were nominated because they were content forks to put forth a certain POV. The above suggestions are just that - suggestions for more cooperative editing. And please don't cast aspersions here when my motivations are clear enough. Dr Zak 03:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to be pulled into this fray further, but thought I'd drop a comment to you about the AfD nominations. Without knowing any of this history that seems to be going on, I tried to remove the AfD nominations of four of the lost book articles. The AfD nominations were added to the articles without comment as to why in the talk page of the article. Seems to be Dr Zak and others think that no comments are need on talk pages for AfD tags added due to POV forking. But, had there have been a comment I would have never removed the AfD but would have added my comments to the discussion. Anyway, just wanted to let you know why I did what I did. The nominations have been added back by others.--P Todd 01:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Im here to help

First, a disclaimer. I am not an Admin, nor will I pretend to be one.

I was contacted via my userpage by a man who claims to be your husband. He brought to my attention User:Dr Zak's attacks on your articles. I am doing my best to keep them. If he continues to do this, feel free to leave a note on my talk page. False Prophet 03:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving Wikipedia

Just a quick note to thank you again for the help you gave on that article, as well as to say that as of today I am no longer participating with Wikipedia. If you'd like to contact me, you may do so at ether of these two email addresses: andrewparodi@aol.com or andrewmichaelparodi@yahoo.com Thanks again. -- Andrew Parodi 04:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Book of Moses

Hi there, your recent new article on the "Lost Book of Moses", which is a reference to the altar and memorial mentioned in Ex 17:14, is again written from an entirely LDS viewpoint and tries to pass off LDS teachings as accepted fact. This is to ask if you are up for mediation, as the article in its present form goes against Wikipedia's policy of neutrality and cannot stand, and nominating it for deletion would cause much ill will. Dr Zak 17:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You make unfounded assumptions about my affiliation yet again. I am not LDS. I am not an ACIM course student. I am not Baha'i. I am not Messianic. I am not Muslim. That I am knowledgeable about these subjects -- and many more -- is no cause for you to attempt, yet again, to cast aspersions on my POV.

Most puzzling is your assertion that the Book of Moses article somehow passes off "LDS teachings". If you're familiar with an LDS teaching that is related to this article, I'd like to know what it is. I thought I was fairly familiar with their beliefs, but you've got me at an utter loss. Cite, please? --The Editrix 18:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sheesh. I just figured out what you're talking about. Because I put a Disambiguation link at the top of the article to the LDS "Book of Moses," which is COMPLETELY unrelated to this article, you think that qualifies as "passing off LDS beliefs." Please. I am astonished that as long as you appear to have been on WP, you're unfamiliar with the concept of Disambiguation. I've gone over and clarified your concern. The LDS book has nothing to do with this book. You may want to familiarize yourself with Disambiguation.

Moreover, the link to the LDS.org footnote demonstrates that the LDS would probably assert that the referenced topic could, possibly, be NOT lost. In other words, LDSers might DISAGREE with the thesis of this article, as outlined by the two sources cited therein, if they had any opinion at all. So no matter which of those two elements concerns you, you're entirely off base. --The Editrix 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No sorry, these aren't my concerns. Specifically my concerns are

The article asserts that the document and altar written after the battle against the Amalekites are a book
The article asserts that that document is called Book of Moses and a few other names and does not mention who calls it that
The article also asserts that several references in the bible refer to that document (again without references)

Altogether the whole terminology of "lost books" sounds much like Talmage, as mentioned here, and passing off Talmage's theory as accepted fact is not how WP:NPOV works. Dr Zak 19:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That someone who happens to be LDS noted something doesn't make it POV, any more than does the fact of Methodist John Wesley's notation of the same thing. (And thanks for the Manner of the Kingdom alert. I've just gone and chased after that, too.) Really, you've GOT to stop harrassing me. Seriously. I'm spending every moment of my days defending articles you're AfDing instead of improving WP. Do you really think you're behaving honorably? Contrary to your assertion elsewhere, I'm NOT "man enough to take it". Your behaviour is destructive, and I'd appreciate your giving me a break. --The Editrix 20:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

One wishes you were less dismissive of people's concerns and instead extended some good faith even to those who believe that they are improving the encyclopedia by voting to delete an article of yours. I see that you haven't addressed at all my concerns with the Lost Book of Moses article. If you can't work together with people and engage in discussion about your viewpoint Wikipedia may not be suitable for you. Sorry. Dr Zak 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not my intent to cause you distress, it is simply that I believe that the articles that I nominated for deletion in the last few days are not suitable for Wikipedia as they run counter to core Wikipedia policies. Why not work on a well-established article instead? An established article won't immediately end up on AfD. Dr Zak 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hang In There

Hang in there! I wonder if your entries would have been kept if you had called it something other than "books", e.g. "lost texts" :-) , and also if you had used terms that are explicit that their are controversies and differing opinions as to if the works existed as stand-alone texts, etc. Honestly, I never saw a true expert jump into that fray. Seems like many participants in the debate had some biases that were driving their comments and decisions.--P Todd 02:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can I offer some advice?

You seem to be having some problems around here, particularly with User:Dr Zak. I think your problems could be mostly solved if you would source your edits better. For example, I have looked at an article you started, Nazarene Prophecy, which your edit had stated was a lost book of the Old Testament. You had not provided any sources for this claim and my Google searches could not provide any WP:RS that supported this interpretation. The claims for this on the internet are far from reliable sources. I did look this up in the Catholic Encyclopedia and rewrote the article as a stub based on the information contained there. I think it still needs to be expanded on the basis of scholarly sources. I want to expand on Jerome's interpretation of the passage in Matthew, for example. I would welcome you to participate by adding well-sourced information and analysis from reputable third-party scholars to the article. JChap 15:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also rewritten the articles on "Lost Books of the Old/New Testament." The problem with them was that they implied the books in question were once considered canonical, but such claim was not referenced and is not, I believe, the majority Christian view. I believe it is a Mormon/LDS teaching. If that is accurate (and sourced) I have no problem with including the claim in Wikipedia, in these specfic articles or otherwise, provided it is specifically mentioned as a teaching of this particular denomination. Best, JChap 18:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming Category:Orthodox vestments

Hi Editrix: Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 14#Category:Orthodox vestments where I have nominated that Category:Orthodox vestments be renamed Category:Christian Orthodox vestments in order to differentiate between the Orthodox Christian religion and Orthodox Judaism. In the future, please add the word "Christian" and not just "Orthodox" when writing about the Christian movement to avoid any misunderstandings with Orthodox Judaism or with Jewish editors. Sincerely, IZAK 15:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cult debate

Most of the contents of the article was merged to cult. However the contents are not or poorly sourced. Many of it is sourced with out-of-context citations i.e. citations that do not make a connection with the subject at hand i.e. cult wars and cult debate. Because references had already been requested long ago at cult debate and talk:cult debate I will delete the unsourced contents (with the exception of contents that I cannot seriously doubt) within a few days. Pleas provide better sources if you want to keep the contents. Andries 09:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User_talk%7ETheEditrix_692c.html"