Talk:Increase Mather

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Increase Mather has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Calvinism Portal Increase Mather falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] article quality

I know even less about this person after reading the article than I did before. It is clearly tendentious and thoroughly partisan, as well as lacking in clarity of exposition. Possibly the worst wikipedia article I have seen. Should be thoroughly rewritten so that someone like myself who has no opinion, but wants information, is not spurred to complain as I have been.

The article was derived from the 1911 EB. The difference in time probably accounts for much of your confusion. What we need here is a good redactor. --Flex 14:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redacted

I've cleaned this article up (somewhat), and have made the following notes:

• Is the "Second (or North) Church" the Old North Church of Paul Revere infamy?
• Is it just me or do semicolons make thought fundamentally harder to understand?
• "fetched over and made a Sacrifice" ?!
• "Eluded officers sent to alrest him" *roll*
• I think the == ==s help the most...

Thanx 68.39.174.91 21:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ok....

I thought that this Wikipedia article was VERY confusing. It was too technical, not to mention VERY opinion oriented. Someone needs to do some serious editing.

~Anonymous Student~

[edit] Further redactions

Redacted alot, hopefully the years time since the above comment(s) will make this a legitimate articel. 68.39.174.238 03:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed noxious tendentious partizanry heretofore complained about.

See title. I completely revoked the previous articel except for the categories, interlanguages, templates and sucession boxes and the image. Doing some cursory sourcing I hope I've been able to decently "clean-room" an articel on this dude. I'm not sure of the method of referencing I've used is legitimate, but it's a matter of alot of cites and not alot of sources, so I did what didn't make the refs section as long as the articel itself. 68.39.174.238 09:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screw it screw it screw it screw it

I refuse to deal with this page anymore. 68.39.174.238 13:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:No1lakersfan violated WP:FN#Converting_citation_styles by not getting consensus before converting the citation style, and you would be completely justified in reverting that change wholesale. Is there some other reason you are giving up? (On the other hand, note that the bottom of every edit box is the statement "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Cf. WP:OWN.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made the revert. I don't mind other people editing this page (Granted, I may dislike the edit itself) and have no problem with it occurring. What irritated me most was just that it can be incredibly hard (for me at least) to deal with this new style. I admit it has certain advantages, but when I'm doing maintenance on it it is so much harder to deal with then the current style. 68.39.174.238 07:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the damages I made to that page. I did not intend to cause trouble by converting the references for that page, and did not know that such a rule for Wikipedia existed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I will be more careful with converting these tags from now on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by No1lakersfan (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Don't worry about it, I didn't know that that rule existed either untill User:Flex notifyed me of this on my talk page! As they say, "continue editing normally". ;D! 68.39.174.238 07:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

O and by the way, sorry for the less then couth section heading I gave this... 68.39.174.238 07:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another conversion

I see User:CharlotteWebb converted the references without seeking consensus here. Let me just go ahead and propose that we move the ref tags. All in favor? Opposed? --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are proposing, though it appears to be a vote of some kind, possibly on whether to endorse or revert the work I've done, which would be a silly alternative to editing the page however you see fit. Furthermore, I was unaware of the previous controversy, but it is my opinion that the {{ref}}/{{note}} method should be abandoned wherever possible. — CharlotteWebb 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose the vote because User:68.39.174.238 previously objected to the change (see above) and because WP:FN#Converting_citation_styles (in tension with WP:BOLD) does say consensus should be reached on this matter before moving ahead. Usually seeking consensus would be little more than a courtesy and a rubber stamp since most editors would prefer the newer citation styles, but here it may not be so. I vote that we keep the new citation style as is. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)