User talk:Rande M Sefowt

Open, intellectually-endowed engagement is the mission, the aim -- our primary and most resonant ambition -- in pursuit of enlightenment in this wiki-realm.

Clean up interpretive derogation: Jesus and the Money Changers
Great job! Your wording was so skillfully done. I cannot imagine how any reasonable person could object to your fix. (It was terrible before.) I'm envious of your wonderful gift with words. Thanks for investing that gift in improving Wiki articles.

I/we desperately need help on Christian views about women. Just a glance at Talk:Christian views about women and Talk:Women in Christianity/Archive 1 will reveal a lot of pain, anger, and frustration. It's such an important article that just survived a recommendation for deletion. Now it appears to be in paralysis. If you have any interest and time at all, we could tremendously benefit from your very healthy way with words. Hope I'm not imposing by even asking. Thanks very much! Afaprof01 14:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Prattle
"I neither agree nor, in any substantive manner, value, the prattle of the presumptuous and the ethnocentric; yet I recognize the varied positions of those who maintain such sentiments within an information/dialogue-based forum as "critiques"". Do you always write in this way? What is this, a parody of pretentious prose? The term critique implies a sustained and coherent position. And no, florid pastiches of "intellectual" writing are not encyclopedic; they are useless prattle. Encyclopedias should be - and generally are - written clearly, decisively and vividly. I suggest you look up some of the articles in the Britannica. Paul B (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to read more. Perhaps when you've published as much peer-reviewed academic literature as I have you will overcome your difficulties. Paul B (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, I at least know with certainty the juvenile station from which you issue your positions. If you truly believe that the edits which you have recently suggested are indicative of the ethic embodied by the Encyclopedia Brittanica, then there is nothing resembling purpose in engaging further dialogue with you. Do remain blissfully wedded to your limitations. Very best,

sewot_fred (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Rande, as long as you keep adding pronouncements which only reveal your own "juvenile" mentality then we will not get anywhere. If you want to make constructive additions then you need to make clear and specific points relevant to the topic in hand. I say this to be constructive. Clarity, concision and content are what matter most in encyclopedic writing. I should know. I have contributed articles to three encyclopedias published by academic presses. Paul B (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cease and desist, friend. You have defended an insipid joke placed in the body of one encyclopedic entry that very well may have qualified as vandalism, then quibbled over semantics because my word choice seemed to legitimate positions upon which a second entry is premised. You followed that by critiquing an approach to prose (an approach found not in an encyclopedia entry but in a Talk Page comment). All the while you've struggled to afford credibility to your endeavors on these pages by citing your academic publication record in nebulous fashion. In other words, you've offered irrelevancies. There is no content-relevant discussion to be had here; nothing more need be said until there is one. So, until then, I'm moving on. ..

sewot_fred (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I never refer to my academic record except to condescending editors who are trying to present themselves as experts on scholarly prose. Look me up on Amazon. I'm easy to find. Here's an article about my latest project . I have no need to defend the credibility of my endeavours. The passage in the Race of Jesus article had been there for a long time. Its purpose was to show how discussion of modern cultural models of "blackness" intersect with claims about the historical Jesus. The publication of the article caused some discussion the UK at the time. The changes to the Race of Egyptians article have already been defended by the author of the original text. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And I have responded in due kind to that author. Best,

sewot_fred (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. ''Just to note that this is really required. We all miss them out sometimes, but you don't seem to be using them when adding material to explain your additions.'' Doug Weller (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical Error
I believe that the grammatical correction you made is actually wrong, see explanation []. If you agree please undo your error. Regards, LuxNevada (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your reply much appreciated, thanks. LuxNevada (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Commercial vs. "Powerful" Empire - request for clarification
I tried to help on this question,Please see explanation in the Portuguese Empire discussion page--Uxbona (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your "clarified phrasing" In the Jack Ruby article.
This is the "phrasing," well supported in footnotes.:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=A8sqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gc0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=840,5517179&dq=household+names+still+control+the+mob&hl=en ..Songbird Was Murdered. ‎ Palm Beach Post - Oct 26, 1963 ... businessmen and politicians whose names were household words in Chica go. Some of them, it was stated, had reformed. Yet they still controlled the mob.

This was the way the Jack Ruby article read.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Ruby&diff=441237793&oldid=440778953 ...Allegations of organized crime links ....Within four hours of Ruby's arrest on November 24, 1963, a telegram sent from La Jolla, CA,.... Tom C. Clark advised newspaper columnist Drew Pearson in 1946 that the FBI had verified the claims[20][21] of James M. Ragen that Henry Crown and the Hilton Hotel chain controlled organized crime in Chicago.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]

Consider that the heading in that section of the article is, Allegations of organized crime links can you argue earnestly that your edit is "clarified phrasing"? Where is the supporting reference for the edit you made? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Ruby&diff=442302436&oldid=441237793 04:08, 31 July 2011 Rande M Sefowt (talk | contribs) (35,544 bytes) (→Allegations of organized crime links: activated link, clarified phrasing)

Tom C. Clark advised newspaper columnist Drew Pearson in 1946 that the FBI had verified the claims[20][21] of James M. Ragen that financier Henry Crown and the Hilton Hotel chain maintained some interest in syndicated racketeering activities in Chicago.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Ruidoso (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Either you have misunderstood the clarified phrasing of 07/30/11, or you are some sort of jester, Ruidoso. I will excuse the first possibility, but I am disinclined from entertaining the second. . . So, all the best. . . sefowt_fred 16:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Serge Ibaka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Catalan and French

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Johnson (basketball), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlotte Hornets (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard S. Castellano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sicilian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andrew Ervin (author) (December 29)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew Ervin (author) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew Ervin (author), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew Ervin (author)


Hello Rande M Sefowt. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Andrew Ervin (author)".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank McGuire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Larry Brown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Nigeria. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed. If you dispute a long standing content of an article, discuss the matter at the article's talkpage and get a consensus. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through the discussion at the article's talkpage. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, unequivocally, irrefutably, please do leave the Nigeria page as you like. It is obvious that the original caliber of that remarkably, unquestionably, clumsily crafted stream of hyberbolic drivel at the close of what should be a straightforward paragraph is reflective of something dear to you. As such, have at it. Perpetually. I bid you well. sefowt_fred 19:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)