User talk:Wallingfordtoday

Bible Book Chapter article clean-up
Obviously, no obligation to work on this any more than you feel like it, but if you want a summary of some of the issues involved, relevant background is here:. Alephb (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Just removed the Structure sections from all the chapters mentioned in that discussion (as well as all of them in Aleph B's giant comment), including virtually all the chapters in Jonah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ruth, Lamentations, Hosea, Amos, Zechariah, Malachi, Isaiah, Joel, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Habakkuk. I also went ahead and did the entire New Testament. I'll see if I'll go ahead and finish up the Old Testament later. My estimation is that I just took care of about 300 pages right there. Whew.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks like this problem doesn't even exist in the Pentateuch chapters (most of which don't exist, it turns out) or in the Psalms. If there are any books you notice that still have the problem, let me know.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Holy cow. Well done! Alephb (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So as not to leave you all alone in caring for these articles, I've been following along the articles that you edited that show up in my watchlist (if you don't know about watchlists, feel free to ask). I've been removing bits that are cited to unreliable sources, especially the Nelson Study Bible. If you're at all interested in a list of the some of the unreliable sources that seem to crop up way to often in the more obscure Bible-related articles, I've got an incomplete list here: [User:Alephb/QuestionableSources]. Some of the bits cited to unreliable source also plagiarize the unreliable sources without any clear indication that verbatim quotes are being stated in Wiki-voice, so there's that too. Alephb (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My workload is about to crop up pretty quickly over the next month, so I'll see if I can do anything here and there. Good job on compiling those unreliable sources, makes things much easier. Wallingfordtoday (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. There's five million articles to work on and real life to get to as well. Heck, I'd more or less abandoned the chapter articles till they showed up on my watchlist lately. Each day, I'll work either as much as I want or not at all on them, and I fully expect everyone else do either no work or some work on them as well! Alephb (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, for reference, a while back I made up a list of which Bible chapters have articles. Not sure it's 100% up-to-date, though I'll add or subtract articles whenever I'm aware of being out of date. User:Alephb/ChapterList. Alephb (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just went through all 66 chapters of Isaiah and removed a couple hundred unreliable sources and dealt with a variety of other issues. Isaiah 52, before I dealt with it, was probably the worst page I've ever seen. If you don't include quoting the KJV or things like that, I think there aren't any more unreliable sources in Isaiah. Your list of questionable sources helped.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'm not too worried about quoting the KJV. If the KJV messes up a verse, it can always be replaced on a case-by-case basis. What gets me is the weird assembly line of pulling specific details from unreliable sources and then just sort of dumping them into the articles without any semblance of producing an article that summarizes the chapter. Glad the list was useful to somebody. Alephb (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Studium generale
Hello. I reversed your edits to the Studium generale page. Perhaps my wording during the reversal was a little harsh. I know you put a lot of work into them, but your edits were very mistaken, evincing confusion about the topic, and your cavalier dismissal of Rashall's work was rather shocking. I am reaching out, because I was afraid my reversal might appear mean-spirited. I assure you they are not. I'd be happy to discuss the topic further, and any improvements, in the talk page. But your edits, as they were, were untenable. Walrasiad (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's discuss this on the talk page. I may have been to quick to dismiss Rashdall given the date of his work.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Gospel of Mark
Hi, I noticed in your edits to the Gospel of Mark article that references to Steve Walton were to "ref name=steve" - I believe this should be "ref name=Walton" referencing the last name, not the first (I didn't want to wade in an correct your edits in case you had a reason to do it this way) - also, Walton's "What Are the Gospels?" is not included in the Bibliography section of the References (I don't know why this is when he is cited in the article) - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Referencing his first name is just something I threw in when I was making the edit, though per your point I changed the name to his last. I also added Burridge's book to the bibliography, tho I don't know if I should add the paper to the bibliography. Perhaps later.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Requests for comment and general stuff
Requests for comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment

General stuff:

Toolbox
{| class="plainlinks" width="100%"
 * - align="top" align="left"


 * WikiChecker

Order of sections
A simple article should have at least a lead section and references. As editors add complexity where required, the elements (such as sections and templates) that are used typically appear in the following order, although they would not appear in the same article at the same time:
 * 1) Before the lead section
 * 2) Hatnotes
 * 3) Deletion/Protection tags (CSD, PROD, AFD, PP notices)
 * 4) Maintenance / dispute tags
 * 5) Infoboxes
 * 6) Foreign character warning boxes
 * 7) Images
 * 8) Navigational boxes (header navboxes)
 * 9) Body
 * 10) Lead section (also called the introduction)
 * 11) Table of contents
 * 12) Content
 * 13) Appendices
 * 14) Works or publications (for biographies only)
 * 15) See also
 * 16) Notes and references (this can be two sections in some citation systems)
 * 17) Further reading
 * 18) External links
 * 19) Bottom matter
 * 20) Succession boxes and geography boxes
 * 21) Other navigation templates (footer navboxes) (navbars above Portal bar)
 * 22) Geographical coordinates (if not in Infobox) or coord missing
 * 23) Authority control templates (taxonbar above Authority control)
 * 24) Featured list, Featured article and Good article (where appropriate for article status)
 * 25) Defaultsort
 * 26) Categories
 * 27) Stub template

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul N. Anderson has been accepted
 Paul N. Anderson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  07:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Paul_N._Anderson help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

3 March 2019
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.


 * Matt, I'd object to this warning. The last revert I made to the page on Galileo was because Thucydides had removed content another user had added earlier for a reason that had nothing to do with the actual content. I have consistently reverted his edits (as well as incorporated a number of his points into the article), but that's because he keeps taking chunks out of the article without convincing or coming to a consensus with any other editors before removing them.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but I highly encourage you post to the Dispute resolution noticeboard regardless. It would appear neither one of you consider the activity edit warring. However, a dispute is definitely still present and should be resolved. &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-☖  19:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
My my, what would one say? Never thought I'd send you so many thanks! All the best, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  01:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I took the freedom to create User:Wallingfordtoday/Tools for you; maybe it's usefull. The references at the bottom of the talk were chased away by ; the blue background disappeared by removing the first background-tag from the table (see history).  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  01:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Resurrection
In return, I have to thank you for shortening this. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't compare to your own efforts!Wallingfordtoday (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Regarding this one, I'm still learning while reading. I'd never known there are so many publications on early Christianity; it's overwhelming. There are books by Dunn, Hurtado and others laying scattered over my sofa, reading them all through each other (that's incorrect English, I know), taking notes, raising qiestions, and trying very hard to understand. It's still connected to the Christ Myth Theory; we can repeat a 100o times that scholars agree that Jesus existed, but that won't convince the sceptical; we have to explain what Jesus meant for his followers, and how the mythological components came into play, and what they mean. Well, it least it works for me; I have the feeling that I understand somehow now what Early Christianity was about, and I like it; it comes alive for me. That's good. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Luckily for me, all (almost all) the books I own are digitized in easily accessible PDF's. The most recent work in the adoptionist debate (that I admittedly haven't read) is this by Bird against it. Having the information all reliably accessible on Wikipedia is the best we can do since this appears to be the mythicists favourite source of info, and hundreds of edits later I'm starting to see something I like.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)