User talk:John Carter: Difference between revisions

Hi John, glad to see you join. Somehow the request was in the wrong place, but Sunray has added you diff. I will try and step up if discussion threatens to veer into associated but unrelated Jewish-Christian gospels. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convalescas

Veering off...

Re RetProf "John I think you are mistaken. Irenaeus, Jerome etc were writing when Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was in circulation" there is presumably a problem for yourself/Ignocrates to address the error in RetProf's comments since it is veering into the no go area of 4th Century heretical groups. I will keep an eye on this and if PiCo and Athnekos do not correct the error will intervene myself to do so. You won't need risk it. Thanks for your clear comments on the main issue, Matthew. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also, get well soon

In ictu oculi (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

coulda sworn i saw ya active again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jordan/Assessment stuffed how to work out to expand the content of the assessment list to full range... any idea/time/capacity to help? satusuro 15:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Please dont bother to check - solved - it doesnt list 0/zero content categories. sorry to bother satusuro 15:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I don't think you really understand how it works here. I'm just a volunteer. I don't have any stake at all in the Gospel of Matthew and don't think too highly of it, no offense intended, and I do not know what insults you claim I've made to you. If at any point any of the parties to mediation decide they don't want to participate, they can go back to editing the article. My job is to help you to compromise. That's going to look like Ret Prof adding some of his stuff to the article. The compromise will not be you saying it's fine the way it is and it will stay that way forever. Articles are fluid and need to be able to change and grow. My job is to help you find a way to do that. If you don't like it you can walk away, and find yourself at AN/I or ArbCom fighting with people who won't help you find a compromise. That's your choice and you can go down the path of disruptive editing, blocks and bans, although I won't be the one doing that. I've been editing here for 10 years and I can tell you that compromise is easier and better for everyone. Andrevan@ 08:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee is a volunteer committee with no actual power or authority whatsoever. Similarly, its representatives are in no way empowered or encumbered. I am not in any way compensated nor bound by any kind of contract, and I have no obligation to even communicate with you right now. The chair of the committee is User:Sunray and the previous chair User:AGK is currently on Arbcom. You are free to contact them, but I think they would more likely observe that you are disruptive than that my mediation style was so aggressive as to be inappropriate. Yes I am blunt, but the fact is that I am simply trying to forge a consensus for the good of the encyclopedia. You appear to be pushing a religious POV that is somehow personal to you, editing tendentiously, and borderline bullying other editors. You're not the only culprit, but I assure you that you will not find a sympathetic ear to your mode of interaction here. Also, when you have 12 parties to a mediation, at least 2 of which are visibly disruptive and calling for Arbcom, you don't wait around for everyone to reply to everything, and consensus is not a vote. Andrevan@ 08:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be blunt. The only thing I have seen from you is that you are apparently willing to place what you consider consensus "for the good of the encyclopedia" before all else, and, honestly, I cannot believe that a mediator who apparently thinks that as an individual they are uniquely qualified to determine the application of policies and guidelines, despite the fact that your above statement indicates that you both see yourself as being the law unto yourself, and that you apparently place your own interpretation of policy and guidelines before all else. And, if I may say so, your own rush to indicate what you consider to be the apparent actions of others only shows, to be blunt, your own utter ignorance of the topic under discussion. The two reference sources I have mentioned, along with the Anchor Bible Dictionary, are counted in the academic journals relating to religion/Christianity as being among the most neutral and non-biased of them all. I am sorry that you have, in this case, apparently decided your function is not so much mediator as judge, jury, and executioner, and around a subject about which, apparently, you know little or nothing firsthand, but I cannot believe that it is within the guidelines of mediation for someone to, basically, declare personal fiat. resJohn Carter (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is non-binding. I am just a volunteer. I feel we have made progress. Wikipedia does not care what the publishing world things or what you think is unbiased. If a POV is supported with multiple reliable sources, as Ret Prof's is, there is an argument to be made for explaining it in the article. Mediators are supposed to be impartial, like me. Andrevan@ 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 :The Mediation Committee is a volunteer committee with no actual power or authority whatsoever. Similarly, its representatives are in no way empowered or encumbered. I am not in any way compensated nor bound by any kind of contract, and I have no obligation to even communicate with you right now. The chair of the committee is [[User:Sunray]] and the previous chair [[User:AGK]] is currently on Arbcom. You are free to contact them, but I think they would more likely observe that you are disruptive than that my mediation style was so aggressive as to be inappropriate. Yes I am blunt, but the fact is that I am simply trying to forge a consensus for the good of the encyclopedia. You appear to be pushing a religious POV that is somehow personal to you, editing tendentiously, and borderline bullying other editors. You're not the only culprit, but I assure you that you will not find a sympathetic ear to your mode of interaction here. Also, when you have 12 parties to a mediation, at least 2 of which are visibly disruptive and calling for Arbcom, you don't wait around for everyone to reply to everything, and consensus is not a vote. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]] 08:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 :Let me be blunt. The only thing I have seen from you is that you are apparently willing to place what you consider consensus "for the good of the encyclopedia" before all else, and, honestly, I cannot believe that a mediator who apparently thinks that as an individual they are uniquely qualified to determine the application of policies and guidelines, despite the fact that your above statement indicates that you both see yourself as being the law unto yourself, and that you apparently place your own interpretation of policy and guidelines before all else. And, if I may say so, your own rush to indicate what you consider to be the apparent actions of others only shows, to be blunt, your own utter ignorance of the topic under discussion. The two reference sources I have mentioned, along with the Anchor Bible Dictionary, are counted in the academic journals relating to religion/Christianity as being among the most neutral and non-biased of them all. I am sorry that you have, in this case, apparently decided your function is not so much mediator as judge, jury, and executioner, and around a subject about which, apparently, you know little or nothing firsthand, but I cannot believe that it is within the guidelines of mediation for someone to, basically, declare personal fiat. res[[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter#top|talk]]) 08:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
+:Mediation is non-binding. I am just a volunteer. I feel we have made progress. Wikipedia does not care what the publishing world things or what you think is unbiased. If a POV is supported with multiple reliable sources, as Ret Prof's is, there is an argument to be made for explaining it in the article. Mediators are supposed to be impartial, like me. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]] 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)