User talk:Fratprez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Edit warring

Why are you trying to edit war on Saint Joseph. I'm all for editors being bold. But, have you read WP:BRD? If an editor in good faith reverts a bold addition, it is never appropriate to re-insert that information without first discussing it and reaching a new consensus. And, the idea of qualifying the term "father" has come up before on the talk page and there was no consensus then for those additions. So in essence you are adding material against a prior consensus. Please consider working with other editors instead of being trigger happy with the revert. It is hard to work in good faith with other editors on the talk page when they are trying to start an edit war in the article. I strongly urge you to self-revert your addition and let things play out on talk a bit longer. Good luck and good day.-Andrew c [talk] 21:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. You need consensus to make your changes. Myself and another editor both disagree with you. You can't force your way by edit warring. Re-inserting disputed new content against consensus is a form of disruptive editing. It is hard for other editors to assume good faith and work civilly with other editors who are edit warring. I ask you to please be more patient and stop re-adding content before the discussion is through. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I will try & work up a draft. Not much about the article is that good, so a fresh start may be best. Andrew is very reasonable, so I am sure we can work something out amicably. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

  • Respect intellectual property rights - do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Maintain a neutral point of view when editing articles - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

I've posted the above template welcome message so you can read through a bit of wikipedia rules and guidelines. I apologize about the message above if it was a bit harsh. I did not realize that you are new to wikipedia, and was writing a message to someone whom I thought was experienced with wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks again for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 21:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Fratprez, thank you for our supportive words. I have been around here for nearly three years and gained the impression that the response one gets depends not only on the quality or poverty of ones contribution but very much also on the subject. Just like elsewhere in the world. When I was "registered", I felt responsible for my contributions and kept defending them. Even more so, since I have been making a concerted effort at an unbiased presentation. In principle, talk pages are of course the suitable tool for dealing with questions and controversies; but I lack the necessary amount of time. My fault. Then there is the moral aspect: once a contributor gets involved, s/he ought to watch the development of the article; if a contributor does not respond to a challenge, someone may conclude that s/he must have relented. So, I "de-registered"; and now I feel free to keep a check on articles or not, to make my point or not, and likewise free, if challenged, to give some form of explanation or not, and then leave it at that and put it out of my mind, wash my hands of it. In a sense I am therefore trespassing the ground of all the decent contributors that take the trouble to register, stay registered, keep due watch and face the music. Hence my apology – heartfelt but not heartbroken. Thanks again & best wishes! (I am entirely happy with 5; but since you asked, here are 4:) 86.135.190.28 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: After all this, I couldn't resist taking a look at the changes made since I left the article.
No need to read further than the first sentence of the lead to get an idea of the quality of the current version. Having reverted to the "consensus version", it now again considers "Christian traditions" (i.e. apocryphal and pious interpretations) as more authoritative than the information provided by the primary sources. That's not a scholarly approach to any subject. Not to forget the small point that Christians consider those primary sources, i.e. the New Testament Gospels, to be part of the Word of God. So, that's not even a Christian approach to the subject then.
I almost didn't look down that far. See the end of the chapter on the events in the canonical Gospel accounts at which Joseph had been present. Someone has added the comment "Joseph was a hard working man". The fact that it has been allowed to stay puts the deletion of my edits into perspective. It's one of those subjects …
Johnbot offered to re-write the article. The side-effect of re-writing is that it pretty much renders the tool for the easy comparison of the versions ineffective. It also needs to be remembered that Johnbot's contributions show no expert knowledge of the subject other than in the sphere of art.
Perhaps the view is being taken that Saint Joseph as a topic is of predominantly pious importance. But if so, then this limitation ought to be stated in a sub-heading to avoid misunderstandings about the article's scope. – However, others may wish to argue that the information in the primary sources is of significance to the correct understanding of the other material in the primary sources and that it is therefore in the interest of this project to include it, and this in the place appropriate for information contained in the primary sources, and presented unfudged. In which case this article still has some way to go. 86.135.190.28 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)