User talk:Ret.Prof

I'm taking a break.

Your "drafts"

You have several pages that say they are drafts for review. However, they aren't actually drafts because they are forks of actual articles (and include considerable copyright violation). What is the purpose of these pages? Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Internal copyright violations

This is why I referred to copyright violations. Although you can copy or move text from one or more pages into another page Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

As always I thank you for your help.

Re Proposed edits

1. The article Celsus should be edited to read as follows >>>User:Ret.Prof/Celsus
2. The article Jesus in the Talmud should be edited to read as follows >>>User:Ret.Prof/Jesus in the Talmud
3. The article Josephus on Jesus should be edited to read as follows >>>User:Ret.Prof/Josephus on Jesus

I am preparing drafts on my user page in order to try to avoid continued edit warring. Then after my proposed edits have been vetted I am planning to resume editing. They will be integrated into the aforementioned articles (NOT new articles). I believe I have complied with all Wikipedia policy regarding "proposed edits" including copyright rules. However, I will review this policy and in the meantime stop working on my proposed drafts. Thanks again for your time. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

When I was new I had no idea about this and didn't even understand the messages I was getting(which weren't this clear). Thanks. You will still have to add any changes piecemeal of course. I think you are asking a lot to expect a review of something that is partially yours, partially the work of many others. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I have found the misunderstanding. I am not proposing new articles but new edits to existing articles. Proposed edits to the existing articles are OK. I am about to resume work on my proposed edits. If I have missed anything please let me know. Thanks again for your time. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to assume there is a mistake in your saying "#The article Celsus should be edited to read as follows >>>User:Ret.Prof/Celsus" and "#The article Celsus should be edited to read as follows >>>User:Ret.Prof/Josephus on Jesus" as you propose above. Also, I believe that it would probably be the case that the entire community could take part in discussion before changes were made but welcome Courcelles' comments on that and the disposition of the draft pages afterwards. John Carter (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have requested independent oversight of your draft articles by a former arb here. Ignocrates (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Stepping back

This was a good faith effort to end the edit warring. Obviously I failed. Therefore I will be once again stepping back from Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Being kind of out of everything I don't know exactly what's happening, but I wish you the best. Summer is over before you know: get out of it what you can while you can. I'll be in the office or the classroom if you need me. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, "stepping back" is exactly the wrong thing to do. You have every right to develop draft versions of articles in your user space, as long as they are appropriately labeled as works-in-progress. I encourage you to stick with your efforts to improve the content. Whether your changes are accepted as improvements in main space is up to the community at-large. Ignocrates (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I find some of the comments starting this thread unusual. Please indicate exatly where the edit warring you say you are trying to end is taking place. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Response to email

Thank you for your query via email. I've looked at this page as you requested. The comments to you by other editors all seem in order and I'm not sure what your concerns are. Would you be able to specify specific concerns? Sunray (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunray, I think it would be better to continue your dialog with Ret.Prof by email. He seems to have approached you in confidence, and it probably should be kept that way. Ignocrates (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ret. Prof contacted me following a mediation case. I am on the Mediation Committee. It is usually not appropriate for committee members to discuss things privately with mediation participants. Therefore I chose this way to respond. Sunray (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for weighing in with an opinion. I asked Courcelles to take an independent look at this page, but that was before I realized he may be away from Wiki for an extended period of time with an illness. Ignocrates (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Btw, the three draft articles are clearly outside the scope of that formal mediation. The only thing they have in common with the subject of the mediation, and with each other, is Ret.Prof's participation as an editor and those who are opposed to his activities on Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I usually avoid private discussions of issues that may become the subjects of mediation. It is not a hard and fast rule, but when I looked at the subject matter of the query, it seemed that others (including you) had responded, providing useful information. Sunray (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re works-in-progress

Sorry to stir the pot, but the idea of creating draft documents in user space is that they are works in-progress. If there is going to be no activity on them for an extended period, i.e. "stepping back", the pages should temporarily be blanked to avoid the impression that the drafts are content forks, per WP:FORK. Opinions please. Ignocrates (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You are out of line here - userspace is granted broad discretion. While these "drafts" will certainly not replace the articles, I do think that taken individually there might be pieces which can be introduced as points of discussion, and so this can be seen as Ret. Prof's "ideal" article. I am not saying that we need to do this for Ret. Prof, but we can explain in a nice way that this isn't how the changes will come about if they do end up meeting consensus after being discussed. That doesn't mean he can't have userspace to think about and refactor those changes before proposing them on the talk page. Andrevan@ 07:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not "out of line". I made a suggestion and requested comments. I was in no way assuming bad faith; I was trying to minimize the potential for a misunderstanding. Feel free to apologize to me for your bad faith assumption that I was doing otherwise. Btw, I'm glad to see someone uninvolved taking an interest on Ret.Prof's behalf. Ignocrates (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

When people don't know how to do things here, you're supposed to help them, not bully them away and blank their pages. Andrevan@ 01:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The only comment Andrevan made which is apparently even remotely questionable is "You are out of line here," which I think few people would take as "assuming" anything. Andrevan BTW may be interested in reviewing the archived and maybe non-archived material from this page - he might find it interesting.John Carter (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)