User talk:Bearnfæder

Welcome!

Hello, Bearnfæder, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Tetracube (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

VOT

Good idea adding spectograms to the voice onset time article. Thanks! rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Canonical Gospels

I've picked up in the discussion page on your comments to the author of this piece, and agree it is highly biased. Personally I think it is irrecoverable, and have proposed that it be deleted or at best merged with other pieces on the Hebrew Gospel. I doubt the author will agree, and suspect I'm going to be exploring the possibilities for 'dispute resolution' which Wikipedia offers. Hope you will feel able to support me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matruman (talk • contribs) 17:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, you "suspect" wrong! I will not take offense at an AfD. All I ask is that it be done fairly in accordance with Wikipedia policy. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Wishing you both a Happy New Year - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I have not been around much. Honestly, I began to find the task of fixing this article an impossibility, especially on my own against one such as Ret. Prof, whose dedication to the inclusion of poor source material, and tiring lists of 'references' in his favor make any attempts at productive editing certainly futile. Quite frankly, I am in no way opposed to the deletion of this article; it serves no purpose on Wikipedia. There is already an article regarding the Synoptic Problem, and individual articles on the canonical (and non-canonical) gospels; why this page is needed at all confuses me, since it offers little in the way of additional information to the already-present articles and nothing in the way of quality or reliability. Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect in all of this, however, is that the poor-quality research and information contained in this article has found its way weaved into so many other articles on Wikipedia; a full removal of this gibberish (which is all it is) is going to be a task representing a massive undertaking, which will no doubt be fought against vehemently by folk with the strong religious bias that produced and spread this information through Wikipedia in the first place. As such, I don't see a solid way of remedying any of this without some sort of authoritative action; thus, I agree fully with you, Matruman, and believe that some sort of dispute resolution will be necessary, and I am willing to give parts of my time to this cause. And, of course, whether or not Matruman's actions regarding this are appropriate or within Wikipedia guidelines is of little concern to me, and entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not some sort of authoritative action needs taking. (also posting this on the article's talk page; the secret posting of this on only my profile seems a little suspect) Bearnfæder (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Canonical gospels In ictu oculi (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is beginning to feel more like an election campaign. This Kind of canvassing is wrong - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You probably should be notified that the above just made a sockpuppet allegation against you on Talk:Gospel of Matthew. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)