Talk:Increase Mather

message: I know even less about this person after reading the article than I did before. It is clearly tendentious and thoroughly partisan, as well as lacking in clarity of exposition. Possibly the worst wikipedia article I have seen. Should be thoroughly rewritten so that someone like myself who has no opinion, but wants information, is not spurred to complain as I have been.
:The article was derived from the 1911 EB. The difference in time probably accounts for much of your confusion. What we need here is a good redactor. --Flex 14:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: article quality

message: See title. I completely revoked the previous articel except for the categories, interlanguages, templates and sucession boxes and the image. Doing some cursory sourcing I hope I've been able to decently "clean-room" an articel on this dude. I'm not sure of the method of referencing I've used is legitimate, but it's a matter of alot of cites and not alot of sources, so I did what didn't make the refs section as long as the articel itself. 68.39.174.238 09:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed noxious tendentious partizanry heretofore complained about. 

message: I refuse to deal with this page anymore. 68.39.174.238 13:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:No1lakersfan violated WP:FN#Converting_citation_styles by not getting consensus before converting the citation style, and you would be completely justified in reverting that change wholesale. Is there some other reason you are giving up? (On the other hand, note that the bottom of every edit box is the statement "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Cf. WP:OWN.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the revert. I don't mind other people editing this page (Granted, I may dislike the edit itself) and have no problem with it occurring. What irritated me most was just that it can be incredibly hard (for me at least) to deal with this new style. I admit it has certain advantages, but when I'm doing maintenance on it it is so much harder to deal with then the current style. 68.39.174.238 07:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologize for the damages I made to that page. I did not intend to cause trouble by converting the references for that page, and did not know that such a rule for Wikipedia existed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I will be more careful with converting these tags from now on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by No1lakersfan (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it, I didn't know that that rule existed either untill User:Flex notifyed me of this on my talk page! As they say, "continue editing normally". ;D! 68.39.174.238 07:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you are proposing, though it appears to be a vote of some kind, possibly on whether to endorse or revert the work I've done, which would be a silly alternative to editing the page however you see fit. Furthermore, I was unaware of the previous controversy, but it is my opinion that the / method should be abandoned wherever possible. — CharlotteWebb 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've completely abandoned this page and all others; do with it as you see fit. 68.39.174.238 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may also add: You botched the conversion. For some strange reason the UMKC reference wasn't converted, resulting in a flood of "citation needed" tags, including one an an already cited statement! 68.39.174.238 18:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OKokok I'm back. Anyway, the "mass edits" I did were because the original page was repeatedly complained about and was almost totally unsourced beyond the "we-stole-it-from-Britannica-from-1911". Others edits I can't try and justify. As to improvements, you can try and make them yourself. All my edits were attempts to that end. Also, I'm not a "vandal". 68.39.174.238 23:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I admitted previously (and stick by it) that the name of the section was less then calmly selected. As to further improvements, I fully admit this is far from something I would submit as finished work and anyone is welcome to do so without let or hindrance from me. 68.39.174.238 18:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screw it screw it screw it screw it 

message: I see User:CharlotteWebb converted the references without seeking consensus here. Let me just go ahead and propose that we move the ref tags. All in favor? Opposed? --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you are proposing, though it appears to be a vote of some kind, possibly on whether to endorse or revert the work I've done, which would be a silly alternative to editing the page however you see fit. Furthermore, I was unaware of the previous controversy, but it is my opinion that the / method should be abandoned wherever possible. — CharlotteWebb 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've completely abandoned this page and all others; do with it as you see fit. 68.39.174.238 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may also add: You botched the conversion. For some strange reason the UMKC reference wasn't converted, resulting in a flood of "citation needed" tags, including one an an already cited statement! 68.39.174.238 18:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OKokok I'm back. Anyway, the "mass edits" I did were because the original page was repeatedly complained about and was almost totally unsourced beyond the "we-stole-it-from-Britannica-from-1911". Others edits I can't try and justify. As to improvements, you can try and make them yourself. All my edits were attempts to that end. Also, I'm not a "vandal". 68.39.174.238 23:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I admitted previously (and stick by it) that the name of the section was less then calmly selected. As to further improvements, I fully admit this is far from something I would submit as finished work and anyone is welcome to do so without let or hindrance from me. 68.39.174.238 18:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another conversion

message: In the middle of the list of works of his works is "De successu evangelij apud Indos in Novâ-Angliâ epistola (1688)" — That looks alot like Esperanto, but in 1688?! 68.39.174.238 15:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Latin and seems legit: . --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I see. I was unaware that Latin had J's and a's-with-circumflexes. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Classical Latin didn't have, but new letters were added in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era. Their use was not always consistent. The circumflexes denote an ablative case here, since 'Nova Anglia' is written the same way in the nominative and ablative but pronounced differently. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this real? 

message: he seems to be one of the few people who cared about their fates, yet there is nothing about this war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.50.184 (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone should mention his sympathy for preying Indians during King Philips war 

message: It is not clear how the name "Mather" was pronounced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.96.198 (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mather's name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Increase Mather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902165525/http://oasis.harvard.edu:10080/oasis/deliver/~hua28004 to http://oasis.harvard.edu:10080/oasis/deliver/~hua28004
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107131602/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/ASA_INC.HTM to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/ASA_INC.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829114748/http://www.iath.virginia.edu/salem/people/i_mather.html to http://www.iath.virginia.edu/salem/people/i_mather.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified