EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →Section break: You are allowed to comment here as to how you want the paragraph to be revised |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →Titanic (1997 film): Collapse a lengthy discussion |
||
Line 190: | Line 190: | ||
Your name was attached to a temporary block on editing the Titanic film article. I believe it was per a request from Flyer22. I'd like you to be aware that her editing on the article might be in violation of WP:OWN. She refuses to offer a compromise even when she's invited to do so. She has accused me of bad faith when I offered a compromise. Etc. I'm not sure how you proceed in these cases, but stopping anyone from editing is what a WP:OWN violator is trying to achieve. Thanks. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 14:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC) |
Your name was attached to a temporary block on editing the Titanic film article. I believe it was per a request from Flyer22. I'd like you to be aware that her editing on the article might be in violation of WP:OWN. She refuses to offer a compromise even when she's invited to do so. She has accused me of bad faith when I offered a compromise. Etc. I'm not sure how you proceed in these cases, but stopping anyone from editing is what a WP:OWN violator is trying to achieve. Thanks. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 14:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:I do not see a violation of [[WP:OWN]]. You are participating at [[Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Towards a consensus]], which is good. It sometimes helps if one of the parties will try to make a neutral summary of what has been said up to the present. That is, write down what you think each editor is in favor of. After you've done that, ask the others if your summary is correct. When this is attempted, sometimes it results in clarifying what is at stake, and some of the positions will shift. A vote of three out of five is not terribly convincing as a consensus. If you can shift that one way or the other, you might get somewhere. If you can't persuade the others, you should let it go. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston#top|talk]]) 16:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC) |
:I do not see a violation of [[WP:OWN]]. You are participating at [[Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Towards a consensus]], which is good. It sometimes helps if one of the parties will try to make a neutral summary of what has been said up to the present. That is, write down what you think each editor is in favor of. After you've done that, ask the others if your summary is correct. When this is attempted, sometimes it results in clarifying what is at stake, and some of the positions will shift. A vote of three out of five is not terribly convincing as a consensus. If you can shift that one way or the other, you might get somewhere. If you can't persuade the others, you should let it go. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston#top|talk]]) 16:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{cot|1=Extended discussion}} |
|||
::Thank you, EdJohnston. Exactly, I have not tried to own the article whatsoever. I asked editors to weigh in so that consensus may be achieved, and they did. The consensus is six to one. Six editors are in favor of the current lead, while Ring Cinema objects to it. As I stated there: "''[H]ow many more editors does it take to declare consensus if this is not a straw poll? Would we still be having this discussion if 10 editors had agreed on the same thing? How about 18? We simply don't have that many people weighing in on this matter, and must take what consensus has been given.''" You responded to my report at the edit warring noticeboard and decided to lock the article. I didn't come to you to have it locked. And as for writing down what one thinks each editor is in favor of, Betty did that already, as you can see. I have compromised, just not with Ring Cinema on this because I maintain that the lead is best designed in the order it is in now. Ring Cinema is under the impression that [[WP:Consensus]] means everyone must be in agreement, and it is that view I believe to be flawed. WP:Consensus is about tackling disagreement, and then what the majority of editors agree is best for the article. Sometimes everyone will agree; sometimes they will not. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC) |
::Thank you, EdJohnston. Exactly, I have not tried to own the article whatsoever. I asked editors to weigh in so that consensus may be achieved, and they did. The consensus is six to one. Six editors are in favor of the current lead, while Ring Cinema objects to it. As I stated there: "''[H]ow many more editors does it take to declare consensus if this is not a straw poll? Would we still be having this discussion if 10 editors had agreed on the same thing? How about 18? We simply don't have that many people weighing in on this matter, and must take what consensus has been given.''" You responded to my report at the edit warring noticeboard and decided to lock the article. I didn't come to you to have it locked. And as for writing down what one thinks each editor is in favor of, Betty did that already, as you can see. I have compromised, just not with Ring Cinema on this because I maintain that the lead is best designed in the order it is in now. Ring Cinema is under the impression that [[WP:Consensus]] means everyone must be in agreement, and it is that view I believe to be flawed. WP:Consensus is about tackling disagreement, and then what the majority of editors agree is best for the article. Sometimes everyone will agree; sometimes they will not. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::Thanks for your thought EdJ. The possibility of a violation of WP:OWN first occurred to me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erik&diff=prev&oldid=417739268 here.]. That, coupled with Flyer's refusal to offer compromise proposals (which I have done twice) on this and other issues suggests an editor who is a potential problem in this regard. When she responds to a compromise edit with vitrol, accusations of personal bias and bad faith, I don't associate her with an effort to find common ground. She's been invited to offer a compromise proposal several times. That she insists there is no compromise suggests a lack of appreciation of the process we're engaged in. Thanks again. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 20:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC) |
:::Thanks for your thought EdJ. The possibility of a violation of WP:OWN first occurred to me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erik&diff=prev&oldid=417739268 here.]. That, coupled with Flyer's refusal to offer compromise proposals (which I have done twice) on this and other issues suggests an editor who is a potential problem in this regard. When she responds to a compromise edit with vitrol, accusations of personal bias and bad faith, I don't associate her with an effort to find common ground. She's been invited to offer a compromise proposal several times. That she insists there is no compromise suggests a lack of appreciation of the process we're engaged in. Thanks again. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 20:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::What that link shows is you being condescending in regards to me: "''There's a little bit of a problem there since Flyer isn't listening very well''." What the...? Newsflash: Just because someone disagrees with you...it doesn't mean they "are not listening very well." You were accusing me of hindering the article, and I responded showing exactly why I have not hindered the article and why you have. You belittle and condescend to everyone who disagrees with you, which more than one editor can attest to. When you don't get your way, you especially become condescending and hostile, which more than one editor can attest to. It is you who has spat vitrol first in both of our big disagreements. Shall I provide those links? And now you sit here and act as though I cannot compromise (or have not compromised with you before in the past) simply because I do not want to compromise with you on this. Why should I compromise?! You haven't offered any valid reasons for changing the way the article lead is set up now, and six editors are in favor of the current lead. Thus, why should I compromise with you?! Why shouldn't I stand by my opinion of how the lead should be? Where does Wikipedia say that I must compromise with you, or that I must compromise every time? You were acting in bad faith, in my opinion, because you reverted me with a weak rationale when I was following the film style guideline; it was even showcased that you insisted on keeping your version of the lead just to spite me for having gotten to keep Cameron's intentions in the lead when you tried to use the discussion about the film style guideline matter to bring up Cameron's intentions in the lead. That was proof enough of why you reverted me; I got to keep something in the lead, so you figure you do now too. Further proof was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titanic_%281997_film%29&diff=420151015&oldid=420150594 it taking Betty stepping in and stating pretty much the same thing I already stated for you to say "that's fine with me."] So come off of it. You always do this when you don't get your way -- go complain about the opposing editor with falsehoods about/and insults to their character. As EdJohnston stated above, "If you can't persuade the others, you should let it go." Clearly, you have difficulty with the "letting go" bit. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC) |
::::What that link shows is you being condescending in regards to me: "''There's a little bit of a problem there since Flyer isn't listening very well''." What the...? Newsflash: Just because someone disagrees with you...it doesn't mean they "are not listening very well." You were accusing me of hindering the article, and I responded showing exactly why I have not hindered the article and why you have. You belittle and condescend to everyone who disagrees with you, which more than one editor can attest to. When you don't get your way, you especially become condescending and hostile, which more than one editor can attest to. It is you who has spat vitrol first in both of our big disagreements. Shall I provide those links? And now you sit here and act as though I cannot compromise (or have not compromised with you before in the past) simply because I do not want to compromise with you on this. Why should I compromise?! You haven't offered any valid reasons for changing the way the article lead is set up now, and six editors are in favor of the current lead. Thus, why should I compromise with you?! Why shouldn't I stand by my opinion of how the lead should be? Where does Wikipedia say that I must compromise with you, or that I must compromise every time? You were acting in bad faith, in my opinion, because you reverted me with a weak rationale when I was following the film style guideline; it was even showcased that you insisted on keeping your version of the lead just to spite me for having gotten to keep Cameron's intentions in the lead when you tried to use the discussion about the film style guideline matter to bring up Cameron's intentions in the lead. That was proof enough of why you reverted me; I got to keep something in the lead, so you figure you do now too. Further proof was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titanic_%281997_film%29&diff=420151015&oldid=420150594 it taking Betty stepping in and stating pretty much the same thing I already stated for you to say "that's fine with me."] So come off of it. You always do this when you don't get your way -- go complain about the opposing editor with falsehoods about/and insults to their character. As EdJohnston stated above, "If you can't persuade the others, you should let it go." Clearly, you have difficulty with the "letting go" bit. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{cob}} |
|||
==Posting restrictions== |
==Posting restrictions== |
||
This edit by Esoglou [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthodox_Christianity&action=historysubmit&diff=420679174&oldid=420581738] how is this a contribution that is not a violation of the posting restrictions that have been placed on him? [[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] ([[User talk:LoveMonkey|talk]]) 17:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC) |
This edit by Esoglou [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthodox_Christianity&action=historysubmit&diff=420679174&oldid=420581738] how is this a contribution that is not a violation of the posting restrictions that have been placed on him? [[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] ([[User talk:LoveMonkey|talk]]) 17:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:10, 25 March 2011
Reply
Your comment at AE
[1] This ban would be applied to all editors listed below who have previously been sanctioned under any Eastern European cases - Ed, can you please explain to me why you are including me in this group? It appears you are doing so only because Sandstein included me there. But if you actually look at the list and read the comments, then you will notice that out of the six articles listed by Sandstein, two I've never edited in my life, and on the other four I made a single edit, sometimes long time ago (I have over 20k edits, I've even forgotten some of these) and when I was reverted, I ceased making any further edits.
There's no way that making a single edit on an article can be in any way construed as "edit warring" or anything else. I have also supported the inclusion of German names in Polish articles (within reason), and have added Lithuanian names to Polish articles [2] as well as Yiddish and Hebrew names to Polish articles (like I said, I got over 20k edits and I'm not going to waste my time going back and looking for the odd diff or so, but they're there). I've consistently applied WP:NCGN policy, regardless of the places involved. Of course I've mostly edited Poland related articles - I don't speak Portuguese, Yoruba or Nahuatl! At no point have I edit warred and in fact I asked for third opinion and discussed things on talk, and am currently in process of working on naming conventions guideline [3] in order to sort out this mess. Can you explain at all what would justify your proposal to sanction me?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're listed for modifying alternate names on four articles, three of them recently (in 2011).
- The alternate names for Bernardine Cemetery have been under dispute, since they've been reverted in both directions
- Your edit summary seems to admit that your own edit does not have consensus.
- Reverting because you claim that the other guy does not have consensus does not win you any points for being cooperative. I would consider recommending that editors not be sanctioned if it could be shown that their name-changes were made per an actual talk page consensus. The purpose of Sandstein's tabulation is to be sure that all editors who have warred over alternate names in Eastern Europe get an equal chance to have their behavior reviewed. The pro-Lithuanian editors will be looked at as well, since their names are in the table. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, so? Since when is this grounds for sanction?
- Yes, so? You seem to be saying that making an even a single edit to an article that is controversial is sanctionable, even if that edit follows policy, simply because the article itself is controversial. It isn't - you can't sanction people simply because they happen to edit controversial articles. In case you haven't noticed, I'm actually the one who build that article to a large extent, so it's not surprising that I'd edit it [4] [5].
- I have no idea how you get your conclusion from the edit summary. My summary clearly states that the talk page discussion supported the edit: the talk page discussion pointed the other way (i.e. for inclusion).
- Reverting because you claim that the other guy does not have consensus does not win you any points for being cooperative. - where have I done this? Or are you just contradicting yourself with what you said in #3?
- their name-changes were made "per an actual talk page consensus" - no, the name changes made by Jacurek where made per WP:NCGN, which represents Wikipedia wide consensus. The fact that a couple of editors insist on ignoring Wikipedia policies and are holding consensus hostage on individual talk pages is neither Jacurek's fault, nor mine.
- The pro-Lithuanian editors will be looked at as well, since their names are in the table - I'm not asking about them, I'm asking why am I being included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- There has been a recent upsurge in reverting of alternate names in Eastern Europe. You are one of the people doing the reverting. How do you propose that the matter be resolved? EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is/was ALREADY being resolved, which is why this whole AE report by FP@S was such a bad and counter productive idea to begin with. See [6], [7] (please do note my last comment there).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- And I am *not* "one of the people doing the reverting" thank you very much. Single reverts to 3 articles, combined with me completely ceasing to edit an article after *I* get reverted is not "reverting"Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- There has been a recent upsurge in reverting of alternate names in Eastern Europe. You are one of the people doing the reverting. How do you propose that the matter be resolved? EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- The pro-Lithuanian editors will be looked at as well, since their names are in the table - I'm not asking about them, I'm asking why am I being included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I ask something very similar here. In particular, I would really like to see a rationale under which a user with no current sanctions can be sanctioned for adhering to 1RR and BRD. The last I checked, the definition of "edit warring" involved making more than one revert to the page in question... ("editors... repeatedly overrideeach other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion"). VM was neither reverting repeatedly, nor was he ignoring the talk page. PS. In order not to sound too negative, I also want to note that with the exception of including VM in your proposed sanctions, I think your solution (restrictions on adding/removing names) seems helpful (and so I thank you for taking time to join this discussion with some constructive comments). I still hope, however, that incivility in this incident will be looked into (because preventing editors from edit warring will not prevent them from making battleground through uncivil comments, as some are in a habit of doing). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am disappointed in your lack of reply, Ed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hill & Knowlton
Would appreciate it if you could help get some of the factual information accurate on the Hill & Knowlton page for which I have a COI. Have added to the relevant discussion. Thanks. Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I replied at Talk:Hill & Knowlton. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Mefloquine neutral point of view issue
Ed,
Thanks for the response on the Mefloquine article.
The author of the two papers under "external Links" with the NPOV conflict is Patricia Schlagenhauf. She is a paid consultant to the drug company that maufactures Mefloquine and is probably one of the biggest paid apologists for the drug. If she were paid to support Thalidamide, she would. SHe is not a medical doctor and does not have clinical experience dealing with people injured from Mefloquine.
The article "The position of mefloquine as a 21st century malaria chemoprophylaxis" is authored by employess of Hoffman LaRoche and Shlagenhauf. It is essentially a paid advertisment for the drug under the guise of a reserach paper.
Unfortuantely this is the current state of affairs with the medical journals. The large drug companies fund these papers that appear as legitimate peer reviewed research. As long as the authors post their conflicts of interest, the medical journals publish them. It is definielty a fox in the hen house scenario.
I have posted numerous papers that provide an update on the current research. None of those authors are in any way connected to the manufacturers of the drug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moewackit (talk • contribs) 01:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Questions about LM/E editing restrictions
The following is copied from User talk:Phatius McBluff, where, because Phatius had upbraided me for raising such questions on an article talk page, I put my request. Unfortunately, Phatius is inactive at present, so I am turning to you for advice. Esoglou (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
As you well know, it was agreed that
- LoveMonkey will not make edits or talk page comments regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice.
- LoveMonkey may add information about Eastern Orthodox commentary (positive or negative) on Roman Catholic teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of RC teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with EO teaching/practice.
I don't think it was a direct violation of the agreement for LoveMonkey to restore a vandalistic edit that I believed it was my duty to undo. (I can find no reference anywhere to the supposed "Sir Raleigh Atra Arzon", who allegedly burned numerous cathedrals, actions resulting in a hatred and revenge that gave rise to the Church of Rome under Charlemagne and his successors!) But I do not think that LoveMonkey's restoration of that edit, with a claim in the edit summary that I know John Romanides made this strange statement and it can be sourced, was, to say the least, good Wikipedia practice. Admittedly, LoveMonkey soon removed the reference to the curious Sir Raleigh Atra Arzon, but he then inserted the claim, "It was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors that the Church of Rome arose", an unattributed claim about the Roman Catholic Church that I suspect is a violation of the agreement. (Before LoveMonkey's editing today, the unsourced statement was that it was then that the Church of Rome "arose out of obscurity", not that it was then that the Church of Rome "arose". That statement was questioned since March 2009, but now LoveMonkey has removed the "citation needed" tag, having inserted as a footnote a long quotation from Romanides that does not say that the Church of Rome arose only under Charlemagne and his successors, but is instead an attack on Augustine, the "Franks" and the "Franco-Latin papacy".)
With this edit LoveMonkey inserted eleven paragraphs, which I presume are a long quotation from Romanides, but he did not "in the body of the article" clearly attribute the eleven paragraphs to Romanides, nor did he clearly identify them as opinion, rather than as factual information about the Franks and the "Romans".
Was it perhaps a violation also to insert as factual information the statement that the Church of Rome arose "under the school of Palatine School established by Saxon Alcuin"?
What am I allowed to do with regard to obvious errors such as LoveMonkey's "Frankish Empire of Goths"? The Franks were not Goths, and Romanides, whom LoveMonkey cites, does not make the curious claim that they were.)
Did I do wrong in undoing vandalism? LoveMonkey himself claims to be free to revert edits to the article, but that I, on the contrary, am not free. Perhaps, in view of LoveMonkey's reaction, it would ideally have been better for me to ask you or someone else to undo the vandalism, but when I saw the need to make that correction (which was not about the Eastern Orthodox Church, a topic that I have undertaken not to comment on, in the same way as LoveMonkey has undertaken to limit his comments on Roman Catholic teaching and practice), I did not at all advert to my offer of a long time ago to refrain from editing that article, an offer that, as I have here indicated, did not elicit a reciprocal promise from LoveMonkey. I just didn't think of that offer. Esoglou (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see that one way to get LoveMonkey to correct some of his claims is to mention them here on your talk page. Since I wrote the above, he has, with an edit summary referring to "typoes and grammar", corrected his classification of the Franks as Goths and altered his claim that "the Church of Rome arose under the school of Palatine School established by Saxon Alcuin" into a claim that it is fact that the Church of Rome thus arose as a church based on Augustinian theology almost exclusively. It would be excellent if this method could work for all his mistaken edits and if it could work also for those that I think may be exclusion-violating ones. Esoglou (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- LoveMonkey has stated in the article, as fact, that "These Frankish Popes where (LoveMonkey means "were", not "where") military leaders according to Saint Boniface known to 'shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans'." In a footnote, he quotes Romanides as saying: "many of the Franks who replaced Roman bishops were military leaders who, according to Saint Boniface, 'shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans'." It is only wishful thinking that makes LoveMonkey believe that Romanides was speaking of popes, not of other bishops. I have looked up what Saint Boniface actually wrote - not all that easy, since Romanides gives the source as "Migne, PL 89: 744", when the real source is column 745, not 744. Boniface is writing in the year 743 to the newly elected Pope Saint Zachary, who was a Greek, not a Frank, about an initiative by Marcoman, leader of the Franks, to get rid of abuses such as clergy, even bishops, "having four or five or more concubines in bed at night" and other bishops "who, although they deny that they are fornicators or adulterers, are drunkards, law-breakers, engage in hunting or, bearing weapons, fight in battles as part of an army and by their own hands shed human blood, whether of pagans or of Christians" ("qui, licet dicant se fornicarios vel adulteros non esse, sed sunt ebriosi, vel injuriosi, vel venatores, et qui pugnant in exercitu armati, et effundunt propria manu sanguinem hominum, sive paganorum, sive Christianorum"). Naturally, Pope Zachary responded granting the request of Marcoman and Boniface to have authority to hold a synod to remedy that situation, and ordered the deposition of any clergy whom Boniface found "... to have spilled the blood whether of Christians or of pagans or to have become subject to canonical sanction for other reasons" ("... aut si sanguinem Christianorum sive paganorum effuderunt, vel etiam aliis capitulum canonum obviasse eos reperit tua sanctitas" - the text is in column 919 of the same volume). It must have been wishful thinking on the part of Romanides too that made him interpret Boniface as saying that the battling bishops were "many".
- If LoveMonkey is authorized to insert such material, am I allowed to respond in some way? Esoglou (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Phatius McBluff has replied, telling me I should contact an administrator. That I have done here. LoveMonkey is continuing to edit the articles that contain contentious material, but most recently in a not really objectionable way. I have thought it best, for now, not to respond to any of his actions. Esoglou (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have renamed this section 'Request for guidance', to be 'Questions about LM/E editing restrictions.' Left a note at User talk:LoveMonkey#Editing at East-West Schism. I asked him to revise his text at East-West Schism to clarify he was only adding an opinion by John Romanides (an EO scholar) and not factual information about the Western Church. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I attributed the information to John Romanides. The edit shows that. If you don't like the wording "according to John Romanides" please provide me with what wording will satisfy the pointed out requirement. Please don't focus on an Eastern Orthodox scholar here on Wikipedia in a way that will make it look like that Orthodox scholars' work is being treated differently than other "scholars" on here. It is and I have stated time and time again, more and more obvious that Esoglou wishes to censure Eastern Orthodox theologians and or discredit them. I would hope that Ed as a Wikipedia administrator would not want to have it so every time I add an Orthodox theologians opinion (let alone one like Romanides whom taught at Yale) that Orthodox theologian is to be noted as somehow "different" or indirectly marginalized because Esoglou is more important than Romanides or any of the other Orthodox theologians (i.e. Lossky, Nellas) that Esoglou has attacked here with his WP:OR. As using "according to" is right now how the article stands regardless of which side a given scholar may represent. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- You are technically in violation of your editing restriction. If you can't think of any rewording that pleases you, I suggest that you remove the entire section (containing Romanides' opinions) and ask on the article talk page for how it should be phrased. If you leave the text unmodified in the article, you are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I attributed the information to John Romanides. The edit shows that. If you don't like the wording "according to John Romanides" please provide me with what wording will satisfy the pointed out requirement. Please don't focus on an Eastern Orthodox scholar here on Wikipedia in a way that will make it look like that Orthodox scholars' work is being treated differently than other "scholars" on here. It is and I have stated time and time again, more and more obvious that Esoglou wishes to censure Eastern Orthodox theologians and or discredit them. I would hope that Ed as a Wikipedia administrator would not want to have it so every time I add an Orthodox theologians opinion (let alone one like Romanides whom taught at Yale) that Orthodox theologian is to be noted as somehow "different" or indirectly marginalized because Esoglou is more important than Romanides or any of the other Orthodox theologians (i.e. Lossky, Nellas) that Esoglou has attacked here with his WP:OR. As using "according to" is right now how the article stands regardless of which side a given scholar may represent. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please provide wording that you find acceptable for me to modify the edit to. If not where can I open a report to get this addressed to someone above you. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- How about putting 'Romanides states that..' in front of
I am also surprised by the very large direct quotes of Romanides in footnotes 26 and 30. The first of these is over 700 words. Though I suppose it doesn't violate any editing restriction, it may be stretching the copyright rules. According to the web site which hosts his material, Romanides' text is under copyright. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)It was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors that the Church of Rome arose, under the Palatine School established by Saxon Alcuin (735-804) as a church based on Augustinian theology almost exclusively.[30]
- Where can I file a formal complaint about this kind of stuff Ed. As this is what is driving me and other editors away from Wikipedia..No matter what I post I just can't seem to not violate some policy. As I posted that much of the article just so Esoglou would not complain that it was not sourced or that what I posted was not found in the source. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Esoglou has engaged in a long and protracted edit war with some of the articles I edit. Esoglou has a long history of edit warring with other editors on other articles not just with me. Heres another small example [8] One of the things Esoglou is allowed to do on Wikipedia which is disruptive to other editors and no administrator will address is that Esoglou like to invalid ones sourcing by claiming that what was posted is not reflected in the source or sources given. Esoglou likes to engage in source tag abuse. [9] Here is just one example [10]. The length of the sourced material was to keep Esoglou from complaining about but even with this much of the source in the article Esoglou complained anyway.
- "With this edit LoveMonkey inserted eleven paragraphs, which I presume are a long quotation from Romanides, but he did not "in the body of the article" clearly attribute the eleven paragraphs to Romanides, nor did he clearly identify them as opinion, rather than as factual information about the Franks and the "Romans"."[11]
- So what is it? Does the source I provided not cover the information I posted? Is it enough? How much of it is enough? Is it a copyright vio? If so how can I put the information in the article and stop Esoglou's complaints that obviously get peoples attention and suck up all my time on here. How much is needed so that Esoglou's privileged status on Wikipedia finally gets put in check? As if I copy the information word for word it is a copyright vio but if I put the entire section of the source for which my contribution is a summary showing that I can attribute the information to the source then I have added to much of the source and that too is a copyright vio. Which is it and when can a balance be enforced on Esoglou? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- How about putting 'Romanides states that..' in front of
LM asked me to comment here. First, about the specific sentence. one point first: a/c ODNB, Alcuin was not a Saxon. Our article calls him "English"; if one wishes to be moire specific, he was from Northumbria--which was an kingdom of the Angles, not the Saxons, and he had family connections with Anglian nobility. I suggest the following. "The Eastern Orthodox theologian Romanides states that it was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors, and the influence of the Palatine School established by the Englishman Alcuin (735-804), that the Church of Rome became almost exclusively committed to Augustinian theology. " (personally, I'd say we could even omit the a/c Romanides, because as I worded it I think it's a fair summary, but I'm no authority.) To say that the RC church did not arise as a distinct church till then is an incredible oversimplification. To say that the theological orientation became much sharper at that period makes more sense. Personally, I would agree that Charlemagne fostered the increasing separation of the theology as way of distinguishing the Western and Eastern churches primarily to assert his equal standing as Roman emperor by having control over the Western church, but this would need to be ascribed to a more neutral writer than Romanides. Romanides shows his bias by making the unwarranted extrapolation that this proves the error of RC theology--as if political influences had no role in the EO tradition also.
More generally, I interpret LM's editing as an attempt to continue his involvement as the interpreter of the RC tradition, and suggest he not attempt to do so in any manner in any article. I am not able to judge whether he has sufficient understanding of the range of EO church history and thought to interpret the EO tradition, nor can I judge if Romanides is representative of all of contemporary EO scholarship. (though a priori I think it unlikely that any one scholar is fully representative, I do not know the degree to which his views are central). However, I think it's clear from all the above , & earlier, that he is not able to write properly about the Western position, & I think the over-reliance on a single source is a symptom of this.
LM, you've asked for the next step in dispute resolution, 3rd Opinion, and I've given it. You could proceed to an RfC, but I think you would do very much better to let this rest and simply edit with your real sphere of knowledge and interest--I'd suggest articles on individual EO theologians and prelates, an area where we are really deficient.. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well I must admit I agree with most of what DGG said, as I have been trying for quite sometime to wrestle with how to put into this and other related articles how the change that Charlemagne made to the Western church be presented. I am open to being criticized for my own way or style of expressing it. However this episode is critical to the Eastern Orthodox position on this issue and I feel it should in some form be in the article or related articles. I would hope that what you posted DGG might get put in the article as it really does express the position of the Orthodox and how the politics of the Franks played into causing the schism. I understand that I have room for improvement in my editing and I accept your criticism. But could you post the passage you wrote to the article? Is there away I could get some help as to how to say this and include it in this article and related articles? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- The agreement forbids either from editing the article to make representations of the other's faith community, but does not forbid either of them from editing the article to make representations of their own faith community's view of the other faith community, as long as such representations are referenced correctly and are clearly identified as commentary from one faith community on the other. LM's use of Romanides appears to be entirely within the letter and spirit of this agreement. I agree that the use of Romanides in this case needs to be scrutinized for the reasons DGG describes, and I agree with DGG that over-reliance on one source is a problem with this edit, but I don't see a problem with the fact of the edit itself; it needs to be identified as EO commentary on the RCC, and sourced more extensively, and LM has just demonstrated his willingness to have that happen. I will work with LM on improving the documentation and wording of the edit.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Section break
- May I take it that you, as the administrator responsible for the editing restriction, accept Taiwan boi's view that LoveMonkey's edits of 9 March and subsequently do not violate the restriction? Once I am sure, I can then respond with similar edits, something that, ever since they began, I have been refraining from doing. Esoglou (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- The above thread contains advice to LoveMonkey as to the scope of the editing restriction. My impression is that the advice has been taken. What are the 'similar edits' that you are thinking of making? The editing restriction is still on the books and can be enforced by any admin, not just me. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt response and for your statement of your position. I did not expect to have to deal with the question so soon. Nor am I in a hurry to do so. And tonight I do not have time even to start an examination of the many changes he has made. One that comes to mind immediately, because of its untypical nature, is the moving to under the heading of Roman Catholicism of writings by theologians both Eastern and Western, Catholic and Protestant. That should be easy to fix. And fixing it ought to be non-controversial. Perhaps I will start with that tomorrow. Esoglou (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see your point. The paragraph should not be kept in the Roman Catholic section since it contains some Protestant opinions. I don't see any Eastern theologians there -- Bessarion must count as Western. If you plan to revise this paragraph, why not state your intention on the talk page first, to avoid any misunderstandings. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- May I? Phatius McBluff, who was very active in setting up the exclusion, understood it as not allowing even Talk-page discussion, a view that he repeated recently. However, he seems to have withdrawn from Wikipedia since his latest interaction with LoveMonkey. So it seems I may on the Talk pages raise questions about what may be excluded matters, in spite of being told by both Phatius and Taiwan boi that I should not. If I may, then I am on the same level as LoveMonkey, who, as I mentioned, has successfully defended against Phatius his right to raise such questions on a Talk page. (And if I may, I will probably also answer the claim by LoveMonkey that made Phatius give up, the claim that by undoing vandalism I had violated a promise not to edit one particular article. The promise was conditional on LoveMonkey undertaking to do likewise, something that he expressly refused to do.) Esoglou (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see that the restriction won't allow you to comment on talk pages. It seems to imply *article* talk pages. You should leave a draft here of how you would propose to revise that paragraph. I could then copy the proposal to the *article* talk page to get further comments, and you would not be violating anything. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- May I? Phatius McBluff, who was very active in setting up the exclusion, understood it as not allowing even Talk-page discussion, a view that he repeated recently. However, he seems to have withdrawn from Wikipedia since his latest interaction with LoveMonkey. So it seems I may on the Talk pages raise questions about what may be excluded matters, in spite of being told by both Phatius and Taiwan boi that I should not. If I may, then I am on the same level as LoveMonkey, who, as I mentioned, has successfully defended against Phatius his right to raise such questions on a Talk page. (And if I may, I will probably also answer the claim by LoveMonkey that made Phatius give up, the claim that by undoing vandalism I had violated a promise not to edit one particular article. The promise was conditional on LoveMonkey undertaking to do likewise, something that he expressly refused to do.) Esoglou (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see your point. The paragraph should not be kept in the Roman Catholic section since it contains some Protestant opinions. I don't see any Eastern theologians there -- Bessarion must count as Western. If you plan to revise this paragraph, why not state your intention on the talk page first, to avoid any misunderstandings. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt response and for your statement of your position. I did not expect to have to deal with the question so soon. Nor am I in a hurry to do so. And tonight I do not have time even to start an examination of the many changes he has made. One that comes to mind immediately, because of its untypical nature, is the moving to under the heading of Roman Catholicism of writings by theologians both Eastern and Western, Catholic and Protestant. That should be easy to fix. And fixing it ought to be non-controversial. Perhaps I will start with that tomorrow. Esoglou (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- The above thread contains advice to LoveMonkey as to the scope of the editing restriction. My impression is that the advice has been taken. What are the 'similar edits' that you are thinking of making? The editing restriction is still on the books and can be enforced by any admin, not just me. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know if you remember User:Santiago84, but you blocked her/him for 31 hours for edit-warring. Upon returning to editing, Santiago's first edits were to revert all the changes that got her/him blocked in the first place: Responsibility for the Holocaust Template:The Holocaust Nazi relations with the Arab world Could you leave a message for Santiago cautioning against this sort of thing? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Notified here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you an Admin? I get the feeling that you and the other malik shabazz or so work together to avoid any confidential background information which could be unpleasent toward some of your attitudes regarding common knowledge of history, the holocaust and islam. I think other Admins would like to hear of this. Oh and by the way [[12]] --Santiago84 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Invitation for a discussion at WP ANI
Hello EdJohnston,
This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
General query on Shakespeare authorship question
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question, I'm wondering if you would be willing to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1? I'm making the same inquiry of Dougweller, since I trust both of you to apply sanctions where needed. I have not yet read the FAC top to bottom, but have kept it watchlisted, and have noted that Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) has been struggling to keep it on track. I don't know what I'll find when I finally sit down to read the FAC, but I suspect I will find so much disruption that it will be difficult to determine if the article has received adequate review or if there are still remnants of the disruptive editing evidenced in the article (it has been my impression, without yet having read the FAC, that the article has a rather defensive, argumentative tone, as a leftover from the long-standing disruption, and if that is the case, it may need more prose work before potential promotion, and assurance that neutral editors have looked at it without being influenced by the disruptive editors). So, before taking a look, I'm just wondering if anyone has looked at whether any warnings or sanctions need to be applied per the FAC, and want to ask that before I dig in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Generally I agree with the actions of User:Nikkimaria, who has been moving comments from the FAC to the talk page. If you think the FAC is actually being interfered with, some further action might be needed. I've also looked in detail at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1#Warshy (moved from main page). In my opinion, the goings-on on the FAC talk page are getting into the area where Arbcom thought that action should be taken. I am thinking that one or more editors may need to be banned from both the FAC and its talk page, per the WP:ARBSAQ discretionary sanctions. The desired end-point is (in my view) that the FAC should be able to reach a normal conclusion, untroubled by any of the behavior criticized by Arbcom in their decision
- Taking a risk of satirizing their views, some of the sceptical editors seem to be saying:
- We disagree with the mainstream view of Shakespeare authorship
- You can easily see that we are here arguing with you
- This shows there is a dispute
- Therefore the article is too unstable to become a featured article.
- I don't believe that Arbcom would have thought this was a reasonable way for editors to participate in the future development of this article. Whether it's in a FAC debate or not, this is not good-faith editor behavior. The term 'POV-pushing' unavoidably comes to mind. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is precisely what I was wondering and the direction I was thinking. I can read through the FAC and come to the conclusion that half a dozen or so opposes are not actionable, but my broader concern is whether the disruptive opposes are preventing a thorough look at the article, and whether the article would be better served if some of those weighing in on the FAC were banned, and I could restart the FAC for a clean look? I say this without yet having thoroughly read the FAC or the article, as I don't want my impressions to be unduly predisposed, but with the impression that the lead of the article is too defensive and argumentative, while the "Overview" section could be re-written to a better lead-- in other words, some defensive tone persists, but other reviewers may be knee-jerk supporting to offset the disruptive opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The semi-prot imposed as a result of the earlier AE discussion expired March 17; I reinstated it yesterday, so hopefully that'll help a bit, and Ruhrfisch indicated that he was considering an SPI on the SPAs, FWIW. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, an SPI sounds worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I still haven't read the FAC, dreading what I will find ... maybe I'll get lucky and Fisch will do the SPI before I have to wade through it. Tomorrow! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Careful what you wish for - CU turned up no socks among the posters to the FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notices. Although there is no sockpuppetry, there does seem to be some degree of offline coordination by the Anti-Stratfordians. See here (self-identified as the blog of BenJonson off wiki) and here (the blog of Knitwitted). A note to Sandy - although there are a fair number of SPA opposes, most of the support came before these appeared (including my own). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- My assumption is that the FAC delegate who closes the discussion is allowed to disregard any comments made that are not consistent with Wikipedia policy. If meatpuppet editors join in the discussion, it is only a problem if their presence scares off regular editors or prevents a normal negotiation from taking place. In this case, it should be easy to tell good-faith opposes based on article quality from those which are merely pushing an anti-Stratfordian POV. (SPAs are easy to distinguish from regular editors, due to their edit history). For instance, User:Fotoguzzi looks to be a good-faith oppose. So unless some new problem arises, I don't see that any dramatic action by admins is necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notices. Although there is no sockpuppetry, there does seem to be some degree of offline coordination by the Anti-Stratfordians. See here (self-identified as the blog of BenJonson off wiki) and here (the blog of Knitwitted). A note to Sandy - although there are a fair number of SPA opposes, most of the support came before these appeared (including my own). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Careful what you wish for - CU turned up no socks among the posters to the FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I still haven't read the FAC, dreading what I will find ... maybe I'll get lucky and Fisch will do the SPI before I have to wade through it. Tomorrow! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, an SPI sounds worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The semi-prot imposed as a result of the earlier AE discussion expired March 17; I reinstated it yesterday, so hopefully that'll help a bit, and Ruhrfisch indicated that he was considering an SPI on the SPAs, FWIW. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is precisely what I was wondering and the direction I was thinking. I can read through the FAC and come to the conclusion that half a dozen or so opposes are not actionable, but my broader concern is whether the disruptive opposes are preventing a thorough look at the article, and whether the article would be better served if some of those weighing in on the FAC were banned, and I could restart the FAC for a clean look? I say this without yet having thoroughly read the FAC or the article, as I don't want my impressions to be unduly predisposed, but with the impression that the lead of the article is too defensive and argumentative, while the "Overview" section could be re-written to a better lead-- in other words, some defensive tone persists, but other reviewers may be knee-jerk supporting to offset the disruptive opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
What have we done?
To both get the attention of an IP vandal? Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is User:Caleb Murdock. I have some anon-only rangeblocks that adequately cover him, but I have to keep renewing them each time they expire. This has been done. I'm afraid that a swathe of mobile phone users from Rhode Island will continue to be inconvenienced until he loses interest in his old battles. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Caleb Murdock. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I remember him but wasn't that involved with his account that I'd be a target, I imagine I've run into him recently using an IP address. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Answer regarding link
Discussion at User_talk:Sandstein#So....
Copied original message:
- M.K., the reference link you added does eventually load if you wait long enough. It is a Lithuanian encyclopedia. Per Google Translate, the entry does say that Syrokomla's work appeared in Lithuanian *in translation*. Why would you draw the conclusion that he is a 'Lithuanian poet' if his poems were written in Polish? Though the weighing of sources is up to the editors on the talk page, not the admins, some of Volunteer Marek's helpful sources are not quite as decisive as they appear. The Cambridge History of Poland (page 332) calls Adam Mickiewicz the 'supreme singer of Lithuania.' The editors should consider if a section such as Adam Mickiewicz#Ethnicity might be needed in Syrokomla's article, to qualify his ethnicity with enough details. Another option is not to 'award' Syrokomla to any one nation, but just describe each individual thing that he did. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please see - the source [13] which you talking about is used to reference part During burial ceremony, Edvardas Jokūbas Daukša emphasized, that while Syrokomla was influenced by Polish culture, he was Lithuanian poet, closest to Lithuania after Adam Mickiewicz. (this is very interesting as Dauksa was contemporary of Syrokomla) and another passage about translation. The ethnicity in the lead was referenced with another source as indicated in the provided diff.
- On another hand I noticed today that similar act was preformed by IP (take a not that deleted material is referenced), yet if I revert it (deletion of English sources with rather inflammatory edit summary hardly can be seen as constructive), I would be instantly reported by nationalistic group about my "edit warring", as was done with Syrokomla case. M.K. (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is the personal opinion of Daukša that Syrokomla was a 'Lithuanian poet.' I am surprised that you consider this decisive, given that Syrokomla wrote in Polish. Have you seen all the sources given by Volunteer Marek on the talk page that describe him as Polish? It would be more neutral (in my opinion) to provide a section for Syrokomla like the one given for Mickiewicz at Adam Mickiewicz#Ethnicity, that summarizes the published opinions about his ethnicity. You are urged to participate at Talk:Władysław Syrokomla#RfC: How should Kondratowicz's ethnicity be described in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Threaded discussion on the WP:ARBSAQ page
Hello, EdJohnston, and thanks for your note. To be frank, I am unhappy that there has been no reply to the points I raised, apart from a plainly nonsensical one. For now, I am pursuing this matter at User talk:Versageek. You said "feel free to copy the entire thread to SPI or to a noticeboard" – is that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? And could you please suggest a suitable noticeboard? Moonraker2 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since Versageek is the checkuser in this case, you may continue on his talk page if you wish. The positive checkuser findings are hard to argue with, so I don't know where you are going with this. I would interpret Versageek's findings as strong evidence that those two accounts belong to NinaGreen (talk · contribs). How else would they be using the same IP? Sleepers are routinely blocked indef, this is not unusual. If you want to appeal Versageek's decision, consider WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the Diablada discussion
Thank you for the solution proposed in the 3RR situation. I have tried to discuss the matter with the established user (Erios30), [16]. His reply, [17], (1) Once again brings back outdated discussions, (2) Keeps seeking to politicize the dance article's history, (3) claims the choreography and music belong to Bolivia. Could you please drop by and make a comment on the talk page? Your comment might help the discussion since the user seems to only want to listen to administrators and keeps disregarding my comments. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Joseph Nye
Thanks for the help regarding the BLP posting. I was unsure exactly about what to do in this case because the information was sourced but some of it seemed to border on a synth and pov reading of the sources. In any case, I really have to kick myself for forgetting to post anything to the user's talk page. I encountered the situation while on vandal patrol and was unsure about what I could do to remedy what was going on (I was also a little awed by the possibility that the user actually was Joseph Nye because I read a few of his books while in school). I appreciate you fixing my mistakes. Chillllls (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
ARBCOM Warning
Your post on my talk page with the general warning towards any editor who "seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" indicates that you may see my actions as falling into this category. If so, I would be grateful if you could be more specific. If not, I would also appreciate your feedback. Thanks.Jdkag (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I notified you under WP:ARBSAQ since you were one of the editors listed in the table added by Tom Reedy at 20:52 on 20 March. Since that page is full of discussion about POV-pushing by disappointed advocates of the anti-Stratfordian hypothesis, I hope my notification did not come as a complete surprise. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, your notification was a complete surprise, because I did not expect an administrator to take Tom Reedy's accusations at face value. I have written a response on my talk page, User_talk:Jdkag#Defense_against_WP:Advocacy_Accusation.Jdkag (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Followup to 3RR report
On the 3RR report I filed on User:Keyessence, you declined to issue a block because too much time had passed since the reverting, which I agree with. However, you indicated that you would warn the user, and, after looking at their talk page, it doesn't appear that you did. Could you clarify to xem that while there was no block, the behavior wasn't acceptable? I'm mainly concerned that xe may think "Ah, nothing happened, so I'll go ahead and do it again", which would result in xyr being blocked unecessarily. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Our messages must have crossed; I have warned Keyssence. Prodego has also warned him, so he's on the radar. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
3RR case about Guy Fawkes Night
Please see my comment at WP:AN3#Parrot of Doom reported by PBS (Result: ). -- PBS (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I read your comment there. It's a little ambiguous whether 3RR was violated, but even so, I would want to see more evidence of a problem (and more effort at dispute resolution) before I would support issuing a block. A case for WP:OWN might be made, but a WP:Request for comment is one way of dealing with that. A content editor who is also an admin should have some ability to work their way through these things, even though they can be aggravating. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- See this edit at User talk:Parrot of Doom#Four more reverts and partial reverts in 24 hours. -- PBS (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Just noting here that I've asked Philip on his talk page to let the others get on with improving the article. It looks as though they're thinking of an FAC nomination, which can be a fraught process, so it would be a kindness to let them focus on it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Your name was attached to a temporary block on editing the Titanic film article. I believe it was per a request from Flyer22. I'd like you to be aware that her editing on the article might be in violation of WP:OWN. She refuses to offer a compromise even when she's invited to do so. She has accused me of bad faith when I offered a compromise. Etc. I'm not sure how you proceed in these cases, but stopping anyone from editing is what a WP:OWN violator is trying to achieve. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see a violation of WP:OWN. You are participating at Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Towards a consensus, which is good. It sometimes helps if one of the parties will try to make a neutral summary of what has been said up to the present. That is, write down what you think each editor is in favor of. After you've done that, ask the others if your summary is correct. When this is attempted, sometimes it results in clarifying what is at stake, and some of the positions will shift. A vote of three out of five is not terribly convincing as a consensus. If you can shift that one way or the other, you might get somewhere. If you can't persuade the others, you should let it go. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Extended discussion
|
---|
|
Posting restrictions
This edit by Esoglou [18] how is this a contribution that is not a violation of the posting restrictions that have been placed on him? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have asked Esoglou to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if LoveMonkey explained which of the restrictions he thinks I have violated and how?
- Esoglou will not make edits or talk page comments regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice.
- Esoglou may add information about Roman Catholic commentary (positive or negative) on Eastern Orthodox teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of EO teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with RC teaching/practice. Esoglou (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if LoveMonkey explained which of the restrictions he thinks I have violated and how?