User talk:Esoglou

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Primate (bishop) issue[edit]

(moved to Talk:Primate (bishop), where it belongs. Esoglou (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Holy See - special relations[edit]

Hi, as far as I can remember the light green colour ("other relations") was used for Russia before full diplomatic relations were established some years ago. However, the relations between Russia and the Holy See were to a certain extent reciprocal - as far as I can remember Russia had some sort of liaison office in Rome (which was later converted into full fledged embassy). I don't know if a similar reciprocity in the case of Vietnam exists - if yes, I'd certainly agree with colouring Vietnam in light green. Gugganij (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I leave it to you, since I do not find the question interesting enough. The list of papal representative offices in the Annuario Pontificio puts apostolic delegations in italics, as for Laos, but of course treats Vietnam as it does the other countries to whom it has accredited a diplomatic representative. In the case of Vietnam alone, the representative is not an apostolic nuncio. On the other hand, Vietnam does not appear in its list of countries that have diplomatic relations with the Holy See and so have the right to accredit an ambassador to the Holy See, even if, as in the case of small distant countries in the Pacific, they have not exercised that right. Periodic higher-level meetings between the Holy See and Vietnam are held to discuss problems, and it was at one of these that appointment of a non-resident representative of the Holy See to Vietnam was agreed. He is an official representative to the government, unlike an apostolic delegate, who is a representative to the church in a country, but not officially to the government. Establishment of diplomatic relations awaits agreement on problems that doubtless include principally a mechanism for the appointment of bishops. So there are official relations with the government, but not diplomatic relations. To me, that means "other relations". Esoglou (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the Holy See-Vietnam situation is a mirror image of that between Britain and the Holy See for many decades. During the First World War, the Holy See accepted the appointment of a diplomatic representative of Britain (resident in Rome indeed), but did not demand to have a nuncio to Britain, and continued to have in London an apostolic delegate. Esoglou (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your elaboration. I don't care either way. If it is indeed a representative to the government than a change is certainly justified. I updated the map with Vietnam in light green. Gugganij (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 sure went on a rampage, didn't he. Well, I think I've cleaned it all up. I left alone his innocuous edits and those to Canadian bishops. It seems reasonable that Canadians should use British forms of address. Otherwise it's all cleaned up and reverted. Let me know if you spot him again, eh? Elizium23 (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I had not noticed the rampage. I did of course notice the reverting of my edit, and that set me examining a different question instead. I fear the result of my examination may stir up opposition, but I think it is well sourced. Esoglou (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, the question of Cardinal style of address? No, I think you're quite correct. There's another editor who's been changing those to match as well. For whatever reason, I thought the old form was still viable but evidently it is deprecated with a vengeance. I will not use it anymore. Elizium23 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I have failed to find web support for my idea that "Your Grace" is not used in the United States. Obviously not by the Episcopal Church, which has no archbishop. But is there a source that says it is not used by the Catholic Church (at least the Latin Church) in the United States? I'm sure in the United States it is used (and doubtless "Your Beatitude" and the like too) by "independent" churches and episcopi vagantes. If you can find something, would you attend to the statement here? Esoglou (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't find a source that specifically says "Your Grace" is not used, but I have plenty of sources that say "Your Excellency" is used instead, so I have added one where you suggested it. Elizium23 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The "Your Grace" claim for the United States must have been inserted rather recently: the section on usage across the Atlantic speaks of a contrast with United States usage. Esoglou (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
It was added in this edit by an anonymous with no talk page (a huge red flag, always) and almost all of that edit is bogus and should be rolled back. Elizium23 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
He's back. I have posted an SOS to WT:CATHOLIC. He is using bad sources such as Canadian and Maltese articles which say "His Grace so-and-so" to support his assertion. Elizium23 (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm terribly sorry that I appear to have so distressed you two editors with my work. My intention is, and has always been, to assist this project - not to disrupt it. But it seems that you two have taken a somewhat proprietary approach to the articles I have worked on. Specifically, in Elizium23's rush to revert, other valuable edits were also lost: like the uniformity I brought to every article, so that all the archbishop's articles now display the honorific The Most Reverend. I also corrected articles which erroneously claimed it was proper to refer to archbishops as monsignors. But that wholesale revert approach threw out the good with the bad. Also, as I have invited opposing sources which definitively say that I am incorrect, I also appreciate that you both concede (at least to each other) that so far, you haven't found any. If you can't fully acknowledge that I may be correct, perhaps you can at least acknowledge a willingness to work with me? Rather than viewing me as a disruption, vandal or nuisance. For I am none of those. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry. I don't think you are a vandal or just a nuisance. Keep editing, but remember that a wiki, whether Wikipedia itself or Wikihow, is not a reliable source, and that sources about usage in other countries or about the United States more than a century ago are not reliable sources for current United States usage. Esoglou (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you accuse me falsely. I was very careful not to revert you but only change "His Grace" to "His Excellency". I did not revert where you had made other, constructive edits. So please don't say things that just aren't true and are verifiably false by checking the edit histories. Elizium23 (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Did you not have to self revert here in your haste to undo my edits - only to realize you were editing a Canadian archbishop who absolutely does use the style "Grace?" And did you not wholesale revert my edits before discussing them on my talk page? What's more, even after I responded on my talk page - and in courtesy, posted the response on your page so that you didn't miss it, did you not simply remove it from your page with no response? And offered no response on my page either? But instead, in addition to your post at WikiProject Catholicism, you came here to complain of my so-called "Rampage?" So actually, no, I didn't accuse you falsely. If anything, I didn't accuse you fully. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD. I explained in each individual case, and also here, and on the Wikiproject page, why your edits, based on no reliable source pertinent to current United States usage, could not be maintained, until or unless they were provided with proper backing. Esoglou (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You removed 3 other reliable sources simply because you didn't like WikiHow as a source. You then replaced those other reliable sources with no sources of your own. And you did all that, unilaterally, while we were in the middle of discussing it. I could revert you again on that basis alone, but it seems that one of us violating 3RR is sufficient. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
By "three others" I presume you mean those about a) the US of a full century ago; b) Malta; c) Canada. For present-day US usage, I gave you sources to present-day usage in the archdioceses of the United States archbishops: a) Salvatore J. Cordileone; b) Timothy Broglio; c) George Joseph Lucas; d) Gregory Michael Aymond; e) Jerome Edward Listecki; f) Allen Henry Vigneron; g) William E. Lori. I thought that was enough. Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Or did you honestly need more? 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I do so gladly. Rather, I don't fully revert, which would restore the invalid sources, but I insert in their place the good sources that you provided for Myers. Esoglou (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
There was absolutely nothing "invalid" about those sources. They just didn't support the conclusion you wanted to reach. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Since two of them say nothing of the US, which has ecclesiastical usages different from, say, South Africa (for instance, is a bishop Right Reverend or Most Reverend?) and the other is a century out of date, I don't see those as saying anything sure of the title of Myers or Cordileone, Broglio, Lucas, Aymond, Listecki, Vigneron, or Lori. You do, it seems. Esoglou (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
So, using your "logic", I suppose we shouldn't be using the Bible as a source either. Since, using your standard, it's "centuries out of date." Apparently in your world, all things must have an expiration date - even when they necessarily don't. Now if you had said that you found something later, which required a style change, that would have been one thing. But you found nothing. And you replaced it with nothing. So in the absence of that, your argument is just as capricious, arbitrary and ill-advised as... your actions. To say nothing of the other sources you removed, which - by your own rubric - were current. As to the question of Right or Most Reverend, this seems pretty clear: Most Reverend. As to the issue of the U.S. - again, using your "logic", all future sources on this project would have to be vetted as "country specific." Obvious nonsense. The purpose of the sources was to prove that the style was, again, in current use. Period. If you felt they needed to achieve more, then it was your responsibility to replace them with better sources that you felt did. It was not your place to remove reliable sources - which you never denied they were - only to replace them with nothing. That is also arbitrary and ill-advised. It also violates WP:UNSOURCED. But unfortunately, it is clearly consistent with your editing pattern. To wit: mass reverting those sources and replacing them with nothing - in the middle of our discussion about them - and violating WP:CCC - in the process. Was there some kind of fire in your world that compelled such precipitant action during the discussion? None that you ever bothered to identify. Because you didn't even have the courtesy to say you were going to make those reverts. Even when you knew we all were discussing them. That's not WP:BRD. Frankly, that's cowardice. Because you knew that at that moment your actions would very likely not have gone over very well. Even from editors who may have, by the end, agreed with you.
Finally, and I do mean finally, because this is clearly unavailing: both you and Elizium23 would be very well-advised to review WP:PROJ, as you both appear to have taken an undue and proprietary interest in these articles. Elizium23's topic concern below is a perfect example. "He's back" seems to be a favorite Elizium23 refrain, as though shock should be expressed when someone else has the temerity to contribute opposing points of view that fall outside of Elizium23's narrow and exclusionary canon. Much like the early screed I encountered about "a sedevacantist, heretical organization that does not represent Catholic teaching or the Church."
Per WIKIPROJECT, you both need to be extremely mindful, and proceed as though you are well aware, that: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." Just as you two would also be well-advised to review WP:TAGTEAM. Neither of you owns articles and your project does not imbue you with any extraordinary dispensation to act as though you do. Either alone, or in tandem, neither of you are the WIKIPOLICE.
Also, once again and not unpredictably, you moved the goalposts. You never specified what you found so amusing in your letter. Yet the moment I tried to contribute - suddenly, and after the fact - you defined the parameters to exclude my contribution. Gee, where have we seen that show before?! Regrettably, you demonstrate time and again that you are nothing if not consistent. But perhaps, moving forward, some small nugget from this colloquy and disquisition will sink in and some adjustments in behavior, however slight, may result. I don't find you to be a bad or unreasonable editor, Esoglou. In fact, I credit your dedication to this project. But I do find that you have gotten into a pattern of editing that runs afoul of some of this project's own policies. Comfort breeds imprudence. I also find that both you and Elizium23, your partner in crime, could go a long way toward being more inclusive of contributors, IP and otherwise, who do not belong to your little cabal. Perhaps, that's part of the reason why Dcheney expressed reluctance to agree with Elizium23 on the project page. Also perhaps, if you just remind yourself daily that this project is not your own little fiefdom, and working on it is a privilege: then in future, your judgment - and your actions - will be tempered accordingly. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Lloydbaltazar redux[edit]

Seems to be back. What do you think? Should we do the needful? Elizium23 (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You have a sharp eye, but I fail to see anything to go on as yet. If it is the same person, he has so far been remarkably reticent. Esoglou (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism[edit]

I don't know what is going on here. I may appear as a random editor, but I have seen what is happening. This article has been fully protected several times this year. It has never been fully protected since 2012 until summer 2014. Perhaps you can file a request for sanctions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, can't you? I don't want the article to suffer any more disputes. If you can't, then I'll ask someone else. --George Ho (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can do it yourself here, where (far from the first time) I have been asking that an editor discuss disagreements instead of repeatedly reverting to her own text. I am refraining from explicitly requesting sanctions or even making a clear implicit request. The closest I have come to doing so was my recent, "Can you not get the parties to discuss?" Esoglou (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I must have given you the wrong link. The link should have been Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. Perhaps request mediation? --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I confess I did not look up the first link you gave: I just picked up the mention of sanctions, and answered accordingly. I have also imagined that the intervention by Master of Puppets would be like what you are now suggesting. For now, I am waiting to see if Master of Puppets or someone else will get Roscelese to dialogue instead of being selectively deaf and dumb. If you think a mediator would succeed, do call one in. On my side there will be no objection. Because he not only gives serious attention to observations made by all sides, but also is interested in advancing sound sourced knowledge of the topic, Bromley86 has been very successful in clarifying the Jeanine Deckers question. It would be wonderful if someone would do the same for the other question(s). Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
As we must admit, this topic is controversial. I tagged it as such in the talk page, and I added "BLP others" to help readers consider the content further, especially on the living persons. Accusing one person of advocacy without evidence would violate WP:AGF policy, but doing advocacy violates WP:NOTADVOCACY also. Shall I call for mediation request then? --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, I brought up a discussion here instead because I want to prevent any more protections. I don't want the article to go down the same path as Mass killings under Communist regimes, which has been fully protected indefinitely and whose topic is very controversial. --George Ho (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
...I'm having second thoughts on the mediation thing. It is intended for content disputes, but extending dispute to a user conduct will make mediation ineffective. I would like to hear your viewpoints on events that led to several protections, but explaining would be suitable at either mediation or arbitration request. In other words, this is a user page. --George Ho (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking an interest in the problem. I too would much prefer that this article were edited like any other. As frozen, it is, from my point of view and that of some other editors, unbalanced, since most of it is as in the increasingly one-sided version to which Roscelese kept reverting in spite of difficulties raised and adjustments attempted, which she dismissed out of hand, blanket-reverting them on grounds of a non-existent consensus. (On the positive side, it must be said that, although the freezing of the article preserves nearly all of Roscelese's slanted edits, it does have the advantage of preventing her from adding yet more and making it necessary to correct them.) I have attempted to deal with the problem piecemeal, making one adjustment at a time and allowing time for discussion before attempting another. For a short time, this seemed successful. But when it came to three such adjustments, and the process I was attempting was clear, Roscelese again reverted all of them, without discussing any. Through intervention by other editors, advances have been made on two of the three: the Deckers question, and that of presenting what one source says as unquestionably true by excluding any mention of contradictory information (although the contradictory information is given by all other sources!). For the third, we only need intervention by someone else or an answer by Roscelese herself to explain her repeated insistence that a primary source says the opposite of what it clearly states and of what a reliable secondary source gives as its meaning. Please read this and make up your own mind whether what Roscelese is doing is reasonable. If you don't want to tell me what you think of it, you need not do so. Just look at it. Esoglou (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── She mostly cleaned up sources misinterpretations and strictly balanced passages except the Jeanine Deckers info, which is another story. If she hasn't admitted to being a lesbian, why suddenly remove her denial? I'll discuss this with her soon. --George Ho (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what sources misinterpretations she cleaned up and what passages she strictly balanced when she said that
"circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable"
"as homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation";
and when she said that the secondary source's statement that
"The Congregation's point can perhaps be illustrated by a simple analogy: kleptomania is a persistent psychological impulse to steal even in the absence of economic need. ... the more compulsive the disorder, the more reduced is the moral culpability for one's actions."
also means that the Congregation said that the culpability for a homosexual act is not mitigated by homosexual orientation.
On the Deckers question, Roscelese is joining in discussion, which is all that I have been asking. The problem is that she refuses to defend by reasoning (but only by edit-warring) her insistence that a primary source that speaks of reduction and even removal of culpability means, on the contrary, that there is no mitigation of culpability, and that a secondary source that says that, the more compulsive a persistent pscychological impulse is, the more reduced is culpability, is also declaring that the impulse does not reduce culpability. Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I presume you will see what happened on Roscelese's page to my apology to you for my insufficient clarity. Esoglou (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I was referring to this diff. --George Ho (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Then it appears that you have not looked at what I asked you to look at, where Roscelese insists, solely by edit-warring, and never by reasoning (by discussion), that, when the primary source, Homosexualitatis problema, section 11 states that culpability for homosexual acts can be diminished or even removed entirely, it is really saying that homosexual tendency in no way mitigates culpability for homosexual acts; and that, when a writer in The Linacre Quarterly states that, according to that document of the Holy See, homosexuality, like kleptomania, reduces culpability for one's actions, he is really saying that Homosexualitatis problema is really declaring that homosexual tendency in no way mitigates culpability for homosexual acts.
That is what I am complaining about: Roscelese's insistence through edit-warring on these apparently nonsensical claims and her concomitant refusal to explain by discussion what grounds she believes exist for her claims. Since she has now accepted to discuss her previous excluding by edit-warring sourced information on Deckers, that is no longer a complaint by me against her. Esoglou (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that on her talk page Roscelese acknowledges the existence of what she calls my admissions that I am trying to get her attention. Not "admissions", but repeated "appeals" that she discuss rather than edit-war. Take my appeals in the section to which I have tried to draw your attention, and also elsewhere on Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. It serves no purpose to argue about the past and such things as the blanket-reverting of edits by other editors: Padresfan94, Elizium23, BoboMeowCat, CHelvetica, Padresfan94 and myself, a series of edits by myself, for each of which I gave an explanation that I hoped would be discussed, but the result showed that it was better to present each one, as I have recently been doing, with a week's separation from the next, in the hope that it would be discussed separately and not dealt with by a blanket-reversion without discussion. Let us talk about the present. Would it not be much more constructive to answer appeals to discuss disagreements, instead of reverting out of hand? Esoglou (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As I said before, either request for mediation or for arbitration. This has extended from content dispute to user (mis)conduct. Don't try to make me take sides with or against you. I want the matter to be properly resolved and the latest full-protection to be the final one of them full-protections. --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

My mistake: WP:RFM says, "Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted." Since you aren't willing to compromise with the other, perhaps arbitration would do. --George Ho (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not exactly asking you to take sides. I have been asking you to be so good as to examine whether it is nonsense to think it unreasonable to interpret statements that seem to say "culpability for homosexual acts can be diminished or even removed entirely" and "homosexuality, like kleptomania, reduces culpability for one's actions" as meaning instead "homosexual tendency in no way mitigates culpability for homosexual acts". Taking sides afterwards (for instance against me) is another matter and entirely up to you. I explicitly said that you need not tell me your opinion. You might prefer, regardless of your personal view, not to take sides, but I would have appreciated it if you would say that you did examine the question but would not express a judgement. Now that Roscelese is discussing the Deckers question, even if with someone else rather than with me, I have little interest in it. But I don't refuse to answer your questions about it, seeing that this is what interests you. Esoglou (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Interpretations are interpretations. To be honest, paraphrasing isn't easy. However, quoting too many harms an article and violates copyright. The quotes that you provided are harmful and insulting, but WP:NOTCENSORED shouldn't be violated either. If you insist on including them, perhaps follow WP:UNDUE by adding other people's viewpoints from other sources alongside these quotes. That way, the information is balanced. --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am having difficulty in understanding you. I asked you to look at (without necessarily telling me your judgement on it) the section "Edit-warring without discussion" of the talk page. I wrongly thought your reply was in answer to my request and I failed to understand that you were talking about something quite different, when you wrote: "She mostly cleaned up sources misinterpretations and strictly balanced passages except the Jeanine Deckers info, which is another story. If she hasn't admitted to being a lesbian, why suddenly remove her denial? I'll discuss this with her soon." This mentioned Deckers, but seemed to indicate that you were not talking about the Deckers section ("except the Jeanine Deckers info"), so I thought what you said about "she" (presumably Roscelese) "mostly cleaning up sources misinterpretations and strictly balancing passages" must have been about "Edit-warring without discussion". I admit I still do not understand what cleaning up of sources misinterpretations and strict balancing of passages you meant. Please excuse my obtuseness.
Now you say that "quoting too many" somethings or other harms an article, and you speak of unspecified quotes provided by me that are "harmful and insulting". Again I fail to understand. In the only remaining section about which I am still complaining of Roscelese's refusal to dialogue I have quoted nothing, but have only cited, giving indeed the exact same citations that Roscelese gave. So what quotes am I insisting on including, while excluding other people's viewpoints? This accusation fits rather what Roscelese was doing when, in another of the three points I was complaining of, she was insisting on including an isolated statement by John L. Allen Jr and deleting from the article all reference to reliable sources that contradicted Allen's statement. This problem has been solved, although Roscelese did indicate that she might bring it up again in the future. Once again I apologize for my inability to understand. Esoglou (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
"homosexuality, like kleptomania, reduces culpability for one's actions" implies comparison with homosexuality and kleptomania. In other words, the author implies a comparison that may lower people's self-esteem and demean homosexuals by comparing them to kleptomaniacs. And I should not have used vague pronouns. The first "she" from "She mostly cleaned[...]" refers to Rosclese, and the second from "she hasn't admitted[...]" refers to Deckers. --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
All over the article, on the insistence of Roscelese, who presumably sees it as an accusation against the Catholic Church, but without objection by me, it is stated again and again that the Catholic Church (not only in Homosexualitatis problema, but in other documents as well) calls homosexuality (the orientation) "an objective disorder". The source that you object to states: "The Congregation's point can perhaps be illustrated by a simple analogy ... However we might assess an person's culpability in an individual case, we would still want to maintain that kleptomania is 'a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder'. And so it is with homosexuality." This is a reliable secondary source that is accepted as such by Roscelese. It interprets the primary source (the one Roscelese presents as saying the opposite of what it seems to say). A secondary source is preferable in Wikipedia to a primary one. Much preferable to a Wikipedia editor's personal interpretation of a primary source. It is not this secondary source alone, but the various primary documents of the Catholic Church, that, in your words "lower people's self-esteem and demean homosexuals". You don't demand that these documents be censored out of the article. Nor should this reliable secondary source, which Roscelese herself chose to cite, be censored out. Esoglou (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I knew the article's topic is controversial; I had a reason to tag it as such in the talk page. At least there must be other viewpoints that can balance the "Church teachings" section. Reading "Local perspectives", I see the Dutch, the British, and the American. What about other European groups, African groups, Latin American groups, Asian groups, and Oceania groups? --George Ho (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course. But I have asked, for now, about only three topics. Two are settled (perhaps). The third one I would like to settle, before attempting, one by one, any more of Roscelese's insisted-upon refusing-to-discuss objected-to-by-others edits. It was no good raising several topics at the same time, even when giving each of them a separate section on the talk page. Presenting some for consideration strictly one by one has proved more fruitful, though even this is slow work. I know that certain people are itching to add more controversial stuff to the article, thereby making it impossible to settle these ones ever. My hope is that these three will be firmly settled one way or another by 5 January, when other editors will doubtless introduce new ones to prevent progress on the long haul of dealing with those already in the article. Esoglou (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to discuss[edit]

I will attempt to discuss the matter with Roscelese as well. Arbitration is good as far as an article's stability goes, but the sanctions are not pleasant to have to implement or maintain. m.o.p 02:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not asking for sanctions, as I already told George Ho. I am hoping that someone more capable than I am will convince that edits should be defended by reasoning, and should take into consideration the expressed views of other editors.
I see that Roscelese has brought up my ill-placed sense of humour. I had just come across, elsewhere in Wikipedia, an image and jokes about it that were decidedly heterosexual, not homosexual, in character, and I thought it fitted her attempts to "tie me up" as a Wikipedia editor. I apologized for inconsiderately thinking it might amuse her also, not realizing that she would interpret it as sexual harassment or, of course, that it would be used to have me in fact tied up for six months. She had (and has) no qualms about accusing me of bad faith, but when I responded by saying that I, on the contrary, made no such counter-accusations against her, she interpreted that as baiting her for being a homosexual (as if that were something she should be ashamed of). Since some editors commented that what offended her was that the image was of a woman tied up, when for my own amusement I placed that image on my talk page, I represented myself tied up also by an image with a male figure. Now you will say I should not have done any of that. I accept that you are right. I am not under the ridiculous illusion that what I say or do is always right. Even in interacting with Roscelese I do admit at times that I was wrong and Roscelese right. The latest time, I think, was this, and I see now that even that edit by me needed copyediting. But I find I react strongly (too strongly?) to accusations of being dishonest. Esoglou (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Some questions by George Ho[edit]

Were you aware at the time of her sexuality when you tried to make a misleading joke that failed to amuse her? --George Ho (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
As I have said just above, the image in question had no overtones whatever of homosexuality. So what has Roscelese's sexuality got to do with it? Esoglou (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Posting something like that offended her and prompted her to turn against you, even when you didn't mean it. Now that she doesn't want to talk to you, you must tell Master of Puppets, the protecting administrator, more of your viewpoint of the events that occurred. --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think that was what turned her against me. Why do you think she was already trying to tie me down?
I am of course willing to tell Master of Puppets whatever more of my viewpoint he wants to know. Surely it's in my interest to let him know my viewpoint. Esoglou (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, she told Master about the "abortion" article, which you were involved in. It has been sanctioned, so why has it been? --George Ho (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Was that the six-month sanction, which followed the unfortunate image? Please give me a diff. of the sanctioning. Esoglou (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive676#Alternative to Topic block of User:WikiManOne.... General Sanctions on Abortion articles. --George Ho (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Your diff leads to a February 2011 discussion on the imposition of sanctions in relation to the article on abortion. You think I should give my viewpoint. I can only say it is neutral: I neither support nor oppose the proposals made in that discussion, and I accepted the sanction that in the following year (now a couple of years in the past) I was subjected to in relation to the article on abortion. Esoglou (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wait, I misread what Roscelese said. I crossed out my messages as a result. She was referring to this. And I found out you were banned for six months from abortion-related topics. --George Ho (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. So we agree. It was my unfortunate attempt at humour that made successful her bid to tie me up. Esoglou (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
What does that "tie me up" me? And what were you doing at the abortion article or somewhere related? --George Ho (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
By "tie me up" I meant block me from editing. I mentioned, the day before yesterday at 07:16, referring to it again the same day at 19:11, and again yesterday at 08:38, that I was thus blocked or tied up. You yourself independently "found it out" this morning. I'd have thought that, after you'd visited the link you found this morning, you wouldn't need to ask: "What were you doing at the abortion article or somewhere related?" I was editing the "Catholics for Choice" article. Roscelese was insisting that this group be described in Wikipedia's voice as a "Catholic" organization, in spite of Church declarations denouncing this claim. The article is more objective today, describing the association as a "dissenting Catholic" organization. Esoglou (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
You had conflict with others in regards to content: first revert, second revert, third revert, fourth revert, fifth revert, sixth (by two people), and seventh by me. Perhaps you were trying to please the views of Catholics with unfamiliar or flimsy euphemisms. --George Ho (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
No question this time, only an attribution of motive, while elsewhere changing to a less precise statement. Esoglou (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you are fully honest about what you were doing. Reading Talk:Catholics for Choice/Archive 2, I think you are avoiding my question—but I was afraid to bring it up—about which abortion-related article you were working on. --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You said, "We agree." On what? --George Ho (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought we agreed that the six-month sanction followed the posting of the image. If I was wrong in thinking we agreed, you have found yet another matter (apart from those already indicated here) on which to quarrel, to add to those of the respective months of application of an interdict and an excommunication, and of the sense in which "interdict" was to be understood in that context. Rather than pick up the gauntlet, I have chosen to let the less precise text stand.
As soon as you overcame your fear of asking which abortion-related article occasioned the sanction, I told you which. I note your further accusation of bad faith. Esoglou (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I found out, before another ban, you were banned from abortion-related topics for three months since January 2012. So the June 2012 six-month ban was the second ban. What is your explanation for this? --George Ho (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You may have seen, at the link you discovered, that the first was imposed without letting me know it was being considered and giving me a chance to explain. It's extremely late to be asking me now. Esoglou (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Link: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Other sanctions. --George Ho (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
As for the January three-month ban, I just found out recently. I swear. --George Ho (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to swear! I don't doubt your good faith. Thank you for informing me of a discussion of three years ago that I had forgotten. Esoglou (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If you want to evade your past, perhaps I'll deal with you another way. --George Ho (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dictionnaire des provocateurs[edit]

Roscelese told me that you were exploiting an inaccessible source for your own advocacy or something. Here is the below passage:

Jeanine Deckers (d. 1985), was known as The Singing Nun or Sœur Sourire, and was a Belgian singer-songwriter and at one time a member of the Dominican Order in Belgium as Sister Luc-Gabrielle. After leaving the order, she is reported to have begun a lesbian relationship with Annie Pécher.[1] She herself never admitted being a homosexual,[2] and she was said to be maintaining a chaste life.[3]

  1. ^ Simmonds, Jeremy. The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars. Chicago Review Press. p. 204. 
  2. ^ Thierry Ardisson, Cyril Drouhet, Joseph Vebret, Dictionnaire des provocateurs (EDI8 - PLON, 2010, ISBN 978-2-25921285-4)
  3. ^ Gordy, Margaret (8 February 1979). "'Singing Nun' makes comeback". Youngstown Daily Vindicator. Retrieved 14 November 2014. 

I hope you can explain why an inaccessible French dictionary is cited. I wonder if you really have a possession of the French edition, dictionnaire des provocateurs (Dictionary of Provocateurs). --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you really find that book inaccessible by the link given? Bromley86 had no difficulty in accessing it and declaring it a reliable source. A commentator on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard had no difficulty in accessing it. (It seems to have become next to impossible – for me – to access information on the archives of that noticeboard, but maybe you will be more successful.) Even though unable, she said, to access the book, Roscelese declared that it appeared to be a low quality-source anyway. But I was able to write, on Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, where it still is: "Roscelese has deleted information that Jeanine Deckers never admitted being a homosexual. This is stated in a book that, while admitting she had not examined it, Roscelese declared to be 'a low-quality source anyway'. For this view she won no support whatever on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, where it drew the response that the book had a reliable publisher and: 'It's even got mainstream media coverage that describes it favorably as a curated collection of stories of "provocateurs".'" It is strange that an Internet source that I can now, as then, access, that Bromley86 could access, that the Wikipedian who commented about it on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard could access, could not then be accessed by Roscelese and, it seems, cannot now be accessed by you. Would you please check again? Esoglou (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you are doing except trying to make me turn against her on your behalf. I don't want that. --George Ho (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
As for Bromley, does s/he have a print edition or an online edition? And s/he hasn't declared that s/he speaks or reads French. I can't access it on Google, but I would take Bromley's words as mere speculations. --George Ho (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Although you haven't said so explicitly, I take it that you have checked, and that you find you have no access to the book online. That explains the accusatory tone of "I hope you can explain why an inaccessible French dictionary is cited. I wonder if you really have a possession of the French edition, dictionnaire des provocateurs." I admit that I should not have responded in words that in turn seemed hostile to you. I assure you that the book is not inaccessible to me, and I can transcribe for you whatever amount of the preview you want. As usual, the link gives me the page that is directly linked to, but for the other pages of the preview it only gives "Loading". When I then change ".com" to the indication of the Google mirror in my country, I have access to the whole preview. I am surprised to learn that the link with ".com" does not work at all where you live. I have now tried it, with ".com" changed to ".be", ".fr", ".ie", ".it", ".jp", ".nl", "". Some did not immediately diplay the page with the phrase, "elle n'avouera jamais son homosexualité", but it was enough to scroll up or down to get other pages of the preview, and there was no stalling at "Loading". Would any of these be accessible to you? Or do you have to consult somebody in another country to be assured of my good faith? Esoglou (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Tried international sites; same results, no access. Rosclese doesn't want to talk to you ever as I can tell from her tone. --George Ho (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for trying. And for not repeating the accusation of bad faith. I know that Roscelese not only does not want to discuss anything with me, but also pretends that difficulties I have mentioned about her edits have not even been mentioned. Take the questioning of her idea that Robert J. Dempsey's statement that, according to Homosexualitatis problema, "the more compulsive the disorder, the more reduced is the moral culpability for one's actions" is a valid source to cite in support of her own statement that Homosexualitatis problema declares that a person's homosexual tendency does not mitigate the culpability of that person's homosexual acts. I am hoping that someone will undertake to discuss that question with her, and so solve this third problem in the way that the two other problems I spoke of have been solved. But perhaps you prefer to talk with her only about the Deckers question. That question has been solved by agreement of all except Roscelese – although it is true that Roscelese is trying to unsettle it again by, among other things, getting you to discuss with her the validity of a source not cited in the current version of the article (the version that was agreed on by all except Roscelese). That source is now irrelevant to the article. Its only relevance is to a false accusation against me of bad faith. I wonder would some other editor see whether it is only where I am that one can access this particular Google Books link on their sites in USA, Belgium, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom, etc. I find that hard to believe, although I am forced to accept that, for some reason, access is available within the United States to a preview of the book on none of these links. Esoglou (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
In what country do you live, and where have you learned English and improve your English language? And were you recently attacking Rosclese while you were not logged in your account(s)? --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
When I looked in briefly earlier today, I didn't notice this message. I see no reason to tell you where I live now, I see no reason to tell you whether it is the same country I was born in, I see no reason to tell you whether English is my first language or only one of those I am familiar with. I do state clearly and explicitly to you and to anyone else interested that I have not been attacking Roscelese or anyone else either in my own name or anonymously in the way you imagine. You should know it is not my style. And I add that for the last five years I have only one Wikipedia account, Esoglou (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Imprimatur (book)[edit]

I'm really encouraged by your contributions and work on this article. Much sharper. Thank you. Good stuff. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks.Esoglou (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Catholic Church[edit]

My understanding of the source, if we are talking about Pirenne's thesis, is that the severing of the political connection between the Eastern (Byzantine) and Western (Rome) Mediterranean occasioned by the increasing Muslim domination of the Mediterranean (first the southern coast, later the navigation routes, the islands, Sicily...) led to a power shift from the previously dominant East to northern Europe (Charlemagne). If this is the source we are talking about, then I think the summary is slightly off, but maybe I am misunderstanding. Piledhighandeep (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I see now that the reference to the source to which we are both referring and with which, I said, we may both disagree, is no longer given in the article. Please give me time to hunt it out and examine it. I think that, afterwards, we should discuss interpretations of the thesis on the article's talk page, since it isn't a matter that concerns us two alone. Esoglou (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lloydbaltazar is once again active. Although the current sockpuppet has only made three recent edits, and none in five days now. I notified Bbb23 about the case, hoping that he would attack it in a timely fashion, but he has so far not made any related edits. I am hoping that this means he is seriously considering the current evidence. If you yourself have anything to add, now would be a great time. Also, if you have this SPI page on your watchlist, and do not need every new notification from me, I can stop with them. But I value your assistance and insight here and everywhere else. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've put the SPI page on my watchlist and added a comment to your latest intervention there. Esoglou (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)[edit]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Esoglou, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Re:Reliable sources[edit]

Hi User:Esoglou, thank you for your message and your desire to improve the Christmas and Christmastide articles. It seems hard for me to believe that sources, such as those published by academic presses (University of California Press) and authoritative publications such as The Catholic Encyclopedia would invent the declaration of Christmastide at the Council of Tours without consulting the original texts proclaimed. I am sure these the six sources I added (I have more too) looked at the original declarations of the Council of Tours before printing it. I am a personal friend of a director of Catholic Answers and discussed this issue with him--he agrees with what I am saying but after the New Year, he is going to try to check their library to get me the declarations. I hope I get the opportunity to read them amidst my life, which is rather busy at the moment. The sources that I've added to support the statement are all reliable sources. I understand you have other sources that discuss some of the other things said in the Council of Tours. I have no problem with you adding them and have even welcomed your additions. Since we have different reliable sources offering information about the Council of Tours in relation to Christmastide, I do not mind having those perspectives. What I do take strong objection to is statements like "what was actually said" or "rather than declaring". I will continue to remove pointy clauses like these when I see them because they seem to diminish other perspectives, which amount to only one sentence amidst several others that you've added. Hopefully the recent revision at the Christmastide article will be a good compromise and will be satisfactory to you. I sincerely hope you are having a meaningful and prayerful Advent season. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your good wishes, which I warmly reciprocate. Your personal friend is indeed to be commended for objectivity in checking what the Council actually said, rather than continue to repeat what others repeat without making reference to any particular canon of the Council. Esoglou (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

at Sol Invictus[edit]

Hi, Esoglou. I guess that there may need to be a clarification here. In your last edit comment at the article, were you saying you thought I was accusing scholars of prejudice? If so, I wasn't, and can't see why one might think that. Or more likely, am I just missing the point? Evensteven (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

When I added the information about the academic acceptance of the calculations hypothesis as "viable" (even if not necessarily the correct explanation), I was commenting on the insistent IP editor who, to cast doubt on the work of scholars who speak of it, wanted Wikipedia to call them "Christian". You yourself called that action "weasel words". I am sorry that I did not make clear who I was referring to. Esoglou (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)