User talk:Esoglou

Apostolic succession

I wonder if you would take a quick look at the edit war underway at Catholic Church. User:Lloydbaltazar is insisting, among other things, that Catholic bishops are not the successors of all the apostles but just of Simon Peter. This seems wrong to me (and to the editors who are actively reverting Lloydbaltazar's edits). However, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to make a cogent refutation of Lloydbaltazar's assertion. Can you help? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"The Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles" (Gaudium et spes, 21); "The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles ..." (Gaudium et spes, 22); "The individual bishops, ... each of them, as a member of the episcopal college and legitimate successor of the apostles ..." (Gaudium et spes, 23); "Bishops, as successors of the apostles ..." (Gaudium et spes, 24); "The parallel between Peter and the rest of the Apostles on the one hand, and between the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops on the other hand, does not imply the transmission of the Apostles' extraordinary power to their successors" (Gaudium et spes, Appendix). Enough?

I think I can leave it to others to deal with the insufficiently informed enthusiasm of newcomer Lloydbaltazar on the Catholic Church page. Esoglou (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (Added later: I see Lloydbaltazar is not the newcomer I imagined. It is only that Lloydbaltazar has recently become more widely and frequently active, displaying a conviction of having accurate personal knowledge on various matters. National interests indicate Lloydbaltazar's nationality, and edits made when not logged in show accurately where, in another country, Lloydbaltazar is living. Esoglou (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

Thank you. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So... Lloydbaltazar is claiming that Catholic bishops are successors to St. Peter while Orthodox bishops are successors to St. Andrew. Being the ignoramus that I am, I've never heard this distinction being drawn. My understanding is that Catholics/Orthodox/Anglican bishops are all valid bishops if the chain of apostolic succession has been unbroken. If I remember correctly, Catholics have issues with most Anglican bishops but some Anglicans can claim an unbroken chain of apostolic succession. If I understand correctly, Catholics have no issue with the apostolic succession of Orthodox bishops although Orthodox bishops might (?) have some issue with Catholic bishops (I am unclear on this last point).

Do you know which group draws this distinction between St. Peter and St. Andrew? Is it something that the Orthodox insist upon? (Seems doubtful to me.) I've never heard of this distinction being drawn by the Catholic Church. (But I admit to being quite the novice in this kind of thing.)

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth my time to check on what Lloydbaltazar says on the matter, since others are keeping an eye on his edits of the Catholic Church article, but I wonder if he has been misinterpreted. The see of Rome traces its origin to Peter. The see of Constantinople traces its origin (with far less historical evidence) to Peter's brother Andrew. This must be what underlies whatever Lloydbaltazar has said.

Perhaps it is not necessary at this point to speak of recognition by churches of apostolic succession in others. Esoglou (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Divine/human motherhood of Jesus/Christ

There's another question regarding Catholic Church that I could use some help on. I'm not confident of my thinking on the following question so I wanted to bounce it off you first before putting it on Talk:Catholic Church and making a fool of myself in front of all the editors of that page.

Somewhere along the line the text of the lead came to read "divine motherhood of Jesus Christ". Anglicanus modified this to read "human motherhood of Jesus Christ" (with this edit). I wonder whether we even need either "divine" or "human" here. I think both words only serve to confuse and introduce distinctions which are unnecessary and possibly even unjustified. The relevant concept seems to be that of Theotokos. Clearly, Mary was human and not divine but is it necessary or even useful to underline that by the phrase "human motherhood"? I interpret the original intent of the phrase "divine motherhood" to be trying to allude to the "Mother of God" concept but I can also see Anglicanus' objection that this could be read to suggest that Mary was divine. I think this whole mess can be sidestepped by just not using either "human" or "divine" to qualify "motherhood of Jesus Christ".

What do you think? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded on the article's talk page. Esoglou (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems settled now. Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

38.121.23.173 etc.

FIY: 38.121.23.173 may well be the same as User talk:Lloydbaltazar. Mostly unsourced edits, on Immaculate Conception and Our Lady of Perpetual Help - even used to have his own images. Usually just needs a revert. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite certain he is the same, and have been for some time. Thanks for your interest. Esoglou (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Anway, I did an ANI and a sockpuppet notice, as on his talk page. This fellow is taking up too much time. History2007 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Marcel Lefebvre

Nice work. Can you find a better source than a Blog, though? I know what you are saying has to be published somewhere more suitable than a blog, regadless of how well it is written.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The blog was only for an English translation. The source was the newspaper Die Tagespost, no blog. Esoglou (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, cool...sorry, been on a "blog witch hunt" lately, I got confused!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Basilica

I would suggest to move the discussion about basilicas to the minor basilica page. It is a very fascinating topic that was approved canonically in 1917 but used for centuries. I will be glad to keeping improving the article. with you Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

How about moving back to the lead the statements that Mary Major is one of the four major basilicas and was once called a patriarchal basilica? I wonder now if I was wrong to remove the reference to its being one of the seven (I should check on the number) papal basilicas. Esoglou (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the canonical distinction arose in the 18th century. The 1917 Code of Canon Law merely codified the existing legislation on the matter. Esoglou (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving this statement to lead is ok if it is kept short. The lead should also reflect the rest of the article

Which legislation do you have in mind besides the code of Canon law? Although the first title was granted, as an exception, to San Nicola al Tolentino in 1783, the recognition of the immemorial basilicas was given by the 1917 Canon law (Can. 1180. Nulla ecclesia potest basilicae titulo decorari, nisi ex apostolica concessione aut immemorabili consuetudine; cuiusque vero privilegia ex alterutro capite colligantur). Before, it was a more a marketing tool, with all due respect. Every priest, mostly Italians at that time, wanted his church to be special and called it a "basilica". The classification oratory- church-cathedral was too strict and/or ubersimple. Even today, you will notice that very few want their basilica to be called minor.

The title of Papal basilica has no canonical meaning. I am still looking for a Vatican source explaining the difference Pontifical and Papal churches. Add the Lateran Treaty to that and it becomes even more fuzzy. IMHO, all papal churches are pontifical churches, ie attached to or property of the Holy See/Vatican State. What makes Papal churches special is that they are also attached directly to the Pope himself. It is obvious for the Major basilicas but in the case of Assisi, it was a decision of BXVI to take over the sanctuary of Assisi, managed independently by the Franciscans until then. Official statement? Still looking...

Technically, Pope Benedict XVI did not formally abandon the title of Patriarch of the West. It has too many oecumenic implications. The title was just missing in the first Annuario Pontificio publish under BXVI and still missing today. This can always be changed by him or the next Pope. Nothing definitive here.

Major basilicas are the only that can use the adjective "sacrosanta" too.

Thank you far taking the time to discuss this with me.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have access to one of the editions of the 1917 Code of Canon Law that gave the sources of each canon? I don't. It would be very useful in the search for the origins of its canon 1180. I find it difficult to imagine that, before that Code came into effect, the churches that now enjoy the title of basilica "immemorabili consuetudine" were not considered canonically entitled to it, and that they acquired the title canonically only in 1918. After all, the present four major basilicas are themselves basilicas "immemorabili consuetudine". I suppose you are right in attributing the 18th-century (?) canonical limitation of the right to call a church a basilica to over-use of the label as "a marketing tool".

The limitation came in 1917. Following our interesting discussions, I found this reference on archive.org. I think it is what you are looking for: Commentary on the 1917 Canon. The pandora's box was open not in 1783 but in 1836 by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in its Lucerina of 27 August 1836 . See details in this book [1] IMHO, It remained a mere honorary title until 1917.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

How about this as a hypthesis for the distinction between "pontifical minor basilica" and "papal basilica"? The "pontifical minor basilicas", at least the four that GigaCatholic lists as such, are each under the care of a "pontifical delegate", who is or happens to be the local ordinary (head of the see or of the territorial prelature) except in the case of the basilica in Padua, which has a retired archbishop from outside in charge. The "papal" basilicas don't have a "pontifical delegate". The four major ones have "archpriests" (is that right? I haven't checked). The two Assisi basilicas have a "Legate" (Totius orbis of 9 November 2005, which I suppose is the Benedict XVI document you were looking for). The recent changes regarding the basilica of Saint Lawrence outside the Walls and the possibility that they have not yet been finalized discourage me from making any attempt to find out who has responsibility there, but I think it is unlikely to have been a "pontifical delegate", whatever about the future.

I agree with you this description. My text you removed from the page of S. Maria Maggiore tried to explain it: "The Basilica of Pompei is administered by a Territorial Prelate. The Lateran treaty ceded the property of the Basilicas of the Holy House at Loreto and of S. Antony at Padua to the Holy See. The basilica of Bari depends directly from the Secretariat of State of the Holy See.[2]" When you enter the basilica in Padua, you are welcomed by the same security forces tha in St Peter's. You are no longer in Italy...

Regarding Assisi, the same source [3] explains that the Basilica of St Francis was made explicitly Patriarchal basilica in 1754 by Pope Benedict XIV "qua Basilica Assisiensis S. Francisci in Patriarchalem & Cappellam Papalem erigitur, cum aliis gratiis, privilegiis, & indultis". [4]Pope Pius X gave an equivalent status to S. Maria degli Angeli in 1909.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As for "pontifical basilica", as distinct from "pontifical minor basilica", I think it has no significance whatever in this field. There are many colleges, universities and other institutions that bear the title "pontifical". I suppose that in general this means no more than the title "royal" in such British institutions as the Royal Automobile Club, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children or the Royal Society. I take it that these have been given charters by the sovereign, as cities and the like are given charters, but that they are not administered by the British Crown or its agents. And the basilica in Naples that is a recognized minor basilica and that is both pontifical and royal surely shows that these adjectives in its name have origins distinct from the granting to it of the title of minor basilica.

I agree. Pontifical basilica has no special meaning. Only the 5 basilicas and colleges or universities ( can. 815-821 [5]) directly administered by the Holy See are entitled to use the adjective "pontifical". They are also listed in the Annuario Pontificio.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I recently read somewhere on the Internet that a papal basilica has a throne and an altar reserved for the Pope. Is that what distinguishes a papal basilica from other basilicas?

The only Papal throne I know in Rome, beside the throne of St Peter, is the one in the Lateran basilica but correct me if am wrong. However, it is correct that all of them do have a Papal chapel (not to be confused with the one of the body of the Papal Household ;-)).--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that, while "Patriarch of the West" has not been abandoned "definitively" in the sense of "absolutely irrevocably", it has certainly been abandoned decisively. It has been "renounced" (Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity), not just "omitted". The official change in the denomination of the major basilicas and, in connection with that, the change in the denomination of the Assisi basilica of Saint Francis, show that the abandonment is intended to be definitive in the sense of "will in fact never be revoked, even if in the abstract it could be". Esoglou (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the source.

Thanks again. It is time to improve the corresponding pages.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The edition of the 1917 Code that I had in mind and that must surely be available still not only in seminaries but also in diocesan chanceries was in no sense a commentary: it merely gave, along with the text of the canons given also in the much more common and cheaper edition, references, without quotations, to the sources that the canons were based on. (Some of these lists of sources were quite lengthy, but I think someone commented that no source could be cited for canon 329 §2: "(Episcopos) libere nominat Romanus Pontifex.") The works you kindly provided on canon 1180 in no way suggest that before that Code there was no canonical regulation about use of the title of basilica. The title was being granted before 1800: "Ancora nel XVIII secolo, come attesta il Ferraris (...) godevano il titolo di basilica solamente alcune chiese «maiores, principaliores ac digniores». Piuttosto rari, invero – almeno nel Magnum Bullarium romanum – sono i provvedimenti apostolici di concessione di siffatta qualifica onorifica e la situazione non era mutata nella prima metà del XIX secolo ..." Doesn't that indicate clearly that already in the 18th century there were papal grants of the title of basilica, and that these privileges were rare, as they remained rare also in the first half of the 19th century? This is given in the footnote precisely to point a contrast to the later situation in which grants became numerous. The 1836 decree of the Congregation for Rites didn't create the institute of minor basilicas: it only legislated that the general effect of receiving the title was only the right to the conopeo etc. – exactly as it remained until the recent document that chose to omit all reference to these material trimmings. The 1917 Code said that the privileges of a basilica (without distinguishing between major and minor) are derived from whatever is the source of the title (either an apostolica concessio or an immemorabilis consuetudo). Since the apostolicae concessiones and, even more, the immemorabiles consuetudines clearly predate 1917, I don't see how it can be maintained that the Code established something new in their regard. Or that until then there was no limitation on declaring your church a basilica ("The limitation came in 1917") – in that case, why were they applying to Rome for a grant of the title? Or that the title of basilica was changed in 1917 from "a mere honorary title" (which it still is, like the title of "Monsignor") to something else ("It remained a mere honorary title until 1917") – what else is it now or then but an honorary title?

I'll see if I can find one. The title is more than honorary IMHO since 1836 but first in 1968 then in 1989 the norms were clearly specified by Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disicipline of the Scacraments: Domus ecclesiae: Norms for the Granting of the Title of Minor Basilica. It also details their privileges. See also: Footnote 58-59-Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Rather than "removing" your comment on the Pompei basilica, I "moved" it, giving it a sourced form, to Minor basilica.

OK thanks.

3. About the title of "patriarchal basilica" granted to the St Francis basilica in Assisi – that is already in the article. The source you give is unclear (saying only "analoga") with regard to the other Assisi basilica; but I don't think this other basilica was ever called a patriarchal basilica, only perhaps a major basilica.

It is in the 2009 constitutions of the OFMs at the occasion of its 100 anniversary see Acta Ordinis Fratrum Minorum p. 429. Both are Patriarchal basilica.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

4. Forgive me if I do not agree that "only the 5 basilicas (what five?) and colleges or universities ... directly administered by the Holy See are entitled to use the adjective 'pontifical'". I don't see the relevance of the reference to canons 815-821, in which I have not found the word "pontifical". And I don't believe that the Holy See directly administers the Pontifici Collegi Americano del Nord, Armeno, Beda, Belga, Etiopico, Francese, Germanico-Ungarico, Greco, Irlandese, Internazionale «Maria Mater Ecclesiae», Romeno, Russo, Scozzese, Svedese. I don't see in what way these colleges are supposedly "directly administered by the Holy See", while the Alma Collegio Capranica and the Venerabile Collegio Irlaeandese are supposedly not "directly administered by the Holy See. What does seem to hold true is, as I said, that in the list of recognized basilicas "pontifical" is found added to "minor basilica" only for the four that are headed by a "pontifical delegate".

I had in mind universities outside Rome. The Collegium Romanum are ecclesiastical colleges ruled by Canon 815-821. Ex [6]. Other Pontifical colleges institutes in Rome also have the extra-territoriality. I do admit that administered by the Holy See is a little bit strong. An US college like Pontifical College Josephinum asked that "it be placed under the protection of the Holy See. Pope Leo XIII granted the request in 1892, thus making the Pontifical College Josephinum the only pontifical seminary outside of Italy". (sic) Instead of "administered by" it is more correct to say "placed under the protection of the Holy See"--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The fifth is Madrid. IMHO gcatholic.com is not correct in stating that it depends from the Archdiocese of Madrid. It belongs to the Nunciature to Spain and Andorra. But I won't fight about this. Next time I end up in Madrid, I will pay them a visit --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

5. I don't feel like researching about papal thrones, which perhaps nobody really spoke of. But maybe you could research about papal altars, to see if there are now altars reserved to the pope not only in the four major basilicas (of which I think there is no doubt) but also in the other "papal" basilicas. I don't know whether it is so or not. Esoglou (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Papal altars in patriarchal basilicas are for the exclusive use of the Pope, in my understanding too. There is one in each basilica in Assisi. See --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So do you think that a papal altar (an altar reserved for the pope) is what makes a basilica a "papal basilica"? Of course, to put that idea in Wikipedia, you need to cite a source that says so, or at least you must cite a source or sources that say, in the case of every papal basilica or every group of them, that they have a papal altar. Esoglou (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, I did an ANI on our silent friend, Richard commented too, and hopefully there will be calm on that page now. History2007 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Email me

Eso, I would email something pertinent to our convo, but your email is turned off. If you are interested, contact me via email.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that the discussion is over, I have less interest than before in learning more, even at the slight cost of setting an e-mail contact in Wikipedia for the first time. Esoglou (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Birth

I would be very interested to know your views as to whether or not it is worth mentioning Leslie Weatherhead's [controversial] suggestion regarding the Virgin Birth of Jesus. That was included in my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_birth_of_Jesus&diff=446053315&oldid=442209340 ... but my contribution was reverted yesterday (21 August) by Wiki-Editor "History2007".--DLMcN (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

While I would not have taken the initiative of deleting it, I think the article is better without what is, History2007 says, an idea seemingly put forward by a single writer as tentative speculation (I don't have access to the book). It seems quite far-fetched to present Jesus as the son of old Zacharias (who was not high priest), rather than of Joseph. Esoglou (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Side note

FYI: Xulon press is beginning to get objections on various pages, and rightly so. It is a self-published press, and there are a few others appearing too. So Xulon-based refs will not stand up to being WP:RS even if the statements in the books are 100% correct. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The book you referred to was not the solitary source cited for the statement. Esoglou (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. But in the long term it will actually reduce the weight of the argument, just by the appearance of being self-pub, so we will probably do better without Xulons, or would do better with alternatives. History2007 (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you remove it for me, please? I have been away and do not feel up to searching for a substitute at this moment, when I have difficulty even in remembering the context clearly. Esoglou (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will do. I did not want to play with it without asking you. History2007 (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

About your POV and stalking

While it's fine to have checks and balances, especially on somewhat controversial or sensitive articles, so no obvious tilts or slants one way or the other happen, we need to all be careful. It's been obvious for months that you have certain POV biases and problems. You've engaged in POV-pushing, because of prejudices against terms, facts, issues, names, etc. And being inconsistent, in certain listings, or edits, because of the POV bias. You even accused me of something I never even did, but was done by some other editor way back, where I responded, and I notice you never replied back. So now you follow many of my edits around, because of obvious resentment or personal bias, because of my changing some obvious POV edits that you did (and that others noticed too). Now you follow me and disrupt or remove edits I made in other articles that you were never even involved in, checking out my recent edits. Because of bias or hostility. Not cool. And against Wikipedia policy. (WP:Hounding, WP:EditWarring etc) I never followed you around though. That was an article I was interested in from the start. So now you feel the need to check my history and second-guess some valid accurate things I put in, simply because it was I who did it and because they go against your long-held POV. This will be your first and last warning. If you do it again, I go to the notice board, report you, and all your POV examples and edits and bias-pushing will be pasted and on display, and I'll ask Jeffro to join in to give his take. Your POV and obvious biases are showing again, and there was no reason to remove those things from those edits, they were valid and accurate. Don't follow me around...for real. I don't check your history and look at the articles you've edited, so kindly don't do it with me. Don't war, don't hound, don't follow, don't bully, don't revert, don't disrespect, don't remove things because of your obvious "I Don't Like It" reasons. Because that's a violation. And because then it could happen to you, and I'm sure wouldn't like it. And also, you'll get reported if you continue it. And I'm sure you wouldn't like that either. Do it again, and that's what'll happen. Stay away from me. I'm serious. Hashem sfarim (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton of Books, let's just stick to verifiable facts and avoid personal animosity. Esoglou (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no big problem leaving it as "Lord", but that's not all you removed. Anyway, the reason I put that in is to elaborate a bit more (per usage in ASV and other translations) what the term "Lord" was referring to. Because technically it's not Angel of the "Lord" in the original Hebrew, but rather "Angel of Jehovah" or "Angel of Yehowah". (From YHWH or YHVH or JHVH). NOT "Adonai". Hence why the need to maybe have both terms in the article, for clarity and elaboration. You notice that I did not remove all terms "Lord" in the article. (Plus, that's not even the point, as it doesn't speak to the issue of unwarranted following-me-around, and how you never even replied back again on the other article talk page, about your erroneous assumption that I put the NEB listing in that section, etc.) Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I raised no difficulty against your statement that it was not you who originally inserted the "e.g. ..." NEB list - I didn't want a quarrel. That's why I did not riposte that you did reinsert the list (twice, I think), and in this way made it yours. May we now pause? Esoglou (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine (as far as the NEB situation). But again, the reversions you made on recent articles that I edited were not all that necessary, or warranted (even if you didn't do it from checking my history which you obviously did), but just showed (again) your POV bias against the established Anglicized form. Check it. There are scholars on BOTH sides of the issue. Some for, some against, and some in-between. By the way, I also put the form "Yehowah" in articles to give more of a Hebraic flavor, in certain contexts. I try to be careful. Because I don't want slants or unsourced things put in, whether I agree with them or not. But also because "Yehowah" is an established and accepted transliteration. But "Jehovah" is more so in the "J" pronunciation in the English. Regardless, though, how was it supposed to make me feel that you actually checked my edit history, went to some articles I contributed to recently, because of obvious hostility (because what other reason is there?), and undid many elaborations and accurate established things I put in? No one on WP likes to be followed around or hounded by hostile or unfriendly editors. I would never do that with someone, because that's not how I am. You did not bother with these articles before, until you saw (from my history) that I recently edited them. That's arguably hounding. And I would appreciate you not do that. That's all I'm saying. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

On insertions of "Yehowah"/"Jehovah" or undoing of them, let consensus among editors decide. OK? Esoglou (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you have not addressed once the main matter of you checking my edit history, following-me-around, and the stalking issue. You keep dodging that, and focusing only on the matter of "Yehowah/Jehovah", and not caring about the disruptions you made on edits that I recently made, by hounding me, by checking my history. Why did you do that? Of course you keep evading that point because you know that that's what you did, and you can't really defend it much. Again, regardless of the matter of POV or what belongs where and "consensus" (which is not infallible, but generally should be respected), you were wrong and out of line and annoying for checking my history, neurotically, and molesting my edits because you had personal bias and resentment. That's something I would never put up with. So in that sense, it doesn't really matter that much about the "Jehovah/Yehowah" issue on "Angel of the Lord" or anywhere else, or whatever consensus says.

You were uncool for looking up my edit history and intruding and disrupting that way. Stalking is never a wise thing to do, and will always cause more problems, more animosity, and can turn ugly. That was my overall point here. Don't hound me. Or anyone else. It's wrong. And also because I never do that nonsense to anyone.

I never thought to look at your edit history (even though I know you have bias issues, and that you have been reverted over and over again on the "Jehovah" article for your nonsense and POV-pushing), I never bothered looking at your other edits on other pages, because I'm not uncool like that. You dig? I'm being blunt now, because you never even apologized, owned up, or addressed the point of your obvious stalking. (Whether other editors choose to see it that way is irrelevant, because you did check my edit history, and you did disrupt my recent edits, because of bias or whatever reason (valid or not), right after that recent thing on the talk page of "Jehovah". That's just a fact.) The point again, simply, is don't stalk, don't hound. It's a violation, and it's not really necessary.

And by the way, did you ever do that with Jeffro? I mean, he has reverted you way more many times, over similar issues, than I ever did. He has had major problems with you. Did you ever think to follow him around? Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:HA. I have not violated the norms. I refrain from remarking on whether you have. Esoglou (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My point though is that you started to do it (and there's no question that you checked my edit history, in order to go on those recently edited articles etc, and there's no question that you did it right after that thing on the "Jehovah" talk page, etc,) and I waned to nip any hounding nonsense that you were doing in the bud. Yes, you were following, and yes that's a violation.

Remember too, Eso. You were the one who was reverted and corrected many times (not just by me, and not even mostly by me), on that other article. The bias was proven to be more with you, than with anyone else. The problem (with that inconsistent listing, and loaded wordings, and POV-pushing and blatant edits on "Jehovah") was with you. That was already proven there. And I was merely questioning your inconsistent stuff on things like "NEB", and POV insistence, because of your hang-up against the established Anglicized form "Jehovah". (Some "scholars" of course share your view, but obviously not all...many don't. That's whatever.)

The point is that you have not acknowledged that you went into my edit history because of issues on the other article that we recently had, and then went to a number of (religious) articles that I contributed to, decided to second-guess them, (partly because you knew that Jeffro was not there to challenge anything, as I'm not always on WP to begin with). As I said, I wanted to nip it in the bud, your obvious hounding and following-around. I would not do that with you just because I don't like your position or attitude on certain things. I don't roll like that, even though I know some editors do. Maybe for legitimate reasons sometimes, but I stay away from doing that to any editor, because I like minding my own business, not the business of others. And you decided to mind mine. And that aint cool (or warranted). And I did not want it to continue.

Because if it went on, it would be definitely WP:Hounding. And that's definitely a violation. My point is that no one is perfect every second or every syllable. I'm not, and you definitely are not. Just being frank. It's a matter of taking the good with the bad. But we gotta be careful with the long-held biases and POV. I have personal problems with the form "Yahweh" (wrongly two syllables instead of correctly three, wrongly "Y" instead of more correctly English "J" as in "Jeremiah" etc), but you don't see me disturbing or adding my POV to the "Yahweh" article. Nor do I go and change every article on WP that has "Yahweh" in it, since I know it's a sourced term and a common term. Nor do I follow anyone around who is so pro-"Yahweh" or so anti-"Jehovah" in every article. I try hard to be careful, yet also demonstrating what else is sourced and established. It's that simple. We all need to be careful. Peace out. Hashem sfarim (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As you know, WP:Hounding redirects to a part of WP:HA. Perhaps you have misunderstood "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles". It is for the community to decide matters such as whether your insertions of "Jehovah" into various articles should be kept. If we want to join the work of Wikipedia, you and I can and should make proposals and point out problems that seem to require attention. We should then accept the community's decision: Wikipedia belongs to neither of us. Esoglou (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line is that checking someone's edit history that you had issues or disagreements with on another article, (where you were reverted by others as well, for POV pushing, bias, and loaded edits and wordings), snooping into a person's history and edits and articles, is NOT COOL. And is disrespectful, and is hounding, and is a violation. I wouldn't do that to you (though I can see someone doing it to you for your obvious bias)...so please don't do it others. I'll say it again: CHECKING SOMEONE'S EDIT HISTORY BECAUSE YOU LOST A DISPUTE IN ANOTHER ARTICLE, WHERE YOU WERE RIGHTLY REVERTED BY A NUMBER OF OTHER EDITORS, AND THEN SNOOPING AND DISRUPTING THE USER'S EDITS, OUT OF MALICE, AND BIAS, AND MINDING SOMEONE ELSE'S BUSINESS, IN ARTICLES THAT YOU NEVER BOTHERED WITH BEFORE, BUT ONLY TO MESS WITH THE EDITS OF A USER WHO UNDID YOUR POV, CHECKING SOMEONE'S HISTORY AND GOING TO THEIR PREVIOUS EDITS, BLATANTLY PEERING INTO THEIR HISTORY TO TRY TO DISRUPT STUFF THAT "YOU DON'T LIKE", is just plain neurotic, uncool, jerky, rude, and disrespectful...and is the start of stalking behavior. Don't do it. Period. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I can sympathize with the pain you feel at having your efforts to insert "Jehovah" into various articles frustrated by other editors, including me. Your pain is evident from your SHOUTING here and your devoting 88 of your 91 edits between 17:17 on 31 August and 21:10 on 1 September to your feelings on the matter, with almost half of them, 43, on this talk page alone. I am glad that time may already be healing your hurt, since from 23:53 on 1 September you have found other interests, even if most of these most recent edits of yours were about a disagreement you have with another editor. Esoglou (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Were you in pain when you got defeated by me and Jeffro repeatedly on the "Jehovah" article? Because of your neurotic efforts to disparage the form "Jehovah". And that your idiotic edits, and your illogical disruptions were summarily and swiftly reverted all the time? So now you whine about some caps (done only for strong emphasis, because you're obviously slow in getting the point), and me trying to make the comments on your talk correct and fixing it, because it's kind of important, and harp on petty junk like that, and read more into that then there is?

Anyway, Eso... so was that pay-back for getting undone (rightly so) on the Jehovah article and talk page? Obviously...attempted payback, your neurotic hounding and silly following? I tried to reason with you to some degree, even though I basically knew from the beginning that with someone like you it was a waste of time and effort. As for me, no, it's not pain, but anger, at neurotic stalkish behavior. My only "interest" in you is warning you clearly to not stalk me and to stay the hell way from me, son. Other than that, I couldn't care less. Like I said, not "pain" but understandable anger at your rude stalkish POV nonsense. (I'm funny like that, to be annoyed with that crap.) And obvious POV-pushing habits, by someone who has obvious uptight soap-box hang-ups and problems with the form "Jehovah", and neurotically crusades against it, even on the Jehovah article itself, which you really have no business in if you're that biased, and obviously is pained himself that he got defeated on the "Jehovah" article, who gets reverted all the time, by me and other editors, so now feels the pathetic need to stalk one of the editors to hound and disturb valid edits, simply because "you don't like it". You got problems, kid. Stay away from me, or you'll get reported, and will risk being blocked.

Also, by the way, Eso, I got a message from someone else who has had the displeasure of dealing with your issues in recent months. You show your compulsive edit warring and POV by violating agreements, because I got an interesting note on my talk page from "LoveMonkey", another fellow you've annoyed with your nonsense, and he (lol) had some very interesting things (and links) to give me on my talk...that I relayed recently to an Admin. (See what LoveMonkey wrote me right here). And also check here. I think it's wise to not feed the fires here, and just let this go. Believe me. It's not easy to take the high road with someone like you. You're not to be reasoned with. But you don't want this escalating. For real.

And like I said, just to correct your silly assumptions. I felt no "pain" at all, I mean, there are other neurotic editors on WP besides you, we know, and that's life, but at least they don't stalk me, like you did, so again, just anger at your stalking and POV insanity, because no one on WP likes to be hounded or followed around by a POV pushing neurotic, who is doing so out of malice for being "pained" himself on some other article. (I'm sure you were in deep pain or resentment over that, so hence your reactionary stalking behavior). And the fact that you make a comment about my recent activity dealing with some other matter shows that you neurotically checked my history again (people such as you can't help themselves I know, OCD and all), and can't just mind your own business. I warned you about that, that was it. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum

Look what others said to you in recent months...
One editor said:
"Esoglou you are going to get into a world of hurt by blatantly breaching your editing restrictions in this way, especially so soon after the restrictions were enforced. Do not edit this material, even if you think it's wrong and even if you think LM has failed to uphold the restriction. Bringing perceived breaches of the agreement to Ed's attention is the right thing to do; "correcting" them yourself is not. For the record I see no breach by LM here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)" ******
also another one here:
Another said: "At any rate, Esoglou, you technically should not even be discussing this material on the talk page (if I'm reading the editing restrictions correctly), let alone editing it.--Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)"*******
It seems that you've gotten into neurotic issues and problems with many others on Wikipedia, and in typical obsessive compulsive fashion, can't help yourself when you violate agreements, Wiki etiquette, NPOV maintenance, etc. No one's perfect. No one. I'm not the easiest person either. But I try hard to only put things that are established, sourced, and valid. While leaving things that I may not like or agree with alone, as long as they're sourced and established...(hence why I do NOT go around removing "Yahweh" from every WP article I see it with...unlike you with "Jehovah"...lol) But I already had your number months ago, and from looking at more past edit history pages on the "Jehovah" article, as well as on just about any other religious article out there, you've been a big problem on Wikipedia. Not my words, but the words of others, waaayyy more established or experienced than I am. But you never own up or admit anything, because that's just how you are. Anyway, again, I'm not saying I'm perfect every second or syllable. Nobody is. I try to take the good with the bad, in people. I don't agree with everything Jeffro has said or done, for example, but I respect him from what I've seen. Nor do I agree with LoveMonkey on everything. Etc. Either in style or substance. I'm just saying that even aside from your constant POV-pushing and disruptions that you do, going one step further into actual checking and stalking of someone is way crossing the line, and I would never put up with it. And neither does Wikipedia policy. "WP:Hound" which you love to deny you do. (Rarely does a WP stalker ever admit that he's a WP stalker, so that's no big surprise.) bye Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)