User talk:Esoglou

"Sorry, Mom, I can't talk about that. I'm too tied up just now."

WARNING

THIS EDITOR HAS A SENSE OF HUMOUR THAT OTHERS FIND OFFENSIVE

I am keeping this image, which still amuses me, although in 2012 others interpreted it as a laugh not at myself but at another editor who, precisely on its account, got me tied up for a while.

People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent

Dear Esoglou,

Since you seem to be a rational soul and know about the « Byzantine » (no pun intended!) subtleties of 'old European' cultural categorization and Church(es) history, I’m writing to draw your attention to the fact that some reckless Wiki-Boeotians want to delete the “People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent” and the “American of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent” categories!

See this page

Your erudite editorial help in the current « deletion debate » would be appreciated

Cordially,

--B.Andersohn (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be no need for me to intervene in the way you desire. There is evidently no consensus for deletion of those categories. To give an opinion on usage in the English language, I would have to form one first. In Greek, I might have to take a position opposite to yours, since my Greek dictionary defines λεβαντίνος as a somewhat archaic (παλαιὀτερος) word for Ευρωπαίος εγκατεστημένος στα παράλια της Μικράς Ασίας και της Μέσης Ανατολής (a European settled on the coast of Asia Minor and the Middle East) and in practice the word seems to be used rather pejoratively of Catholics of that area (something not mentioned in the dictionary). Esoglou (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Thanks for your prompt feedback With all due respect, I think your “modern” Greek dictionary is wrong!! “Levantine” tout court (can often) mean(s) something along the lines of “Frankish” = mainly French and Italian, but also Croatian and even Scottish merchants established in WESTERN Turkey and, to a lesser extent, Syria = mainly Roman Catholics... But “of Levantine-Greek Orthodox descent” = “Rûm” Christians specifically in the Hatay/Alexandretta Province of SOUTHERN Turkey + the adjacent Syrian-Lebanese context means altogether something else = adherents of the original Greek Orthodox Church/Patriarchate of Antioch and their descendants in the diasporas of the Americas- including the so-called “Uniat” “Greek Catholics” or "Melkites"... It’s rather complicated- and very much “Byzantine”- no pun intended!  ;) --B.Andersohn (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your definition is the same as the first of those given by Babaniotis (Μπαμπανιώτης) for φραγκολεβαντίνος (Frankish Levantine): ο κάτοικος χώρας της Α. Μεσογείου που εἰχε δυτικοευρωπαϊκή καταγωγή (inhabitant of an Eastern Mediterranean country who was of western European origin). I feel no need to form any personal opinion either of the Greek term or of the English term. Esoglou (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of religious leaders in 2012

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of religious leaders in 2012, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. tahc ^chat 01:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

English versions of the Nicene Creed

I've removed a lot of material that seems obviously copyvio. I'm no expert, but hopefully the people at WP:CP will figure it out. --JFH (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

I see you've been running into Kwamikagami's capitalization changes. There's a broader discussion about them at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#the_God_of_Israel_or_the_god_of_Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a brief comment. Esoglou (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent Vatican-related edits

Thank you for your contributions to the Vatican-related pages that I have recently edited—I have made a slight revision, in light of your reply, so let me know what you think.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You did right to correct (even if in rather vague terms) the questioned phrase. I leave it to others to judge whether the expressions used are suitable for an encyclopedia. Esoglou (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem; I am open to specific advice, so please feel free to go into more detail if you have the time and I will proceed from there.--Soulparadox (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Movements

All movements are associations of the faithful, but not all associations of the faithful are movements. I doubt the Knights of Columbus (or for that matter your local St Vincent de Paul soup kitchen) would thus describe themselves as movements.

I am undoing your edits on Template:Lay Catholic spirituality. I would like an explanation for combining lay ecclesial movements and associations of the faithful. It says you moved movements to associations but there was previously a page on associations that explained canon law.

Obviously, official first (associations) but when a subgroup is known by a separate title (movements), have that too. There are certain characteristics of movements that other associations don't have. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Limbo

Catholic controversy? I was merely trying to express an issue that exists. Objectively the issue should be described. I tried not to add my own biases, and continued editing in that regard. Any edits to the section should merely help me stay objective- not to remove a section that explains an objectively valid issue. I stand open to style corrections. This is similar to the controversy described on the page, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.47.131 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's discuss this on the article's Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Index Librorum Prohibitorum

I found an edit you made to this article in December 2011 to be somewhat confusing. Before I looked up when the edit was made, I posted an explanation of the confusing aspects to the article's talk page at Talk:Index Librorum Prohibitorum#Effects outside the Catholic world. Could you take another look at it? To me, the paragraph made more sense before the edit than afterward. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I too find it confusing. I hope to find time soon to study it. Esoglou (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for revising the paragraph. The new version is a definite improvement. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for fixing up Associations of the faithful! >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 07:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I am a little busy with a big writing project these days. p.s. I will try to find a little more of a clear distinction and then make a subsection for each group and redirect movements to the subsection. I think that would be the best. Agreed? >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 07:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. Esoglou (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible spam alert on Excommunication (again).

Hey - I thought we had this one pretty much settled over two years ago, but take a look at this beauty added to the hidden text by an IP editor. I went ahead and reverted it, but I think it might be worth our while to keep an eye on this page for a bit. Just thought you might want to know. (And incidentally, to clear up any confusion raised by this IP's edit, I am actually a "him," not a "her." ;) ) Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you Esoglou

Thank You for your recent edit on Solovyev's article page.

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank You for your recent edit on Vladimir Solovyov (philosopher)'s article page. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I did no more than provide objective corrective information based on a reliable source. Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

s:Nicene Creed

Hi, would you respond at s:Talk:Nicene Creed regarding what you think the page should look like? --JFH (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if maybe you misunderstood my message above, though I appreciate your comment at Talk:English versions of the Nicene Creed. The link above is to the Nicene Creed page at Wikisource where you made a comment about the title and author. --JFH (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I did misunderstand. It happens all too frequently. Esoglou (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Images

They are still eligble for commons. It's just that they need to be explicitly re licensed as CC-BY-SA by the copyright owner. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sede vacante beginning date

As you said, Canon 203 is about computing duration of a period of time, which here is the duration of Sede vacante, why do you think Canon 203 does not apply for sede vacante? Secondly there is reference in the article from Vatican[1] that sede vacante is calculated from March 1, why do you think that is not enough? Please do not revert it without discussion. --Jayarathina (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

For our matter of discussion and for your reference:

• Can. 202 §1. In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made;
• Can. 203 §1. states: The initial day (a quo) is not computed in the total unless its beginning coincides with the beginning of the day or the law expressly provides otherwise. --Jayarathina (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

One more thing, the see becoming vacant and the period of sede vacante are two different things. The see became vacant on 28 Feb, there is no question about that. But when is the sede vacante period calculated from is the question at hand. And the reference and cannon law shows it is March 1st --Jayarathina (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict declared that the vacancy would begin at 20:00 on 28 February. 28 February is understood as beginning at midnight (00:00).

Supposing the vacancy ends on, say, 15 March, the vacancy will last from 20:00 on 28 February to whatever hour the election is completed on 15 March (a day that is understood as beginning at 00:00 on that day), and the length of the vacancy will be 15 days (not counting 28 February, but counting all the 1-15 March days.

The declaration by the Pope is what counts, not a mistaken report of what Father Lombardi said. You remember how at 20:00 on 28 February, the doors of the Castel Gandolfo palace were solemnly closed and the Swiss Guard, the personal bodyguard of the Pope, departed, because they no longer had a Pope to guard. At 20:00 on 28 February. Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope did not say that sede vacante begins on 28 February. He said the see will become vacant on 28 Feb 20:00. All I am trying to say is there is a difference to both of those statements. The see became vacant on 28 Feb, so all those door closing etc., took place at that time. But the article is about the period of sede vacante. The table column "beginning" denotes the beginning of the period of sede vacante. I think we both agree on that. Canonically it begins on March 1. And Fr. Lombardi is the official spokesperson for the Holy See. It is impossible for him to make a mistake on such a grave matter or at-least not correct it yet. He didn't correct it because it is not a mistake. Secondly if assuming a fictitious pope died on 28 February Morning 00:01 then other cardinals have to wait 15 full days to start the conclave. even though 28 feb has only one minute less it will not be counted. --Jayarathina (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's enough to discuss this on the article's Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Sede vacante § When did the 2013 vacancy begin

 – By Esoglou (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Template inserted by Jayarathina (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Esoglou. You have new messages at Talk:Sede_vacante.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jayarathina (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Rite/Church

I am not so sure that we can co-opt the "Rite" field of {{infobox religious building}} to read "Latin Church". The documentation for this template actually says that this field is intended for Orthodox Jewish buildings, i.e. Sephardi or Ashkenazi rite. To me, it just perpetuates misunderstanding and confusion of Church/Rite if we place "Latin Church" in there. I am not saying it is wrong. You are correct in that the building itself belongs to the Latin Church and not to the Roman Rite. I am just saying that this field is likely inappropriate and there is no appropriate field to fill in the particular Church affiliation as we would like. Perhaps an edit of the template itself is in order. Elizium23 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What you say about the origin of that line in the infobox suggests that it is not about the liturgical rite celebrated in the building but about the branch of Judaism (or of the Catholic Church) that the building is associated with. (Askkenazi and Sephardi have separate Chief Rabbis, don't they?) Unless the template is reedited, perhaps it would be best to leave this line blank in the case of Saint Mary Major's. Esoglou (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe self-proclaimed naming and advocacy?

Help please! We're in a bit of a pickle here and here. Thank uou for your brief attention. --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there is an editor who would scream if I touched anything to do with the EOC. Besides, I have just returned to editing after a spell in hospital and discussion must surely have moved on since then. Esoglou (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Opus Dei - Society

One editor is trying to claim Opus Dei is not a society in Template_talk:Lay_Catholic_spirituality#Opus_Dei_prelature_is_technically_not_a_movement_nor_a_society. Since you have been the other editor active on this template and we agreed that society was a good general term to include the rest, could you please comment. Maybe we need to be clearer in the naming but I think we want to keep Opus Dei on the template.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. The new system ("Echo") failed until now to draw my attention to this change on my talk page. Esoglou (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing Wikilinks

Hi, I see you have come across Alexander.Meier, the don quixote tilting at wikilinks. I fail to understand what he is trying to do, he has no talk page, I left a message in an edit summary, he responded on my page, but I still don't get it. Well, I do - he is helping out the bots that are migrating the wikilinks. But surely, the bots will do it one page at a time, following some programme logic, without a posse of editors now joining in? Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_slavery&action=edit&section=52 Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I reverted three of his sweepings, each of which I thought too drastic, I wonder if he is at least partly justified. Another editor, whom one of my three actions drew to intervene, seems to have clarified that sweeping. Perhaps the sweeper will himself give a valid individual explanation of each of his deletions of an interwiki link. I await those explanations before judging The bots need assistance from humans who understand the languages concerned and can judge which of several related pages in language X a page in language Y is best linked with. Esoglou (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Practise" on the Catholic Church article

Just so you know, I did that as part of an OTRS request, so you may get an inquiry from a user about that in the future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I presume that you know that my edit was in line with the "Use British English" template at the beginning of the article. Esoglou (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I recall looking for it when I was editing, but I didn't see it at first, so I performed the edit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't visible except in edit mode. I think it ought to be immediately visible. Esoglou (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bible and Homosexuality

I'm trying to understand why my edit was removed. I added that Theologian James White has suggested that the Greek term arsenokoitai may be a derivative of the Septuagint reading of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. After reviewing the article, I don't find any other references the Septuagint. If a person reads the Septuagint, the text reads ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην, which (when shortened) is arsenokoitai. Did I need to add more on this, or what was missing for this change to stick? --Xenoranger (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The removal of your edit was inadvertent. You added it while I was working on my more elaborate edit and it escaped my notice. For this I apologize. I have now restored your edit. The main point you make is true, but you should add a precise citation (title of the book and page number on which the statement is made). Some other editor will probably object on that ground. It would be well if you forestalled that objection. Esoglou (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I'm looking for the exact debate that James White brought this up in. While I have made a case here, I think a scholar would carry more weight. --Xenoranger (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you added citations to the topic. THanks again! WHen I find that debate where Dr. White makes the assertion, I'll add that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenoranger (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Constantinopolitan creed?

Perhaps you would know better how common this name is generally, but I found it referred to by this name (and also "Creed of Constantinople") in Leo Davis' The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 120-122. Sure it's not elsewhere in the literature? Evenssteven (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right. Davis states on page 121 of his book: "Many scholars think that even the so-called Constantinopolitan Creed is not the work of this Council." I have also found this, perhaps not a reliable source. And I have found other cases in which what is much more commonly called the "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed" or the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed" is called the "Constantinopolitan Creed" here and here (where "Constantinopolitan Creed" appears not as a title, but as a description: "It is this (Constantinopolitan) Creed which today is usually referred to as the 'Nicene Creed'"). Esoglou (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've since encountered it in some of Schaff's credal commentary too. But I agree with your article editing, relegating its mention to a footnote, since the term seems to come up most often deep inside a scholarly discussion, and less in front where a more casual reader or inquirer might find it. Evenssteven (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

2RR

Esoglou, you know very well that abortion-related articles are under 1RR. Your recent edit was the second in 24 hours to remove material that I had added, and I recommend that you revert yourself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder and suggestion, which I appreciate. Esoglou (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(Or to add back material I removed, as I forgot to mention. You've been topic-banned twice largely because of your introduction of irrelevant sources to push an agenda, and you should know better than to do it again.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The image of me being tied up fits better on top. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

To be sure, Esoglou, all of this stuff comes across as funny after the fact. However, in the heat of battle, and unfortunately it comes down to battle too often, it's not so pleasant. Basically, I hate the idea of running off to administrators, preferring to deal directly with other editors on substantive article issues. In the case of our colleague Rosy, however, perhaps it would be better to lodge a complaint as soon as she begins to question the competence of another editor. There are certainly loads of examples. Best Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Let her continue her ridiculous raging. Although she demeans herself by indulging in it, it may do her good as a way of letting off steam. I regret that, all too frequently, I fail to hide my amusement from her, as ideally I should. Esoglou (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

TRINITY

Esoglou,

I not Familiar with Wiki procedure. Do you own this link on the TRINITY? I have presented the facts according to According to the HOLY BIBLE, the Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary; the three persons of the Trinity doctrine take on a new surprising meaning. Why are you censoring the Biblical Truth? I believe is very constructive to reveal the truth. There are many view points on the truth but I presented the facts. Please help me understand your position on why I should not present biblical truth?

Best Regard’s g2jc — Preceding unsigned comment added by G2jc (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:OR: Wikipedia is not for original research by its editors. You may insert in Wikipedia only information that is already explicitly given in reliable published sources. Editors may not synthesize sources to produce a statement that is not explicitly stated in any of them. Nor may they present their own personal interpretation of a primary source such as the Holy Bible as the correct interpretation. On the other hand, they may of course say that some scholar gives that interpretation in a published work. Esoglou (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Domus Internationalis Paulus VI

Thanks for your comments on the article Domus Internationalis Paulus VI. I can see no problem about some observations that, aside from this place, Cardinal Roncalli would also lodge at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy. It was also possible. But there is no problem at all if these two insitutions claim that Roncalli stayed with them.

For your information: a citation was already supplied for the part of the above-mentioned article, where you asked for it.--Sulbud (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for having responded to my citation request. Esoglou (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sedevacantism

Hi Esoglou, I think you would be really happy if you understood the actual beliefs of Sedes. The article on Sedevacantism can be understood better if you undertsand the Sede beliefs. Please read:

http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/

http://www.huttongibson.com/

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/

http://www.thepopeinred.com/

http://www.thepopeinred.com/articles.htm

http://www.thepopeinred.com/thesis.htm

http://www.novusordowatch.org/

This is important to save your soul, Esoglou. Perhaps God wants you to accept the true Catholic Faith, instead of the pretend Catholicism of Antipope Francis I. Pope Pius XII was the last true Pope to rule from the Vatican. John XIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis I are all Antipopes. You seem to be a Catholic, and I made the effort to get all this information for you. Please read it, and pray to believe the truth. GoodCatholicMan (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern for my soul. If you have some improvement to suggest for the article on sedevacantism, it would be good if you proposed it for discussion on the talk page of the article. Esoglou (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

How long have you been here, again?

You obviously know that it's wrong to directly lift language from somewhere else without attributing it, so why do you keep doing it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me with your habitual courtesy that you found in my edits something copied from elsewhere without attribution to its source. May I trouble you with a humble request to let me know what was that something, so that I can remedy my mistake? Esoglou (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI: I am no longer going to sort through your contributions to rephrase what is plagiarized and retain what is not. Starting now, if I notice a plagiarized phrase, I will revert the whole edit. Do your own work and stop making productive editors clean up after you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

! Esoglou (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Stalking

While I acknowledge we are both involved on the article concerning Roman Catholicism and Homosexuality, I nevertheless notice that over recent days you have made amendments to edits of mine on both Sixtus V and Catholic Marriage. This does not seem to be a coincidence, rather that you are monitoring my edits and then subsequently changing them. This is not acceptable behaviour on wikipedia and if it continues then I will make a formal complaint and ask for an investigation by administrators. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Περὶ πολλῶν

Hello,

You removed my explanation added to the sentence which claimed that "pro multis" in the original Greek does not mean "for the many". Your reasoning was that my comment is "new research". I would like to inform you that the meaning of an ancient Greek word is not new research and the meaning of those words is "for the many" or "for the multitude".

Up to the point - before my correction - your sentence was just a mistake claiming the contrary. After my correction and your removal of it - if you know what the real meaning is - that sentence becomes an intentionally missleading sentence.

If you do not know what that expression means in Greek, ("for the many" or "for the multitude") you should check it yourself, and reinstate my correction if I am right.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.27.68 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

When I began editing Wikipedia, I too had to learn that, as stressed at WP:OR, only what is already found in published reliable sources can be put in Wikipedia articles. It isn't a matter of what is right, but of what can be verified in published material. You added the phrase, "but the meaning of the Greek word is closer to 'for the many' as in Greek it does not have the 'excluding meaning' of 'for many but not for all'". If you can cite a published reliable source that says that the meaning of περὶ πολλῶν is closer to "for the many" than to "for many", you can reinsert it. But perhaps what you really have in mind is what is already in the article: "The word 'many' (Latin multi, Greek πολλοί) is opposed to 'few' (Latin pauci, Greek ὀλίγοι), not to "all" (Latin omnes, Greek πάντες). In a large group, all the members are many; in a small group, all are few. People can be many whether they form the totality of a group or only part of a group. An article by Father Max Zerwick, S.J. gives examples of texts in which the totality of a group are referred to as "many" (Pro Vobis et pro Multis Effundetur)." Note that a published source is indicated for that statement. Esoglou (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Warning

I'm glad that you've (apparently) decided to stop editing disruptively with regard to decriminalization, but consider this a warning that if you continue to insert frivolous tags, factual inaccuracies, or original research in order to push your political agenda, I will take you to ANI. I have been patient for far, far too long. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently a reference to this 14:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Did I ever bring this one to your attention?

Our mutual friend about 5 weeks ago: [2]. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)