User talk:Wran

WP:FILMS Welcome

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for February has been published. March's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Script Theory

I've corrected the issue on the page. If you indent a paragraph, the section is put in a dotted-line box. I've deleted the indent, and also fixed the external links so they display the web address. TN‑X-Man 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm glad to see you're interested in contributing. If you have any other questions, drop me a line. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see. When you put a link like this (www.google.com), nothing happens. If you put in the whole address, (http://www.google.com), it'll hyperlink the text. If you put the address between a <ref> and </ref> tag , it turns the web address into a reference, which is the superscripted numeral at the end of a sentence. References are a different sort of animal. In order to get the superscripted number to display as a reference at the bottom of the article, you have to insert a {{reflist}} template at the bottom. It's a lot of which to keep track, but if you have questions, drop me a line. On my talk page, click on "new section" at the top. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Help:Moving a page

This should be of help. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

)

Plato's Heaven (τοὐρανοῦ τινα τόπον)

you have presented as fact a personal and extremely dubious interpretation of a highly controversial and complex subject: to begin with plato wrote mostly dialogues and thus NOTHING that appears in them can be staightforwardly regarded as his judgment and , in fact, many scholars don't think he believed in a theory of of forms or ideas at all. He says many contradictory things concerning their status or existence in different dialogues. furthermore your references from the phaedrus, eg, are from a speech attributed to stesichorus, and thus even further removed from plato then most of socrates' uses of the term, many of which have nothing whatever to do with heaven, so if there is such a thing as a theory of ideas it can certainly do without it, and if the exist they don't necessarily constitute a world.Wran (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn

These "additions" are not appropriate. The link you used with the victims name was clearly intended as a way to "sneak" it into the article... so that's a WP:POINT problem right there. On top of that you piled original research, content sourced to a wordpress blog and a rant about WP censorship. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There was no such clear intent nor did I do any original research: it's all in your prejudiced imagination. Stop interfering with the rights of readers to any publicly available info, it's totalitarian Wran (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The name of the alleged victim is not relevant to the article - and I suggest you discuss this on that talk page, unless you wish to be blocked for edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wran. I deleted your latest restore of personal details about the housekeeper. I appreciated your restore of a blank of the Paris Match material but that would have been restored in any case. I see you've got real form here. It's simply against consensus. There's a lot of things the various contributors to this article disagree on but one thing we are quite agreed on is that personal details about the housekeeper should not be included. You will be blocked I think if you continue like this. FightingMac (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If you actually read the discussion you'd see that there is more of a consensus the other way; your dishonest efforts to censor info from readers that is widely available in the us media is contrary to the basic purpose of wikipedia and no more nor less than repressive tyrannical promotion of personal POV ; any deletion of properly referenced widely disseminated info can not possibly be anything else. I did no more than quote the ny times: what makes you think you know better than they do? The presumption should ALWAYS be in favour of info and against its suppression without clear justification Wran (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

So when six different editors ask you here not to add personal details about the alleged victim, you claim they are acting 'against consensus'? Frankly, all this talk of 'repression', 'tyranny' and 'censorship' only makes your arguments weaker. And no, the New York Times does not determine Wikipedia content policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your response is incompetent: actually what these editors have been mostly concerned with is the revelation of her name which is not included here; nine editors have favoured adding basic personal details; the claim that exposing the authoritarianism and imposing of POV that you and your cohorts abusively push is a weakening of my arguments is preposterous and peurile; and yes the nyt is a better judge than you fascists Wran (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Go boil your head... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

... seconded ... and then pickle it ... so right go boil your head, pickle it, and when it and your ego has shrunk down a bit and then some, you might like to check out a few of these totally lame edit wars to rate your progress so far. Go stroke it up somewhere else. FightingMac (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The clear relevance of her personal info has been explained at length in DSK talk and it's also been pointed out previously that you are either lying about or unable to understand (which is it?) wiki policy. The basic issue is simple: either you believe in helping people by providing ALL relevant info so they can freely make their own judgments or you censor it to promote your own point of view; you are clearly favouring censorship in an utterly arbitrary and tyranical manner, including lying about consensus when the editors are 9 to 3 in favour of inclusion.Wran (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

From a practical point of view the consensus amongst contributing editors to the article is against you i.e. the editors who are currently adding and revising content and check the article's progress. I know them all, I mean by sight, and it's pointless for you to continue like this and you will eventually be blocked and unable to continue your important Macedonian edit warring (a favorite hunting ground of extremely lame edit wars) and stuff like that that you do on Wikipedia... of course you don't seem to be very pleasant and a rather arrogant sort of chap (so I assume) so why should any of us be arsed to hand you out a reach-round? Jerk it yourself. Last from me here, just trying to be helpful. Don't be surprised to find yourself blocked if you persist. FightingMac (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Only warning

If you place the name of the alleged victim of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case anywhere on the project, unless there is consensus to do so, or refer to other editors as "liars", "Fascists" or other derogatory terms, you will be blocked. Indicating that you intend to include the name, or otherwise challenge this warning be effected, will be responded to in the affirmative. Consensus is the proper application of policy, and not an imagined exercise in freedom of speech; you can either abide by it or not edit the article. Your choice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I consider this edit to violate both Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Kahn

Hi- please don't delete content without clear justification, as it's against policy; esp when it's way overdue Wran (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The entire paragraph was a direct quotation from the Daily Mail - a clear copyright violation. I presume that you are familiar with policy on that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

apparently you know nothing about copyright: firstly there are omissions clearly marked in the quote,and even if there were not excerpting continuous passages much longer than this are not necessarily copyright violations. this is clearly an example of fair use of which you could find much more extensive examples in both print and broadcast media all the time; furthermore, if you are incapable of understanding this the proper procedure is to: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot . . . Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage." (WP:PRESERVE). all you had to do was remove the quotes and re-word where you thought appropriate, but apparently that's too complicated for you Wran (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You are seriously suggesting that there are no possible copyright concerns in creating an entire section of an article from a single quotation? (And, incidentally, not stating who is being quoted, except as a ref link). That isn't 'fair use' as I understand it - and Wikipedia policy is clear: where there are possible copyright concerns, we err on the side of caution. As for me re-wording it, it has already been requested that this new section be discussed on the talk page, and if you thought that re-wording was appropriate, you should have done this yourself, rather than restore questionable material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I KNOW that there are no copyright concerns as I'm an expert; that you know nothing is clear from your use of the notion of "entire section" which is entirely irrelevant here as is the location of the reference. As for re-wording, you should have done this yourself according to wiki policy, rather than delete material you happen to personally object to. YOU are the one who created what should be a non-existent problem!Wran (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You may be an expert, but you aren't empowered to act as a legal representative for Wikipedia, I presume? On that basis, I see no reason to accept your assertions on the matter. And no, per Wikipedia policy, it is for those adding (or restoring) content to ensure it complies with requirements. In any case, where material is controversial, the correct procedure is to discuss on the article topic page, rather than edit-war. So cut out the crap, and discuss the matter properly in the appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

once again you are putting the cart before the horse:YOU are the one who took improper action by not rewriting if you objected to form; YOU are the one edit warring; I did ensure compliance; YOU need to discuss BEFORE deleting. you don't want to accept my informed assertions but expect others to bend to your hysterically idiotic ones! so cut the disingenuous BS and go salve your ego elsewhere Wran (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

there's really no point in talking to you as you can't accept(or grasp?) the simplest error that's pointed out to you and you constantly project your mistakes on others: you as usual have totally failed to follow policy while accusing others of not doing so; incessant badgering appears to be your only resource Wran (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Hi - this addition you are adding - diff imo , and I haven't investigated the copyright issue, its undue and weakly cited and repeatedly being in good faith removed - please stop adding it - open a discussion on the talkpage and seek consensus for something to be added but please stop adding this low quality addition without discussion on the talkpage. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

HELLO, you have this exactly backwards: one should discuss before deleting as is clearly explained in (WP:PRESERVE). also there is nothing the least bit low quality about it: many sources have noted it and no one remotely reliable has questioned it; it's all a matter of public record and therefore UNCOPYRIGHTABLE Wran (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"it's all a matter of public record and therefore UNCOPYRIGHTABLE". ROFL. If there could be better evidence that your claim to be a copyright lawyer was utter bullshit, I can't imagine what it would be. You are a liar (and a fool too, evidently). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

you have herein once more demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt your aggressive stupidity and ignorance(Wran (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Alexander the Great

The burden is always on the adder:

• WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (emphasis in the original).

HELLO, you have this exactly backwards: one should discuss before deleting as is clearly explained in (WP:PRESERVE): "Instead of deleting text, consider:...requesting a citation by adding the tag." Also there is nothing the least bit low quality about it: many sources have noted it; also you apparently don't know what opposite means: I DID NOT state it. it's YOU who appear to be wilfully directly contradicting policy: Please desist immediately, since deliberately acting against policy is consider vandalism.

Citation please

once again you are totally mistaken: I came up with NOTHING; rather you deleted something without justification. clearly you don't know anything about what you're claiming to address Wran (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I deleted material here, placed there by an IP number. Since you defended it, I assumed that you were endorsing it. If you are endorsing it, provide a source. Otherwise we can all load articles with unsourced opinions. What kind of encyclopaedia would that result in? Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

the point is that you began the problem; you need a source to delete material that is ALREADY THERE: you haven't come up with one. also you are completely illogical: lack of a cited source is not equivalent to mere opinion. the answer to your question is wikipedia, as most of its' assertions are unsourced. Wran (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

DSK again

I suggest you stop violating Wikipedia policy by repeatedly adding improper material to the infobox of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn article. Given your previous history regarding this article, I've no doubt whatsoever that at minimum a topic ban on this subject would be a racing certainty if a complaint was made at WP:ANI. If you continue to add material, rather than discussing it on the talk page (as WP:BLP requires), I will ask for appropriate action to be taken against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• • I added nothing but rather only restored info contributed by others that is basic and of the nature to belong in an info box; material that had been deleted without justification by the perfectly named "grump"Wran (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The justification is the policy cited - WP:BLPCAT - which makes clear that we don't consider such 'info' as 'basic'. You were also repeatedly asked to discuss this on the talk page, but refused, which is also against good practice. Given that the added material was invisible anyway, I'd suggest you were also violating WP:POINT. As for my username, at least I'm honest. If you adopted the same practice, what would your name be? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
      • If you actually understood what this "policy cited" that you supply said ( instead of misrepresenting it, as so often has been the case with you) you would retract what you'd said; but reason apparently has no effect on you. as usual you have the cart before the horse: if you think something needs discussing, do so; don't try to intimidate others into doing your job Wran (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR notification

On Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Also per WP:BLP all controversial material must be removed. You cannot call him a rightwinger without a citation. I will refer this to WP:BLPN and WP:3RRN if your edit-warring continues. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I DIDN'T CALL him anything,I merely restored material that was improperly deleted, as I clearly pointed out and you avoided addressing; which material-- you would realize if you'ld understood what you had read-- does not call him a 'right-winger'(your own abusive highly-charged misleading pejorative term) either, but rather "center-left", an objective description of his position in the french political landscape; nor is there the slightest evidence that this is the least bit controversial, so your effort to apply WP:BLP is an ignorant mistake Wran (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR

You are edit warring on wine. Discuss on the talk page, or be blocked. Your choice. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not warring, Prosfilaes is:HE eliminated contribution without justification and without discussion.Also try reading the talk page:I DID DISCUSS; YOU claim to be a precisionist: try living up to this up to now ridiculous claim!Wran (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

OK then, to be more precise: You, not others, have 3 reverts. You also have not left any recent comment on Talk:Wine discussing your reverts. No comments on Talk:Wine appear from you in your contribution history either. Therefore, you were edit-warring.

Furthermore, you insist upon restoring a bibliography entry that (a) is not used as a reference in the article and therefore cannot possibly belong in a bibliography, and (b) was added by a serial spammer who added the same exact reference to several articles. It was originally and properly removed as part of cleaning up after the spammer. Precise enough for you? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit-warring on wine and personal attacks on Talk:Wine.  Amatulić=I have not engaged in edit warring: I was threatened by Dennis Brown - 2¢ © on the wine talk page:"Wran, you need to read WP:BRD. It is only now that you talk on this page, after refusing to engage at the ANI page. At this stage, your edits look like warring, which will get you blocked if it continues"; and I responded by pointing out that this threat contains a lie, a verifiable and indubitable one, ie that of "refusing to engage". I began by Undoing revision 490523920 by Encycloshave because it contradicts a cited source and is false; he then violated policy by changing my reversion to the traditional text, without any any justification and confessing his ignorance: "unclear which of the four cited sources is contradicted"; thus HE was engaging in edit warring, not me. He and BarrelProof subsequently undid my restoration, which I repeat was the restoration of A LONGSTANDING TEXT THAT HAS SOURCES, whereas their changes were either completely unjustified or supported only by their personal POV comments, such as: " At least in everyday understanding, it seems rather obvious that fruit wine is commonly called wine"(it's not obvious, in fact it's false; and it contradicts a cited source, as I pointed out). So it's clearly  who is edit-warring (he repeatedly undid properly sourced material without any justification that I had merely restored); and Dennis Brown - 2¢ © who has used gratuitous insults (calling a particular demonstrable lie a lie is not a personal attack, it's a neutral, objective statement of fact; but lying about someone as part of a threat is-- it's an example of "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", WP:NPA#WHATIS), so they should be blocked Wran (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC

| decline=Hmm, now where do I start with this one?

• Yes, you were edit-warring, which is plainly obvious from looking at the history of Wine. You don't get to claim you weren't just because you believe you were right - it's still edit-warring. When someone disputes your favoured version of an article, you should stop right there and discuss it on the Talk page - especially when you are clearly in a minority.
• Dennis Brown did not "threaten" you, he gave you a perfectly reasonable and civil warning.
• Your reply "your comment is a lie" is not acceptable. You might disagree with Dennis Brown, and you might even be right, but your first response when you disagree with someone else's judgement should not be to jump right to calling them a liar - you should have a read of WP:AGF. And carrying on your accusations of lying in your unblock request is only reducing your chances of being unblocked.
• Dennis Brown has not issued any "gratuitous insults".

The rest of your appeal is irrelevant, as that is a content dispute which needs to be discussed on the article Talk page. To be unblocked, you need to address the bulleted points above, and amend your approach to discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)}}

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wran (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not call him a liar: I pointed out out a specific verifiable lie; a "comment" is not a person; do you understand the difference? a false accussation against someone is not a matter of "judgement". falsely accusing me of "refusing to engage" is indeed "a gratuitous insult" Saying something is "plainly obvious" doesn't make it so: EXACTLY WHAT do you consider edit warring? and why is Encycloshave's activity not more so, since he was the one who began the elimination and continued reverting without justification?! he did not "stop right there and discuss it" Dennis Brown did "threaten" me in order to intimidate me from correcting his errors: "threat:An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment."(american heritage dictionary) how is it it a "perfectly reasonable and civil warning" to threaten someone else with punishment when it's your own conduct that fits the definition of misconduct: I cited a rule , which you ignored; you have only repeated unexplained accusations and displayed prejudice and personal favoritism in doing so in that you have not even attempted to explained how even one single act of alleged misconduct on my part comes under any wiki rule, and have failed to block Dennis Brown and Encycloshave Wran (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"Something you said is a lie" is exactly tantamount to "you are a liar"; either way, you are casting aspersions on the other editor's honesty, and that's a personal attack. Regarding your edit warring, it is indeed obvious that you have been engaging in long-term edit warring at wine; you were warned, you continued, you were blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wran (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

so is it that you too are incapable both of anything other than parroting that what is clearly false is "obvious", and of distinguishing between a statement of fact and a personal attack? He cast "aspersions" on me by lying about my conduct and trying to intimidate me; my pointing out THE FACT of his lie was only a matter of self-defense and does not necessarily reflect on his honesty: he may only be incredibly stupid) Wran (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your talkpage access has been revoked, and I completely agree with that decision. Come back in a week and don't do that again; if you do, you'll likely be indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Just a general bit of advice. I've read over your Talk page, above, and what I see is an extremely entrenched battlefield approach, frequently resorting to accusation and insult, and repeatedly refusing to abide by consensus. You have come very close to being blocked on a number of occasions, and I think you are lucky that the current block is only your second. You are starting to attract more attention to yourself now, and unless you are able to tone things down a bit, I see the probability of further and longer blocks rising. You might not welcome my advice, but you have it anyway - how it goes from here is really up to you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • once again you have merely repeated false accusations, offering no evidence: I never refused "to abide by consensus"Wran (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Repeatedly *failing* to abide by consensus then, if you wish to be pedantic about it - and I came to that conclusion by reading the evidence on this page and on the articles referred to therein. But no matter - I only offered my thoughts to try to help you, so you are as free to ignore me as all of the other people who have given you feedback on this page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Opinions on alcohol ranges

I have no problem with your correction to say wines "usually" range between 8-15% alcohol content but such a claim really needs a source. The only one I found was an informal analysis showing a distribution from 12-14.5% being the typical range. White wines are often under 8% too; it isn't common but isn't rare either.

Also your edit summary stating that wines above 15% ABV are "extremely rare" is false in California. It isn't rare here at all, particularly in the Shenandoah Valley area Zinfandels. The Zinfandel from my own family's winery, for example, has never been below 15% in the past 20 years. Usually this isn't a problem because the other flavors balance it out, but occasionally the wine is too "hot" compared to other flavors and must have some alcohol extracted. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

german wines are frequently 8-10, whites are rarely less according to standard reference works; as to reds it's conceivable that "extremely" is too strong, but sources,including the one you cite, have traditionally given 14 or 15 as upper limits, with rare exceptions. remember, I said "natural"; so how is your zinfandel made? do you add yeast, for example?Wran (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Completely natural, using only the wild yeast grown on the grapes, no yeast inoculation, no chaptalization. Most winemakers in California inoculate with commercial yeasts. Few are willing to risk using the natural wild yeast, because they lose control over the process. It's also possible that standard-issue winemaking yeasts have a lower alcohol tolerance. And chaptalization (adding sugar to boost the alcohol) is illegal in California, although it's legal in France.

The philosophy of my uncle (the winemaker) is "God makes the the wine, I'm just the custodian of the grapes." In one unusual year the Zinfandel went up to 17.5% — way too hot and unbalanced, requiring paying someone with a molecular filter to extract some of the alcohol without spoiling the wine by distilling it. Usually the fermentation stops between 15%-16% for those grapes. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

your uncle sounds like he hs the right approach: is it possible to visit the winery? Wran (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Send me email and I'll tell you details. I don't want to publicize it on Wikipedia — I block accounts almost daily for promoting on Wikipedia, so I don't want to be accused of the same thing. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Catharsis

You have recently been engaged in controversial editing^[1][2][3] which you never discuss in talk pages. It is advisable that you start doing so. I have started a thread here. Your input will be welcome. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Odysseus

Could you explain why you keep removing apparently sourced material? Your edit summary ("eliminated wild personal speculation") is quite uninformative --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC) --I haven't and I don't; it is rather YOU who need to explain why you keep making silly errors (Wran (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Making frivolous accusations while still not explaining your edits isn't helpful, --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

it's you who need to apologize for your uninformed jumping to conclusions; my explanations are much clearer and more accurate than yours (Wran (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Instead of edit warring and showing bad faith you could have just given a clear explanation like the one I gave here [4]. That would have been much more helpful. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

is this some kind of joke? the 'explanation" you gave contains no content whatsoever; so Instead of edit warring and showing bad faith you could have just given a clear explanation like the ones I give --Wran (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Socrates

Please stop restoring your version. Your version contains basic grammar errors, weasel words, punctuation errors, and additionally it does not comply with the MOS. Editing articles without having sufficient competence to edit borders on vandalism. Also note that your edit summaries are uninformative. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC) -Please stop restoring your version. Your version contains basic errors of all sorts. Editing articles without having any idea what you're doing or any competence to edit borders on vandalism. Also note that your edit summaries are uninformative and false: full of absurd, unsubstantiated charges.Wran (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. Also note that I did retain your useful input. I merely corrected your grammar errors. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

whats trolling? what grammar errors? Wran (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The ones corrected here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

the only grammatical errors here that I had anything to do with are the ones I corrected and that you keep restoring --Wran (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Adulterating citations

Removing or adulterating sourced information because you don't like or don't know what the sources actually say creates unnecessary work, as someone has to revert you [5][6]. Please take the time to read WP:INTEGRITY and refrain from making such edits to pages in the future. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not do so, but rather removed an unintelligible remark that had nothing to do with the source cited, which actually goes with the preceding sentence: you evidently completely misunderstood this, so you need to concern yourself with more than is 'apparent'to you, before you act!Wran (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You tampered with quoted text and you editorialized referenced statements. This is in violation of WP:INTEGRITY. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

this is a totally false and irresponsible accusation; you should be ashamed!!!(Wran (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize that you are still not explaining your disruptive edits? (1) Source cited: "a quarter-hour dedicated to arguing that Leon Trotsky was a Nazi agent." You obviously tampered with that quote in an unduly manner. (2) The article had the statement: "The book was vague on the guilt or innocence of defendants in the Moscow trials, but the final screenplay portrayed the defendants as undeniably guilty." The source (The Dark Valley: A Panorama of the 1930s, p. 498, third paragraph) says: "...publication of Davies's ingratiating account of his diplomatic stewardship ... Warner brothers produced a cinematic version of the book in 1943. It was a grotesque distortion of history." You editorialized this as follows: "The book was vague on the guilt or innocence of defendants in the Moscow trials, but the film portrayed the defendants in the Moscow trials as guilty in Davie's view." I hope you see why your editing is disruptive. This is not the first time you have unduly tampered with sources [7]. Your edits are not constructive and your declining to admit that isn't helpful. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

1)did not tamper "in an unduly[sic] manner", much less 'obviously': merely omitted and marked the omission of one word which prejudicially and falsely editorializes what actually transpires in the film

2) my change rather removed the article's editorialization and made it more neutral and accurate, and more representative of the quote you now offer:"Davies's ingratiating account ...was a grotesque distortion of history" is more accurately represented by my more precise account that 'the film portrayed the defendants in the Moscow trials as guilty in Davie's view' I hope you you now see why your editing is disruptive and incompetent : Wran (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

in Davies's view.: this is not found in the source cited. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

WRONG AGAIN!!: "Davies's ingratiating account" is a pejorative way of saying in Davies's view., which is a more neutral and accurate rendering of the film and the source you quote than is "portrayed the defendants as undeniably guilty.", which you ignorantly keep restoring: this prejudicial editorializing is false to both your quote and the film, whereas my version is absolutely accurate, fair, and balanced. you need to try actually thinking about the meaning of what you're blithely fooling around with before altering things you clearly don't sufficiently understand!Wran (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Try not to write in CAPS LOCK because it gives the impression that you are yelling and no one wants to be yelled at.
Note that your version is an adulteration of the original content (see WP:SYNTH) and has to be reverted. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The adulterated quotation has already been reverted by another user. [8] The unjustified removal of sourced content should be reverted as well. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) As I wrote on the relevant talk-page, my objection is this: while the "in Davie's [sic] view" part has to do with "what happens in the film", you retained the Brendon 2007 citation; the latter does not describe what happens in the film; it just says that a film was produced and that it was "a grotesque distortion of history". What I have been saying since the beginning is that you cannot just editorialize a sourced statement in a way that misleads the reader to thinking that the content you have inserted is validated by references. Your edits to Joseph E. Davies were fully justified but your edits to Mission to Moscow were problematic. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Could you explain why do you keep messing up the punctuation of this article? As I said above editing articles without having sufficient competence to do so borders on vandalism. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

what punctuation in what article? Wran (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

[9]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This edit had a misleading edit summary. Please read MOS:ABBREV#Miscellanea. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please explain this edit [10]. Any edits to that page must reflect consensus. It is obvious that you are engaging again in pointy editing. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Praxis (process)

Please do not insert original research into articles. Please take the time to read WP:OR. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC) it's not original research and i didn't add it, but merely restored it after you improperly deleted it:apparently you are the one who needs to learn how to read!--Wran (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"apparently you are the one who needs to learn how to read". This is a serious personal attack. Please refrain from personal attacks. Your behavior is disruptive. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

[11]. Please do not misquote policy to justify your insertion of original research. WP:PRESERVE says that ideas added to the article "should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view ..., Verifiability and No original research" [my emphasis]. Therefore WP:PRESERVE does not apply in this case. What applies here is WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You apparently need to seek help as you continue to misconstrue, mistate, ignore, and misunderstand some very simple things:eg you are now calling my exact direct quote a 'misquote'; furthermore the idea expressed clearly meets the requirements of the three core content policies and Therefore WP:PRESERVE clearly does apply in this case [my emphasis]. --Wran (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Arendt's gave praxis a distinctly political interpretation, in contrast to Marx's emphasis on practaical interaction with nature." I am familiar with Arendt's and Marx's works and the relevant literature, and I can say that the statement you restored is a gross misrepresentation of the differences in the way the two thinkers use this term. So this statement falls under No Original Research. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

the quote says nothing about Marx's usage of a term, it's about a contrast between arendt's interpretation of what she means by praxis and marx's understanding of how we interact with nature; your last sentence is a complete non sequitur: your familiarity (or all too obvious lack thereof) with something has nothing to do with its derivation --Wran (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me put in simpler terms. Not found in the relevant literature means OR. Their differences are explained in books such as Back to the Rough Grounds of Praxis, p. 1, The Political Humanism of Hannah Arendt, p. 211. If you have a better reference you might want to share it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wran, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

what on earth are you talking about and how can this be a last warning without a previous warning? "incompetent and abusive editing" is obviously a comment on content, not on the editor, editing being the activity of producing or eliminating content, not a person! furthermore it is a response to someone who did in fact personally attack me:'persistent vandalism' is much more personal and less content concerned than anything I said so it's Omnipaedista, not me, who should be warned if you're the least bit objective; he started an abusive and unsubstantiated string of attacks on me, that is ongoing --Wran (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Adulteration of content and edit warring

Note that your name has been mentioned in this thread.[12] It appears that you are not yet prepared to learn what it means to edit in a collaborative environment, where editors are expected to respect each other's contributions and viewpoints. You have been involved in tendentious edit-warring ever since you arrived. Please stop. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC) ---everything you say here is precisely true of you and never has been of me: you're projecting yet again, as you have shown no respect for my contributions ,which are completely justified, as opposed to your unjustifiable fiddling them --Wran (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop making frivolous accusations. You have so far employed almost every kind of trolling tactics there is: edit warring, misuse of process (i.e., demanding that others find sources for your own statements) [13][14], misplaced criticism (ranting about WP censorship after they have violated the BLP policy [15]), "correction" of things that are already in conformance with the Manual of Style [16], refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors (see your talk page's history), playing up into flame wars, and making baseless accusations. Obviously, this is not because you are unaware of policy. All those tactics are nothing but a way to avoid scrutiny. You almost never provide citations for what you insert despite the fact that you are asked to do so [17][18]; exceptions include your employing of circular sourcing [19] and your adding of a source which "proves" that the "the" is always part of title of the Iliad [20] (another cause for tendentious edit-warring involving five editors). Furthermore, as I and others have tediously explained in several talk-pages most of the times you are not in the right in matters of content. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The Red and the Black: an historical novel?

Hello. You have revered my deletion of the word "historical" in the sentence that said the book was an historical novel. But it is not an historical novel, so please either comment on the Talk page or let me re-delete that word. The definition of "historical novel", from the Britannica as quoted on Wikipedia "Historical Novel": According to Encyclopædia Britannica, a historical novel is "a novel that has as its setting a usually significant period of history and that attempts to convey the spirit, manners, and social conditions of a past age with realistic details and fidelity (which is in some cases only apparent fidelity) to historical fact. The work may deal with actual historical characters...or it may contain a mixture of fictional and historical characters. The book was written shortly after the time in which the events in the book are supposed to have happened, so it is better characterised as contemporary. Cerberus™ (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

when it was written is completely irrelevant; the definition you quote is a nigh on to perfect description of The Red and the Black, so it is best described as an historical novel nearly contemporaneous with the period it represents --Wran (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you reply on the Talk page of The Red and the Black. From the definition above: "...that attempts to convey the spirit, manners, and social conditions of a past age": this is not at all what Stendhal was doing: a few years earlier is not a "past age", it is the same age. "In the past" is not the same as "in a past age". An historical novel can by definition not be "nearly contemporary": then any novel describing something that actually happened would be an historical novel, which it is not. It is a specific genre with a specific meaning. Cerberus™ (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

past is past whether it's a century or a second and if age is used to characterise a period of time that period has an end, which may be at any time; stendhal was simply more prescient than most in seeing the immediate past as an age of salient interest. you're making up or privileging your own narrow-minded definition; but, as you say, it's a genre, so the circumstances of one its' members creation are irrelevant--Wran (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Cerberus, please see my comment on the article talk page. Stendahl himself compared Le rouge et le noir to the work of Sir Walter Scott, so he in some sense intended it as a historical novel, whether it fits the Britannica's definition or not.

Both of you, instead of trying to argue from first principles (WP:OR), it is more Wikipedian to find reliable sources supporting your position. As it happens, many commentators have talked about the R+N and in what sense it is and isn't a historical novel. In fact, that is a discussion that probably belongs in the article. Much more meaningful than the single word "historical" in the lead. --Macrakis (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Great Books

Come on. We have a new editor that I have welcomed and provided guidance to. It should not be too hard for either you or the newbie to get a citation. But you know the WP:BURDEN is on the editor who wants to add material. (I met my BURDEN when I cited the requirement for RS.) The Lyceum school is a new entity and we have to be careful about WP being used to promote it. Please don't encourage the addition of unsourced material. The Great Books article already has enough such stuff. Finally, the fact that Lyceum is the first lower level school to use the Great Books is not significant to the books themselves, but is of more interest to the school. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

you have this exactly backwards: one should discuss before deleting as is clearly explained in WP:PRESERVE: "Instead of deleting text, consider: ...requesting a citation by adding the tag"

WP:BURDEN: "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[2] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[3] If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."  since you admit the fact, your removal of was particularly irresponsible: pure personal subjective pov!

promotion is not the issue--a relevant fact is: the article is very much concerned with programs in schools --Wran (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I considered adding a tag. And decided against it. But now your edits, with ersatz "vandalism" messages, are clearly inappropriate. Please find the WP:RS for the article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

what does this mean EXACTLY: " find the WP:RS for the article." --Wran (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)