User talk:Pseudo-Richard/Talk Page Archive 2001-1

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


Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Flag of the United States.svg

Hello, Pseudo-Richard/Talk Page Archive 2001-1! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Taiwan boi/Esoglou RFC

As you may or may not know, User:Taiwan boi and LoveMonkey are drafting an RFC about Esoglou. I have (perhaps foolishly) decided to jump into the fray with my own long-winded comment on the subject. (I still intend to refrain from editing Palamas-related articles, btw.) I don't know whether you care to get involved in this drama, but I thought you should know about it. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering what your edit summary references to an RFC were about. Please inform me when the RFC goes live. I will probably want to make a comment then. However, since the RFC isn't about Palamism-related articles, I will have to go look at the edits on the Baptism-related articles to see what the fuss is all about. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. I didn't object to Phatius publicizing the draft (as if it was supposed to be completely private), I objected to him publicizing it as if it was finalized, and charging me with making an unsubstantiated objection against Esoglou (WP:POINT).
  2. I have no objection whatever to Phatius providing his POV, regardless of what he wants to say. What I do want is for him to stay with the subject at hand, which is Esoglou rather than his personal gripes against LoveMonkey. And don't get me started on LM, I've had more discussions with him about his behaviour (by email), than I've had with any other editor on Wikipedia, ever.
  3. Both Leadwind and I have over a year of experience with Lima/Esoglou. This means we have a far broader and more detailed knowledge of his editing than you do. It has taken me almost a year to get the "Immersion baptism" article to the point it's at now, and on average it has taken me a month to get every single key change made, in the face of continued resistance, edit warring (including week after week of removing WP:RS and adding POV editorializing), unsubstantiated claims, unwarranted objects, and repeated violations of Wiki policy; in that year Lima/Esoglou's conduct has not changed at all, and he has been consistently disruptive as noted by several independent editors. And this is just a single article. It has tied up virtually all my time on Wikipedia, and prevented me spending more time on a number of pages to which I have contributed in the past and to which I wish to continue contributing. The fact that at least two other editors of the "Immersion baptism" article were burned out and driven away by Esoglou's conduct should be cause for concern. Even more cause for concern is the idea that he should be permitted to behave like this.
  4. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
OK... we're agreed on points #1 & #2 though, in Phatius' defense, he did say in his message at the top of this section that you were "drafting" an RFC and thus did not imply that the RFC was in its final form.
Re point #3, I've had at least a year's experience with Esoglou on another article (Catholic Church) where I found him obstinate, contentious but generally on firmer ground with respect to sources than he seems to have been on Immersion baptism. Assuming good faith on your part, I am inclined to assume that your complaints are valid. It's just that I've seen Esoglou provide valuable contributions to Wikipedia as well and so I'm disinclined to favor severe measures such as banning. I'm fairly confident that this is not a case that ARBCOM would take and so your only recourse for a ban would be a community ban. I suspect you would get a fair amount of support for a ban but I'm not sure if you would reach a consensus. You would almost certainly have Phatius and myself in opposition. See WP:BAN for details on how to seek a ban. An RFC is the first step in seeking a ban but a consensus for a ban would have to be reached on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I probably wouldn't oppose a ban on Esoglou too strongly. I haven't seen terrible behavior from him, but I'm well aware that my experience with him is limited. If Taiwan boi sought a ban, I might post a comment similar to my comment on Taiwan boi's RfC, asking everyone to consider whether all the blame should be heaped on Esoglou (given Esoglou's tendency to get into fights with editors, such as LM, who don't exactly help to calm him down).
If a ban were requested, and I noticed it, then I would check the request for straightforward factual errors or misrepresentations. If the proposed ban were permanent, I would probably put in a simple "oppose". Given Esoglou's recent editing on Palamism-related articles (again, I wasn't involved in the baptism articles), he is clearly capable of editing constructively and even compromising if he puts his mind to it. The goal should be to get Esoglou to edit more as he did on Essence-Energies distinction, not as he did on Immersion baptism, rather than banning him.
I do agree that a banning attempt is unlikely to be successful. By all means, open an RfC to try to put some community pressure on Esoglou to act differently. But trying to have him banned will probably fail, if Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive143#User:Rwflammang is any indication. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


Phatius, I pretty much agree with what you wrote. Like you, I would oppose a permanent ban but I wouldn't object to the issuance of a user RFC on Esoglou to bring attention to his conduct. He is often contentious to the point of being considered a troll (I first got to know him by investigating the charge of trolling at Catholic Church). The thing is... he is often right or, at least, partly right. He just needs help getting his point across (often to people who don't want to listen) in an effective way that doesn't result in huge fights and acrimonious feelings. Of course, tangling with the likes of LoveMonkey makes this all the more difficult. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for both of your comments. Several editors have found Esoglou not merely contentious (this is not the focus of the RfC), but a consistently disruptive editor by means of POV edits including WP:OR, misrepresentation of sources, repeated use of POV sources which are not WP:RS, and the removal of WP:RS which conflict with his personal POV. This is particularly apparent in the baptism and immersion baptism articles, where first as Lima and then as Esoglou, he has demonstrated ownership behaviour over the article for two years, and has consistently demonstrated the poor editing behaviour to which I have just referred. Richard, your comments on my RfC focus entirely on my objections and those of LoveMonkey. You say you have merely glanced at a couple of diffs provided by us, and then formed your judgment. You describe LM and I as Esoglou's interlocutors, but you omit entirely any reference to the diffs provided by Leadwind and you make no mention of the objections raised by swampyank. This gives the impression that you are not interested in the concerns of other editors.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've read Taiwan boi's comment and I actually drafted a lengthy reply running about 5 paragraphs and then accidentally hit a key which caused my browser to delete the reply just before I saved it. I don't have the energy to rethink and retype it just now so I will try and come back to this later. I just wanted to leave this note to let Taiwan boi know that I'm not ignoring the above comment. I'm just disgusted with myself for letting a finger error to screw me so badly. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the tip...

...about Protestant denominations. Leadwind (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mexican municipality

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Mexican municipality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it. I didnt know what I was doing when I created it. All things good with me. Still busy writing Mexico related articles.Thelmadatter (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

article talk pages

It would probably be a good idea not to remove comments by other people from article talk pages, unless they are really grossly insulting, & if they are, it would still be better to let someone else do it.((preferably an admin like myself). The way to deal with irrelevant comments is to ignore them. (I've made an appropriate off-wiki suggestion to the other ed. involved) DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm... I'm not sure I agree but I can see why you think the way you do. My view is that article talk pages are restricted to discussion about improving the article. Minor digressions are OK but if the discussion gets too far off that goal, it is disruptive. All I did was move the specific parts of the discussion that was off-topic to the other editor's talk page. At the end of the day, it's probably not a big deal in this situation but I can see where it could get that way. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

History of Eastern Orthodox Christian theology

I have not checked the entire article yet, but I'll try to point out a few issues.

Thanks, Cody. I appreciate your input very much. As LoveMonkey has asserted, I am far from qualified to be writing about Orthodox theology but somebody had to do it and so I nominated myself. I am eager for those who are more knowledgeable to improve upon the very rudimentary start that I have made. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad I could be of some help, and I also thank you for editing these articles. (I'll try to check them more often, but regrettably I do not have have too much time for Wikipedia during these days.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

Please see here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that you are quoted there. I wonder if it is just possible that the impression you received of backing up arguments with primary sources is based principally on discussions on Talk pages, where such use of primary sources is surely allowed. I already told you that, if challenged on any statement in the articles, I would either withdraw the statement or provide the supporting citation; and when you (far more gingerly than necessary) enquired about one statement, for which I had overlooked to write down the (secondary) source I had used, I gave you a half dozen or more reliable sources that said the same thing (sources, I think, different from the one I first took the idea from) and let you choose which among them to cite. Or is it that official documents of the churches, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the Roman Catholic Church and the Declaration of the Synod of Jerusalem for the Eastern Orthodox Church, are not acceptable as sources for the teachings of those churches, and that what counts as the teaching of the churches must instead be whatever views are expressed by individual theologians belonging to these churches? I apologize too for whatever in my behaviour seems trollish to you.
I think that what I have written here may give the impression that I feel offended. No. Don't worry in the slightest about that. I recognize that you have every right to form and express those impressions. I am only putting before you some elements for consideration. Esoglou (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that my quotes may be taken to be a stronger statement than I wished to make. I think that your use of primary sources, even if restricted to Talk Pages has a tendency to involve you in interpretation of those sources in a way that suggests OR and synthesis. I have to say that I don't always follow the details of the discussion between you and LoveMonkey but what I have observed from time to time is discussions of what specific Church fathers wrote or meant. This seems inappropriate to me. If you restrict yourself to secondary sources, you would avoid a lot of trouble. This is not to say that I would advocate that you be disciplined for this but simply that I would advocate that you be counseled to stick to the secondary sources and eschew interpretation of primary sources which would be appropriate for a scholar writing a secondary source but inappropriate for an encyclopedic article which is a tertiary source. That said, I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and would not like to see you banned from Wikipedia or even exiled to a "Catholic ghetto". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It is OK to cite sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church when all you are doing is presenting the teaching of the Catholic Church and there is no interpretive dispute (i.e. X interprets the Catechism as saying A and Y interprets it as saying B).
However, when a primary source (such as Romanides) asserts that the Catholic Church teaches A, then it is inappropriate to challenge that source by presenting another primary source such as the Catechism in rebuttal. At that point, you are engaging in OR and synthesis. To be above reproach, you must find another primary source that makes the rebuttal or a secondary source that criticizes Romanides.
NB: Whether a source is primary or secondary is sometimes difficult to determine and sometimes a source is both i.e. primary relative to some points and secondary relative to others. The Catechism is almost always a primary source. Romanides is both a primary source and a secondary source depending on what he is writing about. It would be easier to write Wikipedia articles if there were Catholic sources that responded directly to Lossky and Romanides but my impression is that there are few such Catholic sources. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I won't argue the matter, but I will say I am surprised to be told that, if Romanides says that the Catholic Church teaches "A", it is not permitted to present a quotation from the CCC explicitly stating "Non-A". Esoglou (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Dear Richard

Why was around 100.000 bytes removed from 'Jihad' page? [1]Darieniwong (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Because Jihad was too long (174kb). See WP:SIZE. Also see the discussion at [2]. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Christian Violence NPOV Tag

Richard, love your passion for the work but we need to work on cleaning this article up, but I have to ask are you just cutting and pasting from other articles do did you do the work and cut it over? Look what you copied might be platinum rated citations and be among the best in all of Wikipedia, or it might be the worst and we wouldn't know which... It isn't a secret that there are lots of bad articles that need attention and lots of bad citations and occasionally even outright deceit. I ran across that with an Editor flirting with a ban on the War of 1812. When we are reviewing and working on an article it makes it much worse. I work on Naval and War histories and I use one standard. If I can read it and understand that it is a good work by a reputable historian then I will use it for citation. I promise you there are lots of us that stick like iron to that standard. There are others that do not and you can't count that if you copy and paste like that you are doing anyone a favor. Now I admit that my personal library is huge and costs me dearly in expenditures so I can recommend the public library but lets not copy and paste unless you are doing the actual work you are copying.Tirronan (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and, while it is a good idea, it is not required by policy. If you doubt the citation, you can challenge it or verify it for yourself. Noleander wants to challenge all citations by insisting on a quote to prove that the citation supports the assertion and does so in the context of discussing violence. Well, if you guys want to rip the article apart using that as your standard, I can only object strenuously and follow dispute resolution procedure.
Let me propose this... if you think the assertion is false or otherwise inappropriate for the article, just say so on the Talk Page. I am more than willing to engage in reasonable discussion. If you think the citation doesn't support the assertion, then either verify it or provide a better citation. Copying from other articles often yields mediocre articles but that is still often better than nothing. If you don't like what's written (or copied), then rewrite it. My primary concern is for the overall approach presented by the article structure, not for specific wording of every section.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want you to get the Idea for a second that any of this is personal or that I dislike you or that I don't believe you are acting in good faith. I did actually read that it has to be read the the editor in question and just like you did I went to look in wp:cite and wp:verify and did not find that section. But I still think it is out there and I have asked an Admin to look at it and let me know. But to the point you honestly don't know what kind of citation you deal with. I caught a user over on the war of 1812 out right lying to us with citation, and I do admit it kind of shook me. I found another over at the battle of borodion quoting a travel book, wellington's memory's (making a sidelong reference in passing) and another a children's book! It is not common but folks will do things from time to time that are pretty crappy in the quest to prove a point. Again I am not for a minute saying you are but when you cut and paste like that who knows what is coming over. I don't know if you were involved in the weasel wording issues that that is not at all supported WP:WEASEL. When you deal with sensitive subjects like this one you have to set the bar very high because of that. Also when we are trying to fix issues do we absolutely need to cut and paste more in? Lets fix what we have 1st and move on.Tirronan (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Peace. The only reason that I copied stuff into the Witch-hunt section was that Noleander complained that "the majority of the section had nothing to do with violence". I re-read the section and realized that it just kind of assumed the reader knew that witch-hunts were violent to the point of putting people to death. I wanted to add some text that made this point up front. Since I have a different philosophy about copying citations, I did so. If someone wants to improve the section and improve the referencing, I'm fine with that. I just figured the section needed some kind of a lead-in to introduce the subject to the reader. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I do understand I am dealing with more than my share of frustration on this myself I need you two to back down on the article for awhile and I will get the others to help me clean it up. I think you are a good editor you just need some practice and get a bit familier with what is required on these high view high contestable type of articles they get nasty quick. To be fair you are going to have to pull out all that stuff you cut and pasted. Here is the ruling:

Say where you read it Shortcuts: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. Where you want to cite John Smith, but you've only read Paul Jones who cites Smith, write it like this (this formatting is just an example; there are several ways this can be written): Smith, John. Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2. For a source available in hardcopy, microform, and/or online, omit, in most cases, which one you read. While it is useful to cite author, title, edition (1st, 2d, etc.), and similar information, it generally is not important to cite a database such as ProQuest, EbscoHost, or JStor (see the list of academic databases and search engines) or to link to such a database requiring a subscription or a third party's login. The basic bibliographic information you provide should be enough to search for the source in any of these databases that have the source. Don't add a URL that has a part of a password embedded in the URL. However, you should provide the DOI, ISBN, or another uniform identifier, if available. If the publisher offers a link to the source or its abstract that does not require a payment or a third party's login for access, you should provide the URL for that link. And if the source exists only online, give the link even if access is restricted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirronan (talkcontribs)

Yes, I've seen those before which is why I acknowledge that there is an argument that one shouldn't copy citations from one Wikipedia article to another. However, IMO, that is one interpretation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. According to this interpretation, the "where you got it" is Wikipedia and since Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, you can't cite Wikipedia and thus the citation is unacceptable per SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT because you would have to say "XYZ source as cited in the Wikipedia article on A". On the other hand, there is a protocol for copying from other Wikipedia articles which is that you have to attribute the article that you copied it from in the edit summary (which I try to do religiously). Now, this protocol is to maintain the attribution chain for copyright purposes not for the purposes of establishing the reliability of the source. Nonetheless, I stand by my interpretation that copying from Wikipedia is OK, else there would not be a protocol for attributing where you copied it from in the edit summary. Until this apparent contradiction in the two policies is resolved, I plan to interpret the policy in favor of copying from other Wikipedia articles.
I think a much more practical approach is to understand that, if you copy a citation from the writing of another editor, that citation may be challenged and it then becomes incumbent on you to defend that citation if challenged or face the deletion of the citation and possibly the assertion which it supports.
A much more collegial approach is to look at the text that has been copied and determine whether it is improving the article or not. If it is not improving the article, then it should go regardless of whether the citation supports it. If it is improving the article, then it should stay and the focus should be on determining whether the citation adequately supports it. Let's face it, if we deleted all unsupported assertions, vast swaths of Wikipedia would vanish overnight.
The point about providing citations to reliable sources is entirely about establishing whether potentially controversial assertions are just OR, POV and SYNTH of Wikipedia editors or if they have a substantial standing in "the real world". Ultimately, stuff in Wikipedia has to first pass the "smell" test. If an assertion "smells funny" and seems dubious, that is when the citations get challenged.
Instead of getting wrapped up in this "did you copy that citation or did you actually read it" spat, why not actually read the article and determine which areas need to be improved and then improve them?
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we are mostly on the right page, but no I can't support copying citations for the reasons I have listed, if you have tracked them down to be sure that the citations say what they purport to say I am OK with that for certain. As for the rest of the tags, I think much of it is not supported, I don't see any OR in this article and I don't see NPOV either. I need you to rid the article of the imported cites and we'll get new ones but if we add examples of and some facts and figures, just two or three per we should have refocus and answered most of the concerns. If tags and negative comments continue after we have collectively cleaned up then we'll have to get admins involved at that point.Tirronan (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Ugh... well, given that I made at least a few hundred edits to the article in November-December of last year, the checking of citations is a bit of a tall order. I'll try to address your concern using the following approach:
  • first, I'll identify the sections where I actually added any significant text (as opposed to just using what was already in the article)
  • second, I'll check the citations that are in those sections and either verify them or comment them out and tag the sentence with a {{citation needed}} tag.
At that point, we can decide to have someone else verify the citation, provide a different source, leave the sentence unsupported or delete the sentence. Most of my citations came from Google Books or Google Search and have URLs linking to an online version of the source. The problem comes in trying to differentiate between citations copied from other Wikipedia articles and those that were already in the article. I'll do my best but it will take a while. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
OK thank you Richard, that is all that anyone could ask. I know that it will take time but you are the only one that can unwind it that way. I've talked to Nolender as well and hopefully we can start moving forward again then.Tirronan (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Richard, I am getting to the edge of frustration here. I've left a reply in the Christianity and Violence article, you are not listening to the complaints of which WP:Cite is only one, there are complaints about the direction that you have taken the article, the singular POVa, and it is all being ignored while you reverted right back to the articles you have at least 4 editors opposed to. If you are going to take the cites and the offending sections that you have copied over that is a good start but it has to start now. If not I am reverting back and if you revert again we are going to the admins. You have to start listening and stop bulldozing the other editors, we are quickly getting to the point that I think we are dealing with a WP:OWN situation here. I will not wait very long on this.Tirronan (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There are, to the best of my knowledge, no copied citations that do not have direct quotes or links to online copies of the text. I have very probably commented out citations that were put into the article by other editors because I was not 100% sure if they were copied by me or inserted by other editors. I don't know what your problem is in this regard. Please recheck the citations yourself. You should not assume that every section that I restored to the article was written by me. If I know that it was written by somebody else specifically for this article, I restored it. If I know that it was written by me using citations to sources that I personally read, I restored it. If I was unsure, I commented it out. What more do you want in this regard?
As for POV issues, this article has been far more anti-Christian POV in the past than when I got to it. I wrote almost the entirety of the first two sections "Definition of violence" and "Christianity as a violent religion" and, if you read the actual text, you will see that I go to some lengths to quote people who are defending Christianity against the charge that it is a violent religion. I don't see why you think this is POV.
I am prepared to discuss the POV issues that some people see about certain topics such as anti-semitism or slavery but the real problem is that there is an anti-Christian POV out there and it is against NPOV policy to ignore it. If someone wants to find a reliable source that defends against the criticism of Christian involvement in slavery and anti-semitism, I am all for including those in the article. However, my sense of it is that these defenses do not represent the scholarly consensus. If you can show me that these do represent the scholarly consensus, I am more than happy to change the article to reflect that.
Please stop jawboning me. If there is a content dispute, there is a dispute resolution procedure. One or more RFCs may be in order.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Pseudo-Richard/Ancient persecution of non-Jews by Jews

Hi there. I found this article in your userspace; I note that it was salvaged from an article that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination). You moved it to your userspace with the intention of creating a new article; but I note that you have not actually made any edits to it since doing so, back in January 2008. Are you still planning to work on this article and move it back into mainspace? If so, you should do so; per WP:FAKEARTICLE, article drafts should not be kept in userspace indefinitely. If you are not planning to restore it, you should probably request it be deleted using {{db-user}}. I would also note that at the AFD, there was a very strong consensus against an article on this topic ever existing; of course, consensus may have changed since then, but there's only one way to find out. Robofish (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Religious violence

If you're going to use historical incidents violence in support of your thesis, you should include incidents from all religions of that era. Otherwise it's intellectually dishonest. DS (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I've worked on a number of articles that involve religious violence. Are you specifically talking about Christianity and violence? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

History of the Catholic church

I'm soliciting opinions, hence why I have been trying to hash it out on the talk page. Thank you for your replies. I am not happy with the page at present, which is why I think a rewrite will be necessary. Writing by committee tends to be disjointed and unfocused unless care is taken to address the prose issues. I have replied to your concerns on the page. If you prefer me to take it to userspace, I will do so, but only if you will continue to comment. If I can address your concerns then I feel the page will be improved. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Jones v. City of Opelika (1942)

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Jones v. City of Opelika (1942) , 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. LegalSkeptic (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Request

I intend to wait a full week from Taiwan boi's support of LoveMonkey's recent edits, and then to check with EdJohnston that edits of this kind are legitimate for LoveMonkey (and so also for me). I would have preferred that we both keep out of contentious editing, but if EdJohnston still does not disagree with Taiwan boi's interpretation, I will of course be free to end my rather long abstension from any kind of response to his edits. Even in that case I think I would still be forbidden to undo today's edit by an anonymous user who wants Wikipedia to state that the Orthodox do not pray for the dead, but only "for the memory". Would you please undo that edit or, better, replace the paragraph in question with the following, which differs only in providing also an explicit available-to-all quotation on the matter?

Among the [[Orthodox Church|Eastern]] and [[Oriental Orthodoxy|Oriental Orthodox]], while there is no doctrine of [[purgatory]], prayer for the dead is encouraged in the belief that it is helpful for them. Specifically ''how'' the prayers of the faithful help the departed is not elucidated; Eastern Orthodox simply believe that tradition teaches ''that'' prayers should be made for the dead.<ref>"Of course we do not understand exactly ''how'' such prayer benefits the departed. Yet equally, when we intercede for people still alive, we cannot explain how this intercessions assists them. We know from our personal experience that prayer for others is effective, and so we continue to practice it." ([http://books.google.com/books?id=SZKQvru-viUC&pg=PA36&dq=%22such+prayer+benefits+the+departed%22&hl=en&ei=lr6ITZy7CJGwhQeA6eXFDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22such%20prayer%20benefits%20the%20departed%22&f=false Kallistos Ware, ''The Inner Kingdom'' (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 2000, ISBN 9780881412093), p. 36)].</ref><ref>Timothy Ware, ''The Orthodox Church'' (Penguin Books, 1964, ISBN 0-14-020592-6), p. 259</ref>

I am asking you, rather than Phatius, whose last interaction with LoveMonkey seems to have complete discouraged him. He has not edited Wikipedia since then. Esoglou (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
We may yet be criticized for doing an "end-run" around the agreement. However, editing via anon IP is a bit fishy, too. However, my belief is that, as long as I review proposed edits and judge that the edit is not outrageously controversial, my editing on your behalf is not wrong. I haven't entered into the agreement so I'm not technically bound by it. I would hope that civility and collegiality would obviate the need for any agreements. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems I was unclear, and I apologize. I was not asking you to make that edit more or less as a meat puppet. I only meant to ask you to consider making the edit as your own, as something that you personally agreed with. I didn't want you to do it merely as "not outrageously controversial". Esoglou (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes... of course. However, you are more knowledgeable in many of these areas than I am and so there are times when I can only attempt to judge whether your proposed edits are so uncontroversial that I am willing to make them based on my own understanding of the topic.
It is important to establish that I am not acting as your meat puppet when I make such edits. Since your requests and my edit are publicly recorded in the edit histories, we may as well make clear to others what is happening rather than let them find out later and claim that we have been doing something underhanded. There are editors who have a tendency to interpret things in a way that suggest to them bad motives and collusion. We have to be above suspicion, like Caesar's wife.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to Pseudo-Richard making edits that he personally agrees with, provided he has some way of getting access to the sources. I think he should explain what he wants to do on the article talk page before editing the article itself. No edit should occur if Esoglou is the only person who has ever seen the source it relies on, since others would be unable to check it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Great... thanks, Ed. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course I agree fully with what Ed says about citations being freely checkable by everyone. A curious thing to mention. Did I ever cite some source that only I had seen? I am unaware of ever having done so. In fact, a certain editor has accused me of being utterly ignorant regarding the matters on which he wants to keep me from making contributions and of making my edits solely on the basis of quotations (direct uninterpreted ones, I may add) from Google Books, which seems to be less generous to computers in this country than to those in the United States with regard to the texts that it makes available.
And I agree fully with what Richard says about leaving no opening to suspicion. That was why I made my remark about avoiding any appearance of meat puppetry. I made that remark immediately after reading what Richard said about "end runs", just as I have now commented on Ed's remark as soon as I read it. I really should put this talk page on my watch list. Esoglou (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Jews and banking

Hello Pseudo-Richard. I've started a discussion at the administrators noticeboard regarding the Jews and banking article you recently created. 28bytes (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Role of Jews in developing Capitalism

It strikes me as very poor judgment to copypaste large amounts of content from an article that is currently being considered for deletion (and which has been shown to have huge problems with misrepresentation of sources and POV) to create a new article about a very related topic.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeh... I know that many editors will feel that way but I think there is a lot of potential for the material in question to form the basis of one or more encyclopedic articles. If the sources have been misrepresented, then why can't we just fix the misrepresentations? Wouldn't that be easier than spending effort in Talk Page and AFD discussion? If the sources are at least partly reliable, then there is at least one encyclopedic topic here and we should work on figuring out what those topics are and how to write encyclopedic NPOV articles about those topics. It is not Wikipedia's job to avoid all mention of antisemitic POVs. It is Wikipedia's mission to make NPOV presentations of those antisemitic POVs. IMO, Noleander's major crime was asserting opinions and theories as fact. I would seek to fix that. The opinions are notable and encyclopedic topics even if they are antisemitic canards. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You should have waited for the community to make its decision.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Jews and banking

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Jews and banking. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Economic history of the Jews‎. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Economic history of the Jews‎ - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Dave Dial (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Role of Jews in the development of capitalism

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Role of Jews in the development of capitalism. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Economic history of the Jews‎. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Economic history of the Jews‎ - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Dave Dial (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)