Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 15:03, 8 February 2011 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 10d) to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 19.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Re

Ok, I will not change more. Raulseixas (talk) 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I thank you for notifying me but I don't know where to give my comment. Best (Salmon1 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

I am sorry but I did not see any discussion. There is always room to resolve problems but at the moment it does not seem to be clear how to go about it. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

There is a discussion on . The comments are important and there is clear relevance to it. Thank you for your interest. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

I am willing to agree to your suggestion if it applies to Modernist and to me simultaneously with the additional stipulation, that no deletion or addition of any sort can be made without explanation on the talk page. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

I am writing this response to you with the hope that it will help to restore civility. In my entire 5 year history in Misplaced Pages editing I have only uploaded three images. The three images were used to replace the extensive use of images for Ronnie Landfield by Modernist. I have replaced with . Similarly I have replaced with . There are several of the same image remaining in use in other general articles on and . The replaced two images were by artists who are highly recognized both in the US and internationally. I explained my action in each case in the respective talk page. In the third instance I chose an artist who was exhibiting in an exhibition along with Ronnie Landfield, John Seery . I explained my action in the talk page . The rest of the problem is discussed at the same section of the talk page for the article Color field, . I do not have the tool to revert and I did not revert. Actually I only tried to upload once but I thought that I was repeatedly unsuccessful so I kept trying. Shortly after to my surprise there was added a double image of Ronnie Landfield’s along with the replaced image of John Seery’s, . In the future I will not touch the images associated with Ronnie Landfield. It is really the role of the consensus to determine what endures.Thank you for your help. Very best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC))

Thank you for your help to resolve this edit-conflict complaint presented against my editing in the article, Color Field. I will do my very best to comply with your decision. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

Nicolas Carone is listed in the article, Abstract expressionism Major artists. On 28 January, 2011 Modernist deleted the link of the video from youtube.com on Nicolas Carone by Nicolas Carone with the explanation: “mv irrelevant gossip.” However the video is in the collection of the Archives of the American Art, ABSTRACT EXPRESSIONIST ART MOVEMENT IN AMERICA VIDEO DOCUMENTATION PROJECT, 1991-1992. The description of the video in the Archive of the American Art: ”The Herskovics produced the videotapes to document the recollections of the artists involved in abstract expressionism. The selection of the artists was based on participation in the "Artists Annuals" between 1951 (9th Street Show) and 1957. ” Please help to restore the link, into the article, : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-kMxtJ0GfA Nicolas Carone-Abstract Expressionism-Artist of the 9th St. Show—video from youtube.com] (Salmon1 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

Please make a case for your change at Talk:Abstract expressionism. That page is on the watchlist of almost 100 editors, so you have a good chance of getting a real discussion there. If no one will respond, ask me again. Note that Abstract expressionism is an extremely popular article and was viewed 45,000 times in January. Since it is such a major article, our editors may only want to include links to very important items, as determined from reliable sources that have commented on them. Linking to Youtube videos is often questioned here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I followed your advise, Thank you. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

On 28 January, 2011, Modernist deleted the following references: with the explanation: “rmv non-references.” Each of the books has 4 pages dedicated to Jack Tworkov. 1 Page, Jack Tworkov’s statement with reference and © to each given statement by the artist. This guaranties the artist’s point of view rather then a critical point of view. 2 full pages 12 x 9 inches of images by the artist Jack Tworkov with accurate description including ©; 1 page, biographical information. All the referenced three books were "Highly recommended" by CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. One of the books: won a gold medal, OUTSTANDING ACADEMIC TITLE ~CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, July/August 2003. CHOICE derives its recommendations through the system of peer review. The referenced books carried the page numbers. Please help to restore the deleted references to the article. I made the case on Talk:Jack Tworkov as you requested in the case above. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

Jack Tworkov's article and its talk page are watched by only a few people. I suggest that you make your request at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Your case would be stronger if these links actually serve as references. That is, if you change the article to include some relevant facts from these works. Another possibility is that you may have the rights to a photo of Tworkov that could be added to his article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Please see the request and reply, . I was advised by a senior administrator, that the referencing of the books were questioned. There was a lengthy deliberation about the above referred books. It was concluded and I was notified that it is appropriate to use the books as reference in Misplaced Pages articles with proper page citation. No article exists about me in Misplaced Pages. The existence of the books is presented on my user:page. On the other hand I believe that I can make a strong case for violation of WP:NPOV along with WP:BLP regard to Modernist using the information from Misplaced Pages. This should only be the concern of WP:ArbCom. Please give me the benefit of your advice. Sincerely, {Salmon1 (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

I was not aware that these were self-published books. Can you clarify what you are asserting about Modernist? It is by no means guaranteed that these books are usable in reference lists. If you think that someone gave you the go-ahead to do so, please link to where that discussion occurred. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The books are published by the New York School Press. I am chief editor and co-owner of the company. The Company, New York School Press exists in good standing since 1999. Best, {Salmon1 (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

I just found an article in Goggle . (Salmon1 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

I understand the point of WP:SPS. I believe that my circumstance is different. My books are not critical interpretations. They present the artists statements and works on an equal playing field. These books present 262 artists in as neutral point of view as possible. About me: I received my PhD from New York University of Arts and Sciences. I also have a certificate in appraisal studies in Fine and Decorative Arts that I received from New York University. I produced 27 videos on the art and lives of the artists of the New York School abstract expressionists.They are in the collection of the Smithsonian Archives of American Art . These videos were repeatedly shown in cable TV. They were listed in "Art on Screen,—a joint venture of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the J. Paul Getty Trust." I hosted numerous artists' seminars and spent the past two decades documenting the New York Painting and Sculpture Annuals, the participating artists and their art. 991 of my books are in the art libraries of colleges and universities documented by worldcat.org. All the referenced three books were "Highly recommended" by CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. One of the books, American Abstract Expressionism of the 1950s an Illustrated Survey, won a gold medal, OUTSTANDING ACADEMIC TITLE ~CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, July/August 2003. CHOICE derives its recommendations through the system of peer review. I was advised by DGG, a senior administrator, that the referencing of the books were questioned. There was a lengthy deliberation about the above referred books. It was concluded and I was notified that it is appropriate to use the books as reference in Misplaced Pages articles with proper page citation. DGG is a PhD with a career in academic library science. Sincerely, (Salmon1 (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

Raulseixas

Minor I know, but he changed the name of another club on the Diego Milito page. I thought I'd mention it. Regards Footballgy (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP edit war game on this page is starting up again, very Raul-esque Footballgy (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked one month. If you see more IPs taking up the banner for Raul's renaming issues, please consider reopening the sockpuppet case at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Raulseixas. From now on we probably would need behavior evidence since checkuser would not be an option. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay Ed, I will carry on to monitor the pages he has been kicking around on and will re-open the case if I come across his editing traits again. Thanks Footballgy (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Passionless

Just the other day, you made it explicitly clear to this editor that her reverts related to the I/P conflict on the Current Events portal are covered by the 1RR limitation - . This appears to have had no effect and she is repeatedly violating 1RR there. See for exmapel two reverts here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.235.194 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read my message to Passionless again. There is no 1RR restriction on the Portal:Current events pages. Only on the articles that are related to the Palestine-Israeli conflict. If you think you see bad editing of the current events pages, consider opening a discussion at Portal talk:Current events. If you actually have an account, you should not be reverting Passionless on a controversial page using an IP, per WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There are 1RR restrictions on all artilces related to the I/P conflict, brroadly construed, and you wrote 'reverting news items on Israeli-Palestinian topics is covered by Arbcom sanctions' - what does that mean, other than 1RR applying to those news items? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.235.194 (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The dated current event pages such as Portal:Current events/2011 January 29 have no talk pages, and there is no place to put an {{ARBPIA}} banner on them. It is not practical to put these pages under a 1RR restriction, and so far, no admin has done that. Individuals who revert-war there can still be reported under the discretionary sanctions, if they revert on I-P issues. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

article

Hi Ed, thank you for your note on my talk page concerning the 3rr report that I filed. I have one problem with the article being protected as is. There is one to many jpgs of John Seery. The painting is in the template that I created and right underneath is an extra one. The extra one should be removed. I will ask Ceoil to remove it, or perhaps you should, or me, let me know...Modernist (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed--the image appears twice in the same article. I tried to change this and am locked out, too. JNW (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Leave an {{editprotect}} template at Talk:Color Field and ask for the extra image to be removed. An admin should see this request and fix the page. I prefer not to edit pages I've protected myself. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, JNW (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Scarmudgeon

The warning and an offer for them to join the noticeboard discussion had already been left. They removed it without comment. --Onorem♠Dil 15:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

He wanted to go down in a blaze of glory, I guess. His wish has been granted. I have not looked into the possibility that this editor might have a real-life connection to the issues being discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I left a message at Onorem's talk page concerning this. Not sure if you were aware of the history. freshacconci talktalk 19:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

João VI or John VI

Hi, Ed. Could you spare some time to share your thoughts about the João/John issue in Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (use English)#An exception to the rule?? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I should promise to stop responding in kind?

Look at User_talk:Dmcq#The_Z3_wasn.27t_the_first_computer_according_to_other_reliable_cites. I was responding in kind, as I thought that was acceptable. Is this a statement that it is not? —chbarts (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been reported for edit warring

I was reported for edit warring? What did I do? On what page? I don't recall reverting a page to a former version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.167.222 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

With this edit a person using your IP address removed an entire section from David Newman (political geographer). If you are using a dynamic IP, perhaps this was a previous user. If this was you, you can understand that removing an entire criticism section without discussion would lead to questions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wording of the restriction about Orthodox/Catholic editing

* Former section header was "I do not accept that I can not post comments in Eastern Orthodox articles and sections that are critical of the Roman Catholic church"

I agreed that I would not post or edit or make comments in various articles under the Roman Catholic sections nor would I post in Roman Catholic articles. I do not agree that I will not post comments from Eastern Orthodox sources in Eastern Orthodox sections that have content that is critical of the Roman Catholic church. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

My actual proposal did not, strictly speaking, restrict either Esoglou or LM from describing their respective faith community's views of the other faith community. It was aimed at stopping them from making edits which represented the beliefs and practices of the other faith community. I would be open to them posting comments by writers from their own faith community, on the beliefs and practices the other faith community, as long as these comments were WP:RS, on topic, and non-gratuitous.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you give examples of some articles where this would be a problem? EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A perspective that is not allowed to be express potentially under this restriction as I can not post Orthodox theologians being critical of the Roman Catholic teachings. example..

"At the same time, the theological issues which it brought to the forefront both helped to define and distinguish

the peculiar traditions of the Orthodox East and to form the course of future dialogue with the Roman Catholic West. In this latter sense, it was the incisive formulation, by the Hesychasts, of the spiritual “psychology” and theological essence of the Orthodox Faith which doomed subsequent attempts at Church union, if simply because this formulation brought to bear on such efforts the profound chasm, with regard to Church polity, on the one hand, and spiritual life, on the other, that had developed between the Orthodox East and the Roman Catholic West during the age of the emergence of the Papal monarchy and Western Scholasticism. If various union councils during the century that followed the Hesychastic Controversy and closely preceded the fall of Constantinople to the Turks achieved rather remarkable results at a theoretical level and by way of compromise spawned by political expediency, they fell flat and failed at a practical level because of the enduring legacy of the genuine, honest theological debates that marked the dispute over Hesychasm. Holy Tradition, the perpetuation of a theology drawn from common Christian experience, rather than philosophical speculation, and the very goals of spiritual life as the East saw them came into direct conflict with the rationalistic, Hellenistic presuppositions of Western Scholasticism and the ecclesiological and anthropological foundations of the theory of Papal primacy that Scholasticism, wittingly or otherwise, came to serve in Roman Catholicism." LoveMonkey (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not the kind of comment I intended to restrict, because it represents only your faith community's position, using a source from your faith community. As long as it is used only to describe how your community views the RCC's position, it is entirely acceptable to the proposal I worded. It would only be out of bounds of my proposal if you used it to represent what Roman Catholics believe about their faith community.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that LoveMonkey is determined to maintain his insertions of negative judgements about the Catholic Church, and that the long-standing problem is destined not to go away, unless an unambiguous directive is issued at administrator level. When LoveMonkey then presents the view of some Orthodox bishop or theologian about a matter of Catholic teaching, not as the view just of that individual, but as the view of the Orthodox Church, I feel I should, while leaving LoveMonkey's citation untouched, add statements on that same matter by other Orthodox theologians or, more important, in official documents such as the decrees of the 1672 Panorthodox Synod of Jerusalem or the Russian Synod's Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, letting the reader decide which view, if either, to consider to be that of the Orthodox Church. LoveMonkey generally reacts either by deleting my citations (even ones that, brought to the noticeboard, have been declared to be reliable sources) or by adding an unsourced statement that my citations "appear to run counter to (unspecified) official church statements", and he claims that I, not being a member of the Orthodox Church, have no right to cite Orthodox statements - as if Misplaced Pages had such a rule! I hope that somehow Ed will be able to remove this problem at last, which has been going on for far too long. Esoglou (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop trying to continue your argument here. LM is seeking clarification from Ed and I. He is not talking to you, and this discussion has nothing to do with you. You are wikistalking him and posting accusations about him every time you do so. Then you drag in an entire paragraph of your silly little theological crusade, as if we care. Please understand that your theological hangups are irrelevant to Misplaced Pages.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, stop trying to make it sound as if this was all LM's fault when you are 75% of the problem and you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a proposal which I made for a war which you persisted in dragging on for over a year. If you really thought it had been going on long enough, then you could have ended it in a single day. You didn't. You have been identified clearly as a long term serial edit warrior, who hasn't given so much as a single apology for their conduct.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's confine ourselves to the technical matter of what is the best restriction to use. This discussion should not become an RFC/U about either person. I would consider adding a clause which says, "If one of the parties is not allowed to edit or discuss a certain article section which is about the other church (either the EOC or the RCC), but their own community has sources which pertain, they may add those sources to the talk page, with no more than one sentence of neutrally-worded explanation for each one. If they wish, they can also present a verbatim quote from each source of no more than 200 words. They may not reply to questions or make any further statements about each source, though people can ask them questions via email." EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have difficulty in understanding the import of the conditional clause, "If one of the parties is not allowed to edit or discuss a certain article section which is about the other church". In what conditions is one party not allowed to edit or discuss?

I presume that it is meant to be even-handed, and that, if either side can insert criticisms of the other church in the article itself, the other side is not then confined to adding balancing verifiable information only on the talk page, leaving the article page untouched. And if those criticisms of one church are presented as those of the other church (not just of individuals within the other church), the balancing verifiable information must surely be taken from sources of the church presented as doing the criticizing: for a true exposition of a church's teaching, the best sources are surely that same church's sources, not those of another church.

If the clause suggests that it is OK to insert criticisms of Church A within article sections about Church B, and that no balancing information of the kind I mention can be inserted in the article, but only on the talk page, it seems that the only way of balancing the article would be to insert criticisms of Church B within sections about Church A, a horrible solution! If I ever, even once, inserted into these articles a criticism of the Eastern Orthodox Church, I cannot at all recall it. Negative evaluations of the Eastern Church expressed in the old Catholic Encyclopedia have been mentioned, but by the other editor, not by me. Surely we don't want these Misplaced Pages articles to become a series of accusations and counter-accusations between the two churches. Misplaced Pages articles concerning doctrines on which Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglicans differ expound the view of each church without expressing criticisms of another church. Surely the same is possible when expounding Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic doctrines. Esoglou (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the clause is to stop you making the disruptive edits you keep making. There is nothing to stop either of you continuing to post comments from members of your own faith community, which are critical of the other faith community, as long as they are from WP:RS. You can add all the balancing comment you want by adding information only about your own faith community, from WP:RS; it is not "balancing" to add commentary critical of the other faith community. If you believe that an edit has misrepresented your faith community, then post something about your faith community which corrects the balance. This has all been explained to you repeatedly, and you initially claimed to agree with it. Stop stalling, and start acting on what you said in the first place.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree to not edit Roman Catholic sections on Eastern Orthodox theological articles, I can not agree to the idea that such a thing is the same as not allowing Eastern Orthodox sections to not contain data that is critical of the Roman Catholic church's theology as I posted here a Roman Catholic critical of the Eastern Orthodox and the reverse. I am trying to see how if I posted either or both I would not be violating what is being proposed as I would not be allowed to answer things like this as well. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just told you that what you posted here is perfectly acceptable under the proposal I have made. Please let me know if you agree to this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am going to give this discussion 24 hours before recording the proposal wording on the WP:Editing restrictions noticeboard, and noting that the two editors involved agreed on the proposal.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was Ed who, as an administrator, was deciding what to put as an editing restriction. It appears I was wrong. Esoglou (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I made the proposal in my own words. You agreed to the proposal. You then both asked me specifically what the proposal does and doses not cover. I have explained in detail what the proposal does and does not cover. You have agreed to the proposal. There is therefore nothing left to do but record the proposal in the WP:Editing restrictions noticeboard. Ed has said he would consider adding a particular clause, and invited you to comment. You say you have difficulty understanding it, so we can simply leave it out. The fact is that you both already agreed on the proposal in the wording I gave, which is why Ed closed the case on the noticeboard where it was raised originally.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I think I know what's causing all this confusion. In my gloss of Taiwan boi's proposal, which I posted back on the noticeboard, I did include a clause about LM and Esoglou not adding criticism of the other's church by their own church's theologians. I thought this was what Ed and Taiwan boi were aiming for, and Taiwan boi at least appeared to endorse my gloss. Apparently he interpreted my gloss differently than I did. Anyhow, since LM clearly has problems with the intention behind my gloss's wording, let's just drop this argument.

In the interest of ending this dispute, I will now offer a second gloss of Taiwan boi's proposal:

1. Esoglou will not make edits or talk page comments regarding EO teaching or practice.
2. LM will not make edits or talk page comments regarding RC teaching or practice.
3. Esoglou may add information about RC commentary (positive or negative) on EO teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of EO teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with RC teaching/practice.
4. LM may add information about EO commentary (positive or negative) on RC teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of RC teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with EO teaching/practice.

Taiwan boi, Esoglou, and LM: do you agree with this wording? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Phatius, thanks for your clarification. Your two points are exactly what I had in mind. the key point, as I have said repeatedly, was the controversy over each editor representing the beliefs and practices of the other's faith community (largely Esoglou's representation of the EOC).--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I find Phatius' version easier to understand. (His points numbered 1-4). EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks. "In the body of the article" is of course more than a mention in a footnote. Esoglou (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am asking for clarity as if this outline above means that Esoglou will restrict his editing and commentary on EO teachings to RC sections and not edit the EO sections of the article then I agree. Its that simple, and I don't see that in what Phatius wrote. I see that I can't mention anything that says RC teachings or practices but then its saying that I can edit anywhere in the articles so long as I attribute it as opinion? How can any of you think the above (which appears to contradict itself) is any clearer? Why is there any option for restricting what anyone has to say when the issue is that people need to say it in the respective section. If Esoglou wants to preach ecumenism or be pro schism as long as he can source that he should be able to put it in the Roman Catholic section of the given article and not put it in the EO section and vice versa for me. I agree to that. However for the sake of wikipedia I will compromise even this if need be. If this will resolve the issue so that we can move on I then agree to the above but again simply wish to voice my concerns. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

LM, my proposal is that

• You and Esoglou can't make statements about what the other church's teachings/practices are (either in RC sections or in EO sections or on talk pages). For example, Esoglou can't argue with you about whether EO theologians' descriptions of hell as "separation from God" run counter to official church statements.
• But you and Esoglou can make statements about what your church's theologians say about the other church, as long as you identify it as opinion.

I do not think that simply restricting you and Esoglou to different sections will do the trick. (Moreover, I don't think that that was what Ed and Taiwan boi had in mind when they made their proposals.) Why don't I think that you and Esoglou should simply be limited to different sections? There are a number of reasons, and if you want me to explain my reasoning in more detail, you can post on my talk page; for the moment, I will simply note two reasons:

• Not every article that includes EO and RC information necessarily has separate EO and RC sections.
• If we just limited you and Esoglou to different sections of articles, that wouldn't prevent fights on talk pages (which I see as the bigger problem).

However, if you wish, we can also add another pair of clauses (1 and 2 below), to form the following final version:

1. Esoglou will not edit in articles and sections specifically devoted to EO information.
2. LM will not edit in articles and sections specifically devoted to RC information.
3. Esoglou will not make edits or talk page comments regarding EO teaching or practice, with the following exception:
4. Esoglou may add RC theologians' comments (positive or negative) about EO teaching/practice. However, any such comment must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such comment must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of EO teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with RC teaching/practice.
5. LM will not make edits or talk page comments regarding RC teaching or practice, with the following exception:
6. LM may add EO theologians' comments (positive or negative) about RC teaching/practice. However, any such comment must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such comment must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of RC teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with EO teaching/practice.

I know it's become a bit long, but I don't think it will be very hard to remember. (It seems like common sense to me.) Esoglou and LM, do you agree with this wording? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were done, so I have already entered Phatius' original points 1-4 in WP:RESTRICT. I suggest we try this version for a month and if problems arise, it can be modified by mutual consent. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and patience. As you can tell, we're a loquacious bunch. Hopefully this agreement will help smooth things out. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Phatius, thanks for your clarification. Your most recent edit is what I had in mind also. Ed, thanks for your patience.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And renewed thanks from me. I think this should remove all grounds of dispute between LoveMonkey and me. Esoglou (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Phatius wrote above and hopefully this will give clearer guidelines so as to resolve the issues at hand. LoveMonkey 13:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with 3RR reports

Hi Ed, thanks for taking action on the recent edit warring I reported at Richard Boyd Barrett.

This is only the second time I've reported someone for 3RR, and it looks like there are a couple of things I might not be getting right. Would you be able to provide some pointers?

First, my diffs look different (as displayed on the 3RR noticeboard) to those provided by most other people. I've concluded that this is because most of the other people are using a semi-automated tool to generate their 3RR reports, which expands the diff itself to a date and also adds details of the edit summary. Does this make a difference, or is the way I'm doing it acceptable for this noticeboard?

Second, you said that you didn't see there being four reverts made within 24 hours. This puzzles me, because looking over the four edits I listed as diffs, they look to me to fall within the broad definition of being reverts as described on WP:3RR. Specifically I'm thinking of "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." So for example, the first, second and fourth edits all re-inserted the mention of the DVDs, which in each case had been removed by other editors. And the third edit re-inserted material about the TV station guy, which had been completely removed by me on BLP grounds.

Am I misunderstanding policy on exactly what constitutes a revert? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR reports need to be closed quickly, because there are so many of them. I stepped through the history one time, and I noticed that some of V's changes were not reverts. If you had used the 3rr.php tool which is mentioned in the Listing instructions at WP:AN3, it might have been easier to follow your reasoning. Also, your presentation here is easier to understand than the original report. At present, V is on a short leash due to BLP worries, but BLP is not a blanket excuse for removing criticism from an article about a politician. I hope that all sides will try to reach a consensus on sourcing for any controversial statements before protection expires. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hill & Knowlton

Hi there. I responded to your request for info required to change some of the basic facts about the company on the talk page. Appreciate it if you could take another look. Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) | Talk 10:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC):

Why not propose on the talk page some new language to add to the article. I am still wondering if this is a big change if reliable sources have not taken much notice of it. Two units, both wholly-owned by WPP Group, have 'merged', but presumably there is no change in ownership, no issuance of stock etc. Some executives must have changed their titles, but this happens all the time. I note your mention of an article in PR Week, but it's unclear if any actual reporting was done for the article, or if it's just giving the contents of a press release by the WPP Group. If you propose new language on Talk and if nobody objects in a reasonable time, you should go ahead and change the article. The book by Karen Miller is presumably a reliable source, and I wonder if any information from that could be used to expand the article. Another PR Week article mentions a DowJones study comparing coverage generated by H & K and other firms. The DowJones study certainly has enough independence to justify a reference in the H & K article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

IP sockpuppets

Hi Ed, sorry to bother you but I thought I'd message you and ask for a little advice. In the past I have had several problems with IP user 82.5.224.162 for constantly vandalizing and dumbing down the Grimsby Town F.C. page. His edits which were last on that article in August 2010 were in the most part good faith edits but the infomation he added was either incorrect, bizarre changes of sub sections and text or badly constructed sentences. The IP user consistently failed to respond to any messages sent to him by myself or other users on his talk page and upon recieving any talk page messages he simply removed them. He continued to try and force his material on to the article numerous times and was eventually blocked for a 3 month period as well as having the right to alter his own talk page taken away from him. By looking at his contributions he also spent a lot of time altering different British TV shows, with a lot of those edits also reverted down to the same reason as on the Grimsby Town page. This user last edited the Celebrity Coach Trip (series 6) article on 9 January 2011, however a new IP user....81.109.92.81..which I know for a fact is the same person cropped up on the 28 January 2011 editing the same pages with the same usual waffle, I didn't notice him until he made editions to the Grimsby Town page on the 6 February 2011, most of which was with the same sentences and strange text alterations he had attempted to force on to the article in August. He has also gone back to editing numerous pages associated with British TV shows some of which have already been reverted by other users. I made contact with the new IP on his talk page...and as expected he removed my messages from his talk page. I've initally re-instated them which I know I am not really supposed to do but this is to only make other editor's who are dealing with him aware of his persistent vandalizing. I was contemplating reporting the original IP for sock puppetry but I wasn't overly sure whether an IP can be reported for controlling other IP's. I just wondered what can be done..if anything and how I can go about resolving this problem as I know this IP can be kind of relentless at times. Thanks and Regards. Footballgy (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If you've given enough warnings, you can report him at WP:AIV. Include some diffs which you believe show him adding false information. Since I don't know much about these article topics I can't easily tell which edits are nonsense. Both of these IPs are DSL customers in the Coventry area. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Occupation of the Baltic states

The issue in dispute in Occupation of the Baltic states has been the naming of the article. As mainstream sources state, the period 1940-1989 had features of both occupation and annexation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. The specific quote used by Martin presents one side of the issue. Martin in fact uses it to object to the name suggested by Mälksoo.

The view that 1970-1989 can only be seen as annexation has been interpreted by some to mean that the ethnic Russian population are not citizenships, therefore not allowed to vote and subject to deportation. Russia, as the successor state to the USSR, is required to pay compensation. There is a moral equivalency between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and Nazi collaborators should be rehabilitated, while the resistance are seen as unpatriotic.

TFD 14:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)