User talk:Eschoir/Archive 1

Proposed finding of fact and remedy in arbitration case

Due to your use of the name "Eschoir" I have proposed a finding of fact, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic/Proposed_decision#Eschoir, and a remedy, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic/Proposed_decision#Eschoir_2. This is not based on an analysis of your editing, but on use of a provocative name. You may participate in the case and contest the finding and remedy if you wish. Fred Bauder 20:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to participate but I am inexperienced in the ways of Wiki defense. Eschoir 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You put your objection on the wrong page, but it is welcome. You can put it on the talk page or make a statement on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic, or on the /Evidence or /Workshop pages. Fred Bauder 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.Eschoir 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for modifying your Proposal of Fact. I have no problem with your current formulation.

Is it the screen name you have a problem with? Would a different screen name be your preferred remedy? Eschoir 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Come September, I will have used this screen name for ten years. I felt it would be disingenuous not to use it. Eschoir 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

Please do not post again on User talk:DeanHinnen. There is no reason to further inflame the situation. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Free Republic

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Eschoir! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule alexa\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Edits made to Free Republic Evidence

I removed your edits to my section. Feel free to add or edit your own personal section of evidence as you see fit (including referencing mine). I removed it because 1) its contrary to wiki policy to edit others evidence sections, 2) I personally don't want to discuss the details of the his case in mine section as its not relevant (only the question of identity is relevant). Dman727 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Eschoir 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The indefinite community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption is endorsed. The ban also applies to User:DeanHinnen and all other proxies or sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine. User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from Wikipedia for one year. The articles Free Republic and Democratic Underground are placed on article probation. It is expected that these articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. Either article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user, and users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Job

I think your recent edits to the FR article are really good. --BenBurch 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

News Time

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter Issue 012 – April 2007
Beatles News On Friday 30th March, a deranged fan was held after attempting to force his way into Paul McCartney's mansion. See here for more details. Apple Corps continues to make news, after the recent settlement with Apple Computer over the use of the Apple trademark. On April 10th, the company announced that long-time chief executive Neil Aspinall had stepped down and had been replaced by American Jeff Jones. It was also announced that another long term dispute, this time with EMI over royalties, had been amicably settled prior to Aspinall's departure.[1][2] Project News The article "Jeff Jones (music industry executive)" suddenly becomes of top importance in the Apple sphere of Beatledom. User:Kingboyk has created a stub on the man, but the article needs urgent beefing up (including basic biographical data such as date and place of birth) and, if possible, a photograph of the new Apple chief executive. Mimi Smith promises to have the last word over John yet again; her article is currently a Featured Article Candidate. Brian Epstein is a current GA candidate. See the Status board for more article news. 2 new articles have been listed in the Project Log since 1 March: Tony Barrow and Jeff Jones (music industry executive). With the debate over "the Beatles" vs "The Beatles" continuing to cause ill feeling and a number of resignations from the project from advocates on both sides, Kingboyk attempted to diffuse the situation by blanking the Project Policy page and tagging it as {{historical}}. Although this unilateral action hasn't been reverted as of the time of writing, the reaction was mixed, with two members rejoining the project and others stating their disagreement. With the issue still not resolved, the page was sent to Miscellany for Deletion, for the wider community (and WikiProject The Beatles members) to consider the issue. Member News The membership list has been trimmed, with inactive members listed seperately to help gauge the status of the project. If you've been incorrectly listed as inactive, please don't be offended - just move yourself back to the main list.	The Rutles: The legendary group who inspired lesser imitators like "The Beatles". WikiWorld, March 2007 From the Editors This has been a tumultuous month for the project yet again. We need your input on how the project should work and what it's role should be. And we need to start getting Featured Articles, folks! :) Next issue This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 013 – May 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing! Contributors to this Issue Kingboyk (Lead Editor) Andresguacamayo (Editor)
Complete To Do List Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

BetacommandBot 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic

Hello Eschoir, I just wanted to remind you to mind the 3RR, which you technically violated on the Free Republic article ([3], [4], [5], [6]) If you persist in reverting before consensus has been formed through discussion, you may be blocked, or banned from the article, as Free Republic is on probation. Please keep a cool head, and thanks for understanding, Prodego ^talk 02:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. FreedomAintFree 02:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Prodego: Thanks for the advice. I disagree. The 3rr prohibits the reversion of a single editor's work. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor" The Freepers are guilty of violation of the 3R by proxy. So far, Fredomaintfree (a Bryan sockpuppet) has reverted me [#1], I reverted him, he reverted me[#2], I reverted him, and then proxy RWR (second editor) reverted me[#3], I reverted him, then third editor reverted me[#4], I replied with new content.

No attempt by the freepers has been made to discuss changes. "When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance."

Check your facts. Thank you for your watchfulness.Eschoir 02:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

All contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User talk:FreedomAintFree may be offensive or unwelcome. In case you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, particularly to userpages. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

Wow. Unsigned! Welcome back Bryan!Eschoir 02:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, sockpuppetry has been a continual problem at this article. The WP:3RR does not require the same editor to be reverted, only the same content. I will try to make sure that this is resolved, I recommend you bring this up on the talk page, and if there is support and no grounded objection after a day or so, add it. In this way consensus is formed and conflict is averted. Prodego ^talk 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I read the 3R rule differently, insofar as the word "editor" is singular. I appreciate your input. Eschoir 03:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FreedomAintFree is banned user BryanFromPalatine

Please follow up on the case I filed. Thanks.64.145.158.163 21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia and Homosexuality

Greetings! Please take a look at those articles. Left-wingers and Nambla members are blatantly trying to censor them. Peer-reviewed, scientific studies have found a clear link between homosexuality and pedophilia. See this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Pedophilia MoritzB 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit War at Son of God

You seem to be involved in a rather heated edit war at Son of God with another user. Not to take sides in any way, but when you use words like "vandalism" in your edit summary inappropriately, it is bad form. Vandalism has a very narrow definition at Wikipedia, and the edits you are contesting are definiately NOT vandalism. They may have other problems, and I take no stand on whether you or the other editor(s) involved are in the right or in the wrong. I am only here to note that 1) edit wars are not healthy 2) content disputes should be hammered out on talk pages rather than by repeated reversions (or near reversions) of the same material and 3) just because you disagree with another editor's opinion, that does not make their work vandalism. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Εύχαριστία

There must be some meaningful way to distinguish the Koine usage of eucharistia in the NT from The Eucharistia (rite). I imagine Latin writers would just quote the Greek, but is there a way to express the difference the defininte article makes in English, but in Greek? Otherwise November 22 becomes American Eucharist.

It has become interesting to me that the thanksgiving aspect of Thannksgiving withered so early in comparison with the dominance of the rememberance aspect.Eschoir 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the thanksgiving aspect can be seen as still dominant for the Christian Churches that have preserved ancient traditions (and that constitute the great majority of Christians). What one might call the essential part of the Eucharistic liturgy, the Eucharistic Prayer or Anaphora part, which follows what is called the Liturgy of the Word or of the Catechumens and the Preparation of the Gifts, is introduced, both in the Latin and Greek rites (if necessary, I could check about the ancient Syrian, Coptic, etc. rites, but I expect they do the same), with the solemn exhortation, "Let us give thanks to the Lord our God." Perhaps it is different in some more recently invented rites with which you may be familiar.

That thanksgiving was already the dominant aspect even before Ignatius wrote his letters is shown by the fact that the term he used as an already established term to refer to the rite that the Wikipedia article is about was "the Thanksgiving" (ἡ εὐχαριστία. In Greek, the article is used with this word to mean both "the thanksgiving" and "the Thanksgiving". In the time of Ignatius, the distinction between upper-case and lower-case had not yet been invented.

You realize, of course, that the Eucharist has many other aspects apart from those of thanksgiving and remembrance, and that speaking of one aspect does not mean ignoring the others. In the popular mind, most attention is given, I suppose, to the aspect of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And there are many others. Lima 04:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It might seem more dominant if "thanksgiving" had been italicized in the article, rather than "remembrance."Eschoir 06:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with something in the article, take it to the talk page and don't address it by leaving inaccurate and insulting edit summaries. Lima fixed your damage already, but "Eucharist" is how it's rendered in the source. (A Protestant source with a decidedly anti-Catholic slant in its commentary, by the way.) It is, in any event, highly nonstandard to transliterate χ with a k.

Unless you reply soon to the issue I raised about your table, I'll be cutting it. It's inaccurate as it stands. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your query on my Talk page concerning what the article is supposed to be about has an obvious answer: it is supposed to be about what is normally understood by "the Eucharist". People do not call "all final meal rituals" (a hypothesis of yours about the subject of the article) the Eucharist. I fear the phrase "all final meal rituals" shows confusion between the Last Supper and the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/etc. The Last Supper was Jesus' final meal. The Eucharist is not a final meal: it, as the article says, the rite* that Christians** (repeatedly) perform in order to fulfil the instruction that they believe Jesus gave at his Last Supper to ...

You ask whether the article is "about the PHRASE, or the WORD". Neither. It is about the rite. Anything it says about the word or phrase or expression or whatever you want to call it is merely ancillary. And much (most?) of what it does say about the word or phrase is due to controversy (to which you have added and continue to add) about the proper term to use to describe the rite.

You complain that you still have no idea of the antecedent for "this" in "Do this in remembrance of me". The article, I repeat, is not about the Last Supper. It is about the rite that most Christians perform in order to fulfil the instruction that they (not Eschoir) believe Jesus gave.

You complain that the article shows "obvious Catholic bias". What your attacks are directed against is the belief of almost all Christians (of whom Catholics are only about half) that Jesus gave instructions to carry out the rite that they perform. The article rightly set out to describe the rite and the belief behind it, but it did not and does not set out to prove that the belief is well-founded, nor to prove it ill-founded, though of course it does tell how far back the belief can be traced and it reports on controversies about the belief. That is not bias, one way or the other. On the other hand, your interventions certainly seem to have the one precise aim of proving the belief unfounded (they sometimes give me the impression - but that surely cannot be - of suggesting that the rite really does not even exist!) and work must then be done on the article to make your affirmations neutral and objective or at least to balance the bias you introduce.

* I have left in the article your addition of "or act of worship" that I think is not only unnecessary but unhelpful; in comparison to some of the profound alterations that I am slowly remedying, this is a decidedly minor defect.

** "Christians" does not have to mean absolutely all Christians. "Most" was added only on your insistence. Lima 08:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous reply. I find it hopelessly confusing as to goals. However, if you can get language to stick in the first paragraph stating that this article is not a critical or scholarly examination of the history or origins of the liturgy or liturgies, but merely about what is normally understood by "the Eucharist" in snapshot form across the denominations, I wiill fold my tent and steal silently away. That is a useless article, and one not deserving of my time.Eschoir 13:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Don't presume to lecture me on any subject, particularly this one, and in such a puerile manner. You don't have the slightest clue about how to evaluate sources. Not all are equally neutral, not all are equally useful, and not all receive equal consideration. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I take that as your declaration of war against WP:NPOV, the most important principle of Wiki.Eschoir 14:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a declaration that you haven't the slightest glimmer of understanding of what you're talking about. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So enlighten the glimmerless. With all due respect, are you saying "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors" means sourced views must be neutral, and it falls to you to evaluate other editor's sourced contributions as to whether they are are neutral enough, and significant enough to be worthy of equal consideration with your views?

I'm really conducting this Socratic inquiry for your own good.Eschoir 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a valid Socratic inquiry. A Socratic inquiry proceeds gradually and carefully from first principles, ensuring (among other matters) that all understand the terms in use in the same way before proceeding to a new question. With regard to this question you have shown that you do not understand what is meant by "reliable sources" and have further demonstrated an unwillingness to be educated. For example, you continue to insist, despite repeated explanations to which you have not bothered to reply in any substantive way, that obsolete sources are as reliable now as they were at the time they were written. In essence, you appear to understand it to mean sources in agreement with the point of view you want to push. You also don't understand what is meant by original research, as indicated by the fact that it's plainly at issue, but you don't mention it here. Without meaning to, you have skipped a step in your inquiry.

You also need to consult WP:CONSENSUS. As I said, there would have been much less friction all around here were you willing to actually discuss issues raised. Instead, we find you editing articles willy-nilly (often in violation of WP:POINT and WP:SELF) while leaving issues raised on the talk page unanswered -- and then you feign shock when other editors act accordingly! Please take some time to learn to work with others, and you'll have an easier time here, assuming you get past the sockpuppet discussion. (A "secret denunuciation" that Lima announced to you on your talk page, after discussing it publicly with me on mine? How do you expect to be taken seriously, saying such things?)

But, to nibble on the bait, no. However, biased sources cannot be presented as if they are neutral, or on equal footing with those that are; views contrary to the overall consensus of scholarship should be represented as such; and those that are thoroughly discredited or obsolete don't represent "significant views" in any meaningful sense. My views are neither here nor there, but yes, the neutrality and significance of any source is up for discussion by any editor at all. Part of the problem is, as I said, that you haven't really been willing to discuss these things. It's not as if I haven't tried. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your nibble. I must plead disability (for the first time publically) in nnnot beinig able to reply as facilely and in as great length as I once would have. You may have nnnoticed problems in my typing. I might spend mor time in talk were it not for the painful tremors which limit my right-hand movement and make editing torture.

Socratic inquiry was something less tahn you described when I went to Law School.

Assuming this is true: biased sources cannot be presented as if they are neutral, or on equal footing with those that are; views contrary to the overall consensus of scholarship should be represented as such; and those that are thoroughly discredited or obsolete don't represent "significant views" in any meaningful sense, you are not (or rather your words are not) the ones in which to evaluate the sources and dole out the consideration of article content except pperhaps in Talk. Isn't our official role neutrality, with the caveat that we can print sourced views that say what we would like to say in contravention of the puerile nonsense that that other jerkball editor just posted? Isn't that what distinguishes Wiki from a partisan bulletin board, like Free Republic?

I actually disagree with your formulation as accurately describing wiki. Biased sources can be and routiinely are presented as if they are neutral, or on equal footing with those that are, many times because the editor is similarly biassed (true believers are in this category) and doesn't see it, and must be countered by views from published secondary and tertiary sourcesthat recognize the bias, reference it, and explain it; views contrary to the overall consensus of scholarship must be represented as such by published sources (themselves open to criticism of bias), and not original content; and you and I haven't the authority to edit content that is thoroughly discredited or obsolete except to add content from publlished secondary or tertiary sources which points out the shortcomings of the disfavored views. Therefore, you, or you and an ally, are not authorized to judge what comprises "significant views" in any meaningful sense.

We ahve to lay out the facts, sort out the published views, and hope the reader will reach the conclusions we prefer, but we can't publilsh our own conclusions, even those based on our excellent understanding of primary sources. That's a chat room.

Bias, even majoritarian, consensus bias (the most dangerous kind) will eventually be smoked out if it is not allowed to censor criticism for being insignnificant. Eschoir 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson wrote, "Anyone who writes, except for money, is a blockhead." Eschoir 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Socratic inquiry is no doubt approached differently in law school than in philosophy. But the undefined term is a way for a mistaken conclusion to appear regardless of approach.

I enjoy a reasoned argument, but an argument where one side employs tactics like shifting ground is annoying. Clearly, in context, that which you quoted from me was about writing a neutral article; "cannot" meant one cannot do that thing and still be adhering to the neutrality principle. It did not mean that it absolutely could not be done, and no one reading it in good faith would take it that way. I know perfectly well that people do this, and it's rather insulting that you think you need to tell me so.

You are simply lying when you say I'm trying to suppress contrary views. What I want to remove is the allocation of undue weight to them. In the humanities, it's frequently the case that one must evaluate an overall consensus of a field in order to decide how to weight different views. We here are in no position to form a judgment on what that consensus ought to be, which is what we'd have to do to remove any "majoritarian bias" -- a term which, incidentally, has no application in this field; it's a purely legal notion. Determining the majority view is exactly how one determines what the primary view of this kind of subject is, whether we agree with it or not. For example: You want to say that there is no evidence of Jesus' existence from contemporary extra-Biblical records? Fine, that's exactly the case. You want to say the first Gospels were not written down for several decades after the events they purport to record? Do that; it's what the consensus says. That there are no extant NT manuscripts from the 1st century? As much as I'd like Professor Thiede's dating of the Magdalen papyrus to be correct, the weight of scholarship is heavily against it, and that's not only what we must report, it's what I'd insist on were anyone silly enough to argue otherwise. (In the case of the article on the papyrus itself, Thiede's views must be given prominence since his claim about it is the chief reason for its notoriety.)

Again, this is a field where much progress has been made since the 1940s, and citing a source from that time as if it were valid today, when the bulk of scholarship between now and then comes down against it, is invalid. We are not, in that case, dealing with a reliable source. We might as well cite 19th century physics textbook and report in heat that the flow of caloric just might be responsible for heat transfer even though modern secondary and tertiary sources will say nothing of the kind. It's absurd.

But I see you have a record of insisting on absurdities, as you did for the footnoting of the correct translation of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ at Son of God, where you're being equally trollish and equally determined to give Crossan's views the same weight as the balance of scholarship. Ridiculous.

Samuel Johnson was an ass. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are simply lying when you say I'm trying to suppress contrary views. What I want to remove is the allocation of undue weight to them. Content certainly doesn't have undue weight when it is deleted. Eschoir 00:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

With regard to this question you have shown that you do not understand what is meant by "reliable sources" and have further demonstrated an unwillingness to be educated. For example, you continue to insist, despite repeated explanations to which you have not bothered to reply in any substantive way, that obsolete sources are as reliable now as they were at the time they were written. I seaarched WP:RS for the term 'obsolete' and found no iterations. I searched wiki for Encyclopedia Britannica and found an aarticle devooted to the excellence of its content, even back to the 11th edition. I searched Eucharist and see your collective citations of a 1915 encyclopedia. Eschoir 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That encyclopedias go obsolete after a time is the nature of the beast -- actually the nature of any reference set in print -- and it happens no matter how excellent it may be in presenting the state of knowledge on a subject at the time they went to press. That's why they come out with new editions, and why we don't use the 11th edition Britannica as a reliable source.

The article actally says "The 1911 Encyclopædia can continue to be a resource for readers well into the 21st century with some care and discretion in using it." These errors cause me to question your reading comprehension. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Many encyclopedias even issue annual supplements to correct information that has become obsolete over the prior year.

One discovers very little by using simple-minded word searches. If one actually reads WP:RS one finds, at WP:RS#Scholarship:

Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic. (Emphasis mine.)

That "more recent research" contradicts your old source is exactly the problem

Name three research-connected contradictions - as opposed to connclusions based on alterenate interpretations of preexistinig primaary sources. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

otherwise there would be little to object to its use.

That's what I am saying.Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You could have short-circuited all of this by instead citing a modern secondary source for the POV you want to push.

Like Crossan, or the Jesus Seminar?Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Where there are "alternative scholarly explanations" we of course should mention them -- but not as if they were the primary scholarly explanation.

How do you propose to measure the "primary scholarly explanation?"Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is what I've been saying all along. (Crossan is a secondary source only to the extent he describes the evidence. He is a primary source for his own analysis and synthesis.

Thats just silly. He's a wiki secondary source until he starts editing here.Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The salient point is the breadth of scholarly acceptance of his theories, not how loudly he shouts them out. If he, or a very small coterie surrounding him, is the sole exponent of a theory, it's not worth a mention;

Not even a mention? Prof Thihede getsa mention. And you made up the breadth argument. The word used is 'significant' views.Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

no more than we ought to mention -- to bring back my earlier example -- Prof. Thiede's theory on the date for the earliest Gospel ms. Although he shouted very loudly about it indeed, and although I would very much like for it to be true, it has not found acceptance among even a significant minority of paleographers.)

There is no "1915 encyclopedia" being cited.

Do some research on the international standard bible encyclopedia Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The only source around that age actually in use is the old Catholic Encyclopedia, actually completed in 1914, and it is indeed a source that must be used with caution. However, I think you will discover that Catholic theology has not changed all that much in many particulars over the past century, Vatican II notwithstanding. Certainly their Eucharistic theology hasn't changed. Even so, you will note it is not the only source mentioned for the statement it is cited to support.

So its OK to cite old Catholic theology but not other old theology because research has changed it. HmmmEschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I note the date on the citation of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia is 1915 -- but the source itself gives a copyright date of 1939.

Right, and Luke gives an authorship of "Luke" - doesn'nt make it so.Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The same standard applies there regardless. It's usable when not contradicted by more recent scholarship. I know of no scholarship that contradicts the statements sourced from it, that the Eucharist occurred at the end of the agape, and that at the agape other food and drink were enjoyed.

Didache 10 has no bread or wine mentioned, beginning middle or end. But what of it?

Surely we don't have to be stupid about evaluating sources. If the consensus of more recent scholarship contradicts an old source, then it's obsolete.

But how do you measure consensus except subjectively, like an online poll?Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If not, then not. That 19th century physics textbook, so faulty on the subject of heat transfer, would be perfectly reliable as a source for Newton's laws of motion, which are still used now as they were then. The only amplification we'd need from more recent scholarship is that they're valid only under non-relativistic conditions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in going on here. This has descended to the level of idiocy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eschoir for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Sorry, but on long reflection I find I must do this. I hope indeed that my suspicion is unfounded. The link given above should surely read Wikipedia: Suspected sock puppets/Fairness And Accuracy For All. Lima 16:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, a secret denunciation. How perfectly inquisitorial.Eschoir 16:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply to my "secret denunciation". Where can I learn something of the "Bryan from Palatine investigation"? Lima 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:BryanFromPalatine - User:DeanHinnen

Eschoir 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's just cut this off so no one wastes any more time. Eschoir contributed to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic, and I'm sure that he was closely scrutinized at that time as a possible sockpuppet of FaAfA. So we can all assume that he's not FaAfA, unless some very strong and compelling evidence can be supplied to tie him to FaAfA. This case lacks such evidence, so I'm closing it. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All" Eschoir 05:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page

C.Logan wanted support in an argument where the sources are fairly clear, in dealing with a troll who is insisting on his own way regardless of what any source says. It's my expertise in secondary sources he was interested in. As it happens, those already cited are more than sufficient; the troll is simply refusing to acknowledge them. If you haven't bothered to check out the problem and therefore have nothing meaningful to contribute but a personal slam, please keep out of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, please go away if you have nothing useful to say. The problem is not a lack of citations, which have been supplied in plenty. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what was said. Why you do that I have no idea, since anyone looking (as if they cared) can see what's really there for themselves. I said nothing at all about my "opinion", and that's not what was asked for. Your implication that I had nothing to offer but an "opinion" -- a term you introduced -- is a slam, yes.

What really comes from you not taking a minute or so to check out the situation is that the anon user Logan talked about was trying to introduce his own unsupported claim into the article. Your suggestion that there be footnotes to justify leaving something out that doesn't belong there is astonishing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an unsupported claim, it wwas a poorly supported claim of some signicance. A footnote sourcing Mme Blavatsky would be self rebuttinig. Eschoir 06:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping I read you correctly. Unfortunately, the user didn't seem to take this (comparatively) easy route; from the beginning, he simply dismissed her citation; possibly because he assumed that we could cite those sources directly simply because Blavatsky did so. Obviously, however, this individual must have blinders on, because the text does not support Blavatsky unless one is willing to suspend rational thought. In any case, there are a myriad of other policies to be considered, and there doesn't seem to be satisfaction of them on any level. The verdict appears to be a simple case of mad OR and repetitive disruption. On Jesus, at least, he can be ignored (as it is semi-protected). Iaso, however, has already fetched him a 3RR block.--C.Logan 07:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if the troll TCC was talking about was me. I haven't messed the criticism of christianity page partly because of being gang banged by TCC and the Dan guy. It's basically two verse one. My concern is simply showing images of people being burned alive at the stake, mouths stuffed no less, along with Galileo being put on trial in front of many priests. The unfortunate parties were guilty of belief in other worlds. This was erased because..... Well there was no sufficient reason. The page now contains terrible sourced information from a theologian named Ted Peters, which is no different then me quoting my neighbor down the street who wrote a book and volunteers teaching at a community college. The truth of the matter is that what's happened over the past 2,000 years to men of scicence who worked their ass off, only to have their worked burned and discarded and then killed.... is unfortunate. IF they were alive now, they'd be fighting for me to do something... and to not counter the argument Dan and TCC make that "this didnt happen to everyone" Biblical1 (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Question

Eschoir, I would be glad to help you with your question. However, situations like the hypothetical one you asked about do not happen in a vacuum, and I need more information before I would be willing to offer my opinion. On what article are you (or whomever) wanting to insert the sentence "the Last Supper as referenced in Mark and Matthew is set as a Passover meal"? And at what point in the article? Again, I am happy to help out, just need a little more background. Pastordavid (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Language(s) of Jesus

As a token of my willingness to cooperate, I bring this article to your kind attention. Lima (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your 2nd Question

In regards to your question: the question you are asking is one that the texts that we have cannot answer. To answer it would be pure speculation. The New Testament was written 99% in Greek, which does have definite articles. We do not have any aramic primary sources about the life of Jesus, and thus we have no idea what they would say. Pastordavid (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

eucharist

Eschoir, they are in fact accurate. I actually went on Amazon.com to search within the book. Harris quotes the passage and then I searched the translation of the Bacchae for it as well... thanks for defending them. 68.58.71.152 (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles

Your user name is on the “Inactive, or have just popped out for a cup of tea...” list on the Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles page. You can move it back to the “Participants” list if you feel this is not the case. :) -- WikiProject The Beatles 15:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Eucharist (Origins)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Eucharist (Origins), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Eucharist. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima

Help me on purgatory and I'll help you on eucharist. Shoot, I might help you on eucharist anyway. Seriously, what can be done? Leadwind 05:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty to do on Eucharist and Didache. These pages are terrible. Underway. My copy of Harris is 1985. Harris added lots of tangential material over the years, and I haven't found the Tiresias reference in my 17-years-previous copy. Leadwind (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tower of Babel

Could you please give me a hand on talk:Tower of Babel? Leadwind (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory

Thanks for offering your comment over at Purgatory. As you probably have noticed, things are pretty complex over there, and the article is kinda messy from having been a battleground for so long.

I was wondering if I could impose upon you, if you're feeling a tad braver, to give me some feedback on a rewrite I did. I tried, in so far as possible, to just go through and clean things up, doing some organizing, and trying hard to avoid unexplained jargon. I think it's simple and easy-to-understand, whereas the current version is likely to be very hard for a lay audience to understand on a first reading, ue to its widespread use of unexplained jargon. I filed an Earlier RFC, but it's sorta gotten buried beneath all the debating.

Do you think the proposed rewrite would be an improvement over the current version?

I _think_ every single sentence is the rewrite is verifiable, and furthermore, even though I haven't added the all cites in yet, I _think_ I know where to find a cite to justify every single sentence. I'd be willing to try to push this toward GA/FA if we can generate a consensus about the direction this thing should go and that the rewrite is a step in the right direction.

So far, all the experienced editors that have responded to my RFC thought the rewrite was, indeed, a step in the right direction, but some of the established editors on the page feel strongly the rewrite is unacceptable, so I don't want to make controversial changes without a firmer consensus.

Do you think the rewrite would be an improvement? --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Final warning

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. The edit that concerns us is here. Eschoir, your off-Wiki history with Free Republic is well-known and raises WP:COI concerns. Making edits like this one only serves to hand ammunition to the people expressing such concerns. Since the article is already under probation, a ban from the article would be in order. Please stop immediately. 68.29.195.234 (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Another anonymous threat! Bryan, is that you? Eschoir (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling me "Bryan," or otherwise stating or implying that I am a sockpuppet, is a personal attack because it falsely accuses me of committing a bannable offense. This is a violation of WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Please stop immediately. The next violation will be reported to WP:ANI, and I will seek a 24-Hour block and permanent ban from the article. If you want to make an accusation, WP:RFCU is the place to do it. 70.9.56.94 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Shibumi2 UNBLOCKED

Since you've expressed an interest in this case, I thought you might like to know that Shibumi2 has been unblocked by the Checkuser Admin who ran the RFCU on him in the first place. See for yourself, Eschoir. I hope we can all get along and write a good article. 70.9.56.94 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy damn, you are a name from way back! Saw your post on Talk:Mike Huckabee complaining about FR. You were a relic of FR legend when I used to post there at the first of the millennium.

Hasn't it been ten years since your war with Jim? And you are still obsessed with FR. How pitiful. I have got to show your posts to a few of my friends on another website, who haven't let go of things after being banned just last year.

Haven't you heard? FR is dead. It's a joke. It is a shadow of its former self. It is filled with anti-science anti-logic wackos who are obsessed with "them damn Messicans" and abortion and to hell with smaller government.

You are sledgehammering roadkill.

signed by a former Freeper   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.69.175 (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 

ArbCom Enforcement

I have reported your disruptive editing pattern at Free Republic to ArbCom Enforcement. You have been warned repeatedly. 68.31.123.238 (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This matter has now been posted on WP:RfAr under the "Requests for clarification" section. As an arbitrator, I would welcome your response there, as the concerns raised are extremely serious. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Samuria Commuter

Could you please present your evidence for thinking that Samurai Commuter is BryanFromPalatine at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement? Thanks, Picaroon (t) 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to collect my thoughts - do I just drop them in whole at the administrator's noticeboard? Eschoir (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I'd recommend (sorry if it seems a bit process-heavy): Create a page at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets with your evidence, following the instructions there; then, create a new section at the noticeboard requesting enforcement of the ban and linking to the evidence (this will get the attention of admins who regularly deal with enforcing bans); and finally, leave a note at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Free Republic linking to both the report and the section at the noticeboard (so the arbitrators are on the same page). Picaroon (t) 02:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please obtain consensus on the Free Republic Talk page before making substantive edits, since the article is on Arbcom probation. Also, a member of the Arbitration Committee named Newyorkbrad asked you two days ago to explain your troubling editing pattern on that article. I suggest that if you have the time to edit the article, you should invest the time to explain your editing pattern to a member of the Arbitration Cmmittee who has asked for an explanation. Thanks. Samurai Commuter (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. The article is Free Republic. Your next revert will be reported as a WP:3RR violation and you will be blocked. Samurai Commuter (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. B (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments here. --B (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Actually I don't appeal the block. We post at the pleasure of the admins. This article needs more administrative supervision, not less. I just want to make the point regarding your comments, that my Free Republic v FreeRepublic edit is not bizarre, and has been talked about weeks ago. There has to be a way to distinguish the LLC from the website - they are not necessarily congruent. The LLC is the spaced version.

The removal of unverifiable material sourced to anonymous blogs should be deleted even if the article were not on probation.

Decline reason:

I happen to agree with you on this matter and I hope this clarity you have about the situation will continue this time tommorow. I hope that you can resolve the problems with the article without the need for edit wars. — Trusilver 08:02, 21 January 2008 (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.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider regarding your editing pattern at Free Republic to the evidence sub-page. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page. Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've still got this talk page watchlisted from the other day ... and I'm scratching my head trying to figure it out - what in the world does waterboarding have to do with the Free Republic? --B (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing directly, beyond being major political/conservative hot potatos. FR is self-interest for BFP as their main apparent legal bulldog/whatever, and waterboarding like Peter Roskam before and who knows what else is his new Wikipedia pet project. Lawrence § t/e 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Full court press edit warring, my friend. Eschoir (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer college football analogies, please. ;) --B (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, a Hail Mary pass, then. Eschoir (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Whatever you mean with that last post, I don't think I'm getting it. Please copy it to the Evidence page. Lawrence § t/e 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP). Dchall1 (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP)

I have nominated Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Dchall1 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for the encouragement; I have more edits coming .. :-) John Vandenberg (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm finished for the moment, and I have commented on the talk and the AFD. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

mongo

Does it matter that BFP called himself Mongo at [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/518536/posts?page=110#110 free repuublic]

user:Lima RfC

Eschoir, I'm finally going to open an RfC on Lima. I'm logging issues on my talk page. Would you be able to pitch in? Leadwind (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The place for you to express again your views on Lima is User:Leadwind/LimaRFC. Lima (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm building up the RfC. Any diffs you could provide would be helpful. Leadwind (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic amended

In light of continued disputes, remedy 4 adopted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic is amended by adding:

"Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable editing restriction (for example, 1RR) or page ban upon any editor who repeatedly engages in disruptive or uncivil editing of Free Republic or any closely related page. Prior to imposing such a ban or restriction, a warning should be given on the affected user's talkpage. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans."

All editors, particularly including single purpose accounts and editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest, are strongly urged to edit Free Republic and related articles only in conformity with all Wikipedia policies and with this committee's prior decision. If the enhanced administrator authority provided in this ruling does not improve the situation on this article after 30 days, a request for a more formal Arbitration Committee review may be submitted.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

layout adjustment on AN/AE

Hi, I've adjusted the layout of your comment on AN/AE as it was hard to follow which part was being quoted. Can you check I didnt alter the meaning of your post.[7] --John Vandenberg (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Theories about the origin of the Eucharist reverts

Please don't threaten me with 3RR. I'm only on my second revert; Lima's edits are his own. You, however, have violated 3RR: one, two, three. And you've been banned for 3RR/edit warring before, so watch it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Prodego disagrees with your interpretation.

I understand your concerns, sockpuppetry has been a continual problem at this article. The WP:3RR does not require the same editor to be reverted, only the same content. I will try to make sure that this is resolved, I recommend you bring this up on the talk page, and if there is support and no grounded objection after a day or so, add it. In this way consensus is formed and conflict is averted. Prodego ^talk 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I also havee not violated the 3RR. Why are you reverting my corrections to the attribution to this quote?Eschoir (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Origin of the Eucharist. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Eucharist

Several of your recent comments on the talk page of the above article are at best dubiously in keeping with wikipedia guidelines regarding such matters, as indicated at WP:TALK. Please limit your comments to those which adhere to this guideline. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that in an edit summary on the Eucharist page you ask: "Why not leave origins to the origins page?" I agree fully. May I - if you do not want to do it yourself - return the head section on History of the Eucharist to how it was on 29 June? Lima (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I have come to believe that you were referring to the information recently added to the lead. On that too I am fully in agreement. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are out of place in a lead and, along with the other matter that I referred to, belong in the origins page. Cheers. Lima (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

approaching 3rr violation

I'm hereby letting you know that you have reverted Eucharist three times within 24 hours, and any further reversion will violate wp:3rr. (Of course you are well aware of this.) Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Eschoir. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Eucharist. Thank you. lifebaka++ 17:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are all these changes approaching 3RR again?

Again on Eucharist we are seeing changes today contrary to a looooong discussion among 4 editors (yourself + 3) in which your desired edit was not accepted. Please use a "lead us not into an edit war temptation" approach and discuss issues on talk with the 3 other editors who have been discussing with you. Remember: "all roads from edit wars lead to blocks". Please avoid reverts and changes against talk page discussions. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR breach

I am sorry Eschoir, but despite the very the clear message above, you have now crossed WP:3RR on Eucharist, a bright line rule I should say. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, a notice was posted here on WP:ANI regarding this 3RR situation. Sorry, but I did advise you to avoid it beforehand. History2007 (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[8][9], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=79818120 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Giving time to respond to proposals on talk

In answer to your question on the Talk-page for Eucharist, my position is as follows. In the case of a small and relatively insignificant 'non-controversial' edit, I should be perfectly happy for people to go ahead at once. If it involved a major re-write of a section or subsection, I should alert interested editors with a post to the Talk-page indicating at least the general idea, and possibly a proposed first draft. I would then wait a few days, to see if there were any reactions. However, once it was clear that an edit would probably be questioned (or even if I had grounds for thinking that it might well be) and unless there were outstanding reasons for removing a totally misleading assertion, I should certainly wait three days unless there were quick responses from other editors.Jpacobb (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA breach

You are clearly in breach of WP:NPA in this edit. You had been told to avoid WP:NPA violations before. History2007 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks on another editor, as seen here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Chris (talk) 18:14, 8 February 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).

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

---

Request reason:

If I am to be disciplined, please let me for proper reason: accusing others of bad faith. The complaining party had just posted completely wrongheaded application of WP:COMMONNAME, not displaying any comprehension that the policy only applied to article titles, my reply was that that comment must be in bad faith. The alternative, that he'd read that policy and did not understand that it applied only to article titles, would invite comparisons with his reading comprehension and that of an invertebrate crustacean, a contention which I rejected. when another editor responded to 'assume good faith,' I asked the 2nd editor whether he therefore thought the complaining witness demonstrated defective reading comprehension and again expressed that it wasn't my opinion. So if I am to be suspended at the record show that was for assuming bad faith, which by the way, it's not usually sufficient grounds for suspension, in my view (using my prawn- like reading comprehension)! Eschoir (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Eh, no. You're selectively quoting yourself. You said that a person had either edited in bad faith, or had the reading comprehension of a prawn. That is a personal insult either way you look at it. Dancing around and playing word games here isn't helping you in the slightest. The block, and its reasoning, is absolutely valid. If you want to avoid further blocks of this nature, comment on other editors' actions, not the editors themselves. That also means that you must avoid negative speculation about other editors' intelligence. -- Atama頭 22:13, 8 February 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.

I am sorry, but you have now also agreed that you have willingly forgone WP:AGF. If this is unblocked, it will be an invitation for further personal attacks by his user, e.g. as in this edit summary. These personal attacks and innuendo driven comments by Eschoir about my lack of intelligence must stop here not be encouraged. History2007 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My dear friend seems to be crying out for official feedback about the WP:COMMONNAMES policy. Could we have an official interpretation of whether that policy is limited to Article NamesEschoir (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eschoir reported by User:Lionelt (Result: )'s talk page. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Eschoir, I'm a firm believer that everyone has something to add to this project. However, in reviewing your battleground activities, your continual edit-warring, snide remarks and personal attacks, your extreme failure to acknowledge consensus, and an overall failure to live by the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, I'm honestly scratching my head trying to find a good reason why you have not yet been indefinitely blocked from this project before now. Let me rephrase that as a question: can you give me one reason not to indefinitely block you from this project for continual disruption? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

One good reason would be that it would be wrong, on procedural due process and substantive due process grounds. Make that two good reasons. Lionelt has reported 5 "reverts," none of which hold up to scrutiny. First revert is actually changing a paraphrase of the source into a direct quote of the source, while eliminating references to primary sources (eg, I Corinthians) bolstering POV arguments of the editor, not relying on secondary sources. 2nd & 3rd "reverts" are actually an accommedation to the removal of the citation of the primary source by moving the table displaying the primary sources including the Corinthians source in context in parallel columns [originally produced by me four years ago] higher in the article to allow readers to decide for themselves what the primary source said]. "revert" 4 eliminate a redundancy in another New testament reference covered by the table as well as an unsourced claim and is not a reversion. "revert" 5 is simply not a reversion, is an attempt to flesh out a paraphrase of a source, from the source, a point which I actually don't agree and it's not my point of view, nor I think the point of view of that person making the complaint.

In addition, the complainant is required to document his attempt to work it out on the talkpage which he has not done. You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

My repeated attempts to get other editors to discuss content, talkpages have the perverse result of being used against me. I used the term, editors, when there's really only one other editor, Esoglou, who is currently under sanction, and who used to be sanctioned under the handle LimA. Lionelt's involvememnt stems from a cry for allies at the Christiannity noticeboard:

Origin of the Eucharist 2

History2007 has referred above to a past problem with the article Origin of the Eucharist. The problem is again as acute as ever. Only two editors are active in opposing the lone editor about whose apparent aims I say nothing. I would be grateful if editors with greater knowledge than I have about Wikipedia rules would give advice. One solution with which I am toying is to let the lone editor have free rein, so that nobody then reading the article would take it seriously. Esoglou (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing I am not sure about is this. Does Eschoir have a possible WP:COI issue there? That may be one way to resolve it. As I said before, I have 1,500 pages on my watchlist, so I can not get involved in details there right now, and that is why we need a general 9-1-1 call system or a Mayday button (perhaps built into the WikiProject Christianity banner) as Lionel suggested so editors can be called for help. History2007 (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What an interesting idea: add it to the banner. Well, if you like the "Click here in case of emergency" button I just added to the top of this talk page, it should be relatively easy to add the button to the banner. It would take a consensus, of course, and we'd want to coordinate with John's redesign of the banner. – Lionel ^(talk) 12:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt has helped very much, and I express my appreciation. As for Eschoir, I think he just enjoys stirring others up. In the past, another favourite target of his was Free Republic (see the archived talk pages). Esoglou (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Foor these reasonns thiis action should be dismissed with prejudice.Eschoir (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Eschoir, do you have the required WP:COMPETENCE to edit this project? You have copy/pasted the same argument in 2 separate places. Indeed, you improperly copy/pasted conversation from other locations into it. This is improper, and indeed provides more proof that a block is a necessity to further protect this project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So do you think it proper to go to a special interest noticeboard and call for establishment of a "9-1-1 call system or a Mayday button (perhaps built into the WikiProject Christianity banner) as Lionel suggested so editors can be called for help" ginning up a lynch mob? And do you think it proper that Lionelt responded to this latter day Henry II's complaint "Will nobody rid me of this troublesome priest?" within 18 hours with a oomplaint - while claiming to be a disinterested editor? Is that WP:PROPER now? CHEERS!Eschoir (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You're disruptive. You don't acknowledge consensus. If someone has to call for help somewhere, then that's a sign. I think we have three options here: 1) you don't edit any articles related to Chsitrianity, broadly construed (in other words, a topic ban which unfortunately might just shift the root problems somewhere else); 2) an indef block, or 3) you agree to be mentored (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What a coincidence! I just out up a { {helpme } } notice at the top of the page! Will you be my mentor?Eschoir (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Lima/Esoglou accused me of sockpuppetry, admitted to sockpuppetry with Soidi and others

What else did I miss?

Report date December 20 2009, 15:01 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Soidi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Decahill (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• LCahill (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by JPBHarris

user:Lima has been subject to a sockpuppet investigation once before [10] which revealed that user:Lima was using a sockpuppet account user:Platia. This account was block indefinitely and user:Lima was given a warning (by user:NuclearWarfare on his talk page “Because of your editing with the account Platia and Soidi in the same topic area, and because you denied that the Platia account was not yours here (which was proved false at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lima), I have blocked the Platia account indefinitely. Please regard this as a firm warning to abide by the sockpuppetry policy.” [11]

Account user:Soidi was an account created by user:Lima on July 21 2007. This was a sockpuppet account until November 9 2008 when a reference was added to it from the master account user:lima user page [12].

Since the last sockpuppet investigation user:Lima has created another Sockpuppet account user:Decahill. He has ignored NW’s warning and edited articles with this sockpuppet account (and both his other accounts: user:Lima, user:Soidi) in the same topic area:

Decahill & Lima Irish_Catholic_Bishops'_Conference

Decahill, Soidi & Platia (blocked account) Seán_Brady - updated JPBHarris (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Decahill & Soidi Giuseppe_Leanza

Decahill & Lima Roberto_González_Nieves

Decahill & Soidi Luis_Aponte_Martínez

Decahill, Soidi & Lima Óscar_Andrés_Rodríguez_Maradiaga

Even though the last investigation concluded that the use of account user:Soidi was now acceptable (provided it was not used in the same topic area) I feel this now needs to be reviewed given the above evidence.

One article Óscar_Andrés_Rodríguez_Maradiaga has been edited by all three accounts. user:Lima cannot claim ignorance, he has been warned on previous occasions about the use of sockpuppet accounts by user:NuclearWarfare and several times by user ADM both of whom have made the user aware of Wikipedia policy on sockpuppets. user:ADM thinks that user:LCahill is also a sockpuppet [13].

In addition user:Lima has misled other users about his accounts: He refused a request by user:Leadwind to participate in the Catholic Church article claiming he no longer participates in the article; but he does participate by using his user:Soidi account - it would not be possible to edit the article with both accounts due to sockpuppetry policy. However, user:Lima then continues to canvas user:Leadwind [[14]] to add comments to an RFC [15], one in which user:Soidi had already participated, but could not leave a comment on user:Leadwind’s talk page because of possible Wikipedia:Canvassing accusations. Hence, account user:Lima was used to do this instead.

JPBHarris (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

I can confirm that what user:JPBHarris says is accurate, since I was the first one to openly speak about the existence of multiple accounts for this one user. ADM (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't see the evidence of deception that JPBHarris claims. As far as a quick glance shows, User:Soidi did not edit Catholic Church after user:Lima said he would probably not do so in future. I may have missed something, could we have diffs please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhomb (talk • contribs) 07:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that user:Soidi has not yet edit Catholic Church after User:Lima said he would probably would not. The fact is user:Lima cannot edit because it would be seen as a violation of sockpuppet policy. user:Soidi has edited a related RFC [16] and directed user:Leadwind to comment on it using the user:Lima account [17]. JPBHarris (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and which "Community ban or sanction" (code E) is Lima under? Rhomb (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit unsure of the category but sanction evasion seemed the most appropriate. Basically user:NuclearWarfare warn user:Lima about the inappropriate use of sockpuppet accounts (and his denial when challenged) on his user page [18]. His sockpuupet account user:Platia was blocked. user:Lima has ignored this warning and continued creating more sockpuppet accounts. If E is not appropriate I can change it to "(code F): repeat violation of sockpuppetry policy after receiving a warning & block over account use." if you think it more appropriate. JPBHarris (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that JPBHarris (talk · contribs), who filed this case, did so on his third ever edit. Something is not right here. Rhomb (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I did not see that. Good eye. –MuZemike 22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests

{{RFCU|F|No2ndletter|Checked}}    Requested by JPBHarris (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 Relisted to check on the filer. Again, a brand new user whose first edits are to create an SPI case is likely WP:PLAXICO. –MuZemike 22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

SatDen (talk · contribs) is  Likely related to JPBHarris (talk · contribs). I have no idea about any masters, though. It's Tiscali, so... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed Lima (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

• Soidi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Decahill (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

LCahill (talk · contribs) is a bit more complicated. The other three accounts all use the same UAs as the others at various times, and there is a lot of overlap with IP addresses, way more than there should be given how dynamic their connection is. LChahill uses only one UA, and while his/her IP ranges are close to the others, they are never in the same /16 as the others. On the other hand, they have edited a lot of the same pages, so I am not absolutely positive. Still, technical evidence appears to indicate that s/he is  Unrelated, or at best, very  Unlikely. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk note: I probably should not have endorsed this CheckUser request as I forgot to look at the socks' userpages, in which Soidi and Decahill were declared alternate accounts of Lima. I'll look into it a bit more if I get time, but right now I am reluctant on blocking at the moment. –MuZemike 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

• Left final warning for master and indefed Decahill. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator note User:SatDen indefinitely blocked, and User:JPBHarris warned not to use socks again. –MuZemike 22:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC) {{SPIclose|archive}}

---

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Block notice

Ok, so after issues on WP:AN3, my sincere attempts to guide you in the right direction, and now two separate incidents on WP:ANI, it's now unfortunate that it is necessary to protect this project from your behaviour. Specifically, your failure to follow WP:CONSENSUS, your edit warring, and general lack of WP:COMPETENCE (for example, you're continously copy/pasting other pages off of Wikipedia here, AN3, various talkpages). I even asked you to give me one good reason why you should not be blocked, and you failed to do so - you wikilwayered instead. I suggested you be mentored, yet you did not take the necessary steps to do so. Because of the damage and disruption you are bringing to this project, you are indefinitely blocked. This means you, the person, are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. If you wish to be unblocked, you may read the guide to appealing blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I acknowlege and affirm your responsibility to protect the project. I will take the time to learn the unblocking procedure and do it properly. I obviously did not learn the proper way to take the necessary steps to be mentored. I thought it was obvious that I had agreed, and left it with my help request and my expression that you might take the job.Eschoir (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:34, 16 March 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Indefinite suspension incomensurate with the offense and counter to the stated Wiki goal of increasing the number of editors - note there is no evidence of sockpuppetru in the 9 months I have been blocked - and I was even awarded a posthumous Barnstar! Eschoir (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Actually indefinite suspension is appropriate when the community judges that the account will continue to be disruptive if unblocked. Wikipedia does not have a goal of increasing the number of disruptive editors. It's commendable that you haven't socked and that someone awarded you a barnstar. However, in your unblock request you didn't address the reasons for your block and what you might do if unblocked, but instead you chose to argue with the block, which suggests that you are still failing to recognize that your block is due entirely to your own actions. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:14, 20 November 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.

Is it possible to get a mentor?

Will somebody volunteer to walk me through my erroneous actions so that I might be able at some later date to request being unblocked without the suggestion being raised that I am still failing to recognize that my block is due entirely to my own actions? Eschoir (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia has an adoption program where experienced users adopt new users. You can find out all about it here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. -- Patchy1 00:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I see one of the potential experienced users willing to adopt is a twelve year old boy.Eschoir (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? Well I'm not an expert on the program, but I guess you don't need life experience to need Wiki experience, with all due respect to said editor. -- Patchy1 07:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the helpful impulse, but I am puzzled by that response.Eschoir (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Meaning, the attributes of maturity, experience, and knowledge in a Wikipedia editor do not necessarily correlate with chronological age. I can't speak for that particular 12 year old, but I've met some surprisingly mature ones. I recall one of Wikipedia's better administrators a few years ago was a teenager (he retired). Remember, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog — a corollary is that nobody knows your age either, unless you reveal it.

Anyway, if you see a person on that list whom you would like as a mentor, contact the person. If you're unable to do so due to your block, let us know on this talk page and someone will contact the person for you. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It is nice to dialogue with you. I realize that there is nothing in it for you but the pleasure attendant to each individual exchange. I hope this exchange might be reciprocally rewarding. I enjoy being tested, and esteem that quality in my correspondents. I have a standing proposition with my paralegal, that I will pay her a bonus if she can prove me wrong on any point of law, for it is in my professional interest to know when I am wrong. But there is a disadvantageous association with lawyers in this project, so much so that if you engage in "wiki-lawyering," that is a bad thing.

I selected someone, but as you said, was unable to contact him on his talk page due to the block, but emailed him on Wikimail when offered that opportunity.

Regarding 'wikilawyering' - the previous exchange: "you don't need life experience to need Wiki experience" does not, to my eyes, mean "the attributes of maturity, experience, and knowledge in a Wikipedia editor do not necessarily correlate with chronological age."

Perhaps it is just a typo "You don't need life experience to [something] Wiki experience" and need is just repeated for the sake of a reflexive parallelism.

And editing (that is, after all, the point of being here) your version [sentence diagram SUBJECT attributes VERB correlate PREDICATE with age], I would propose "the level of an editor's maturity, experience and knowledge does not necessarily correlate with his age" is less recondite. The Supreme Court agrees that: "an employee's age is analytically distinct from his years of service." Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 609, 611 (1993).

I think both are iterations that "Wiki ≠ Life," a proposition that I can get behind wholeheartedly. Can we get a consensus here?Eschoir (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow I had no idea my passing quip would be cross examined so much. The second 'need' should have been a 'have'. In any case, I successfully answered the help request, and that's what I came to do, so I can happily bow out of this discussion. -- Patchy1 05:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Wiki ≠ Life. Your rephrasing "The level of an editor's maturity, experience and knowledge does not necessarily correlate with his age" is better, more concise, and approximately what I meant. I say "approximately" because I was attempting to make the statement in the context of Wikipedia only (that is, maturity demonstrated by the editor's interactions on Wikipedia, experience with editing Wikipedia, and knowledge of Wikipedia's rules including the wisdom to know how they are applied), and not as a general statement.

If you are interested in a chronologically more mature mentor, I'm on the tail end of the age distribution here, probably over twice the age of the average Wikipedian (which is mid-20s according to Wikipedia#Demographics), and available for advice if you need it. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be good news indeed!Eschoir (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I investigated your home page after your first message, and was rather impressed with your choices in participation. I have been a Lewis Carroll devotee since high school - but was unaware of the movie until I saw it on your list - that seems rather daring in this environment. I will attend any advice you may utter. The time has come . . . to talk of many things of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings, of why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings. Eschoir (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Every time I see those words I get this song stuck in my head, still remembered from a "talking storybook" I heard in the 1960s at the Alice in Wonderland exhibit at Children's Fairy Land.

I haven't updated that list of articles on my user page in a while. Having actually seen that film (would have been fun even without the adult content), I believe it was one of the last great films of its genre before the adult film industry transitioned from expensive celluloid to cheap videotape. The mainstream film Boogie Nights covered this transition and the effects it had on the industry. It seems, when the cost of production is high, there's more of an incentive to produce something of high quality. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There is so much I have forgotten in formatting, like the indents, and the edit summary -

Your remark is close to being a universal truth: It seems, when the cost of production is high, there's more of an incentive to produce something of high quality.

What is the cost of production here, on Wiki? Is the manifestation of edit-warring an involuntary reflexive way to raise the non-monetary cost of production, so as to produce something of higher quality, at leaast in the warrior's economics?

And i waas reading the article on standaard deviation - if the average editor's age is 27, how many standard deviations out is a twelve year old? I would put to you that statistically ther are more 12 year old editors than 45 year old ones -perhaps as many nine year olds [my son is nine] as 50 year olds!

Sprechen Sie Deutsch?

Es brillig war, die schlicten Toven wirrten und wimmelten ins Waben, und alle-mummsigen Borogoven die Mome-Rathen ausgraben,

Eschoir (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ich verstehe nur ein bissien Deutsch. I remember reading that translation of Jabberwocky from Douglas Hofstadter's book Gödel, Escher, Bach, which also contained the same poem in French, which the translator chose to set in present tense for some reason. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring toward unblock

Anyway, let me put back on my admin hat. Perhaps I can help you out. And you need to remove your lawyer hat for this if you wear one in real life.

Let's focus on what happened to lead up to this block. I've briefly scanned your contribution history, and note that your area of interest seems restricted primarily to origin of the Eucharist and a smattering of other Biblical history subjects.

On the positive side, despite the single purpose nature of your account, I can't say I see evidence of POV-pushing on your part; your edits demonstrate a desire to improve the content on Wikipedia.

On the negative side, you have three blocks in your history, one for edit-warring, one for personal attacks, as well as the most recent indefinite-duration block, which cites the following policies and/or guidelines:

• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:Competence is required
• Wikipedia:Edit warring
• Wikipedia:Consensus

After you read those four documents, would you please describe, without arguing about the merits of your block, specific past actions of yours that would be seen by others as disruptive, incompetent, warring, or going against consensus according to those documents listed above?

Also I would ask:

• Do you have a conflict of interest with the topics you edit?
• Are there other topics to which you would enjoy contributing?

Take your time answering. I may be on Wikipedia briefly but not for any significant extent until Friday afternoon. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Preface: Gratitude to you for undertaking this project with no promise of reward greater than self-knowledge and of doing something well. You have asked me to DOFF MY LAWYER’S HAT, which I attempt to do. Parenthetically, the labor that you require of me is an analogue for legal analysis, for while it is the jury’s duty to be the finder of fact it is the judge who applies the law to the facts. I am charged with the task of applying the assumed facts to the four documents [the Local Magna Carta, in lingua franca]...

But first- I have reviewed many of my 2,100 edits and I must say: I kill me. KILL! From my first edits I am pleased with their content. Why shouldn’t I be? I’m a smart guy, Mensa member, educated and articulate. But obviously I have a problem in Wiki. This analysis and review is illuminating to me and not just for the future goal of being unblocked. I never have had a dialogue with another editor who is so generous with his time.

One of my most important influences was the book “Out of my Life and Thought” by Albert Schweitzer. In it he describes the bargain he made with the senior missionaries at Lambarene in order to practice medicine there. I identify with Schweitzer, author of “The Search for the Historical Jesus”, when at Lambarene he was discouraged from discussing religion with the humble but sturdy brother monks because his complex answers would only confuse them hopelessly. That’s kind of the way I feel about Wikipedia upon learning the average editor’s age is mid-twenties.

I am not a believer, like Schweitzer and Crossan and Borg. I call myself a post-theist. Hegel’s Dialectic forms the basis for my communication model: thesis, antithesis [push-back], and synthesis. Theist, atheist, post-theist. My professional career [such as it is] involves fashioning win/win solutions for people who have fallen into hard times and applying the legal levers of power in unorthodox ways. Pushback just inspires pushback, as in Newton’s Third Law of Motion, “for every action there is an equal opposite reaction.”

So why can so much of my editing be characterized as ‘pushback’?

It can't be that I am a competetive person. I am the least competetive person I know. I am far less competetive than your average Wiki editor. I AM SO MUCH MORE UNCOMPETITIVE THAN ANYONE, I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO BE AS UNCOMPETETIVE !!!!! [little joke]

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

Wikipedia:Competence is required

Wikipedia:Edit warring

Wikipedia:Consensus

After you read those four documents, would you please describe, without arguing about the merits of your block, specific past actions of yours that would be seen by others as

a) disruptive, defined as “holding back progress – having differing goals”

a. I have been described as a "disruptor" from my first posts at Free Republic in 1997 that needlessly paid a law firm $110,000 in their effort to prove themselves the stronger consensus to their membership back in 2001. I can be very tenacious, which may be another word for tendentious..

b. When the Eucharist article became too long and had to be divided, I was not content to have two lowbrow Christian articles on the Eucharist, instead of one on doctrines and another on history, which may reveal an equally bombastic belief in the sanctity of scientific History.

b) incompetent, about which the “whole point is that they are either incapable of recognizing their own incompetence when pointed out to them, or are incapable of changing their behavior “

a. I have not demonstrated success in navigating the social milieu of Wikipedia as I have no allies or affinity groups, or even friends, the goal after all of social networking.

b. Lack of technical expertise: copying swaths of text from one policy to another, from one talk page to another, so as to confront my accusers with “documentary evidence” when it clearly annoyed people.

c. Grudge holding – When I found out that my old adversary Lima was actually the same editor as my new adversary Esoglu I let it affect my attitude.

c) warring,

a. I frequently seem to be emulating Oscar Wilde, saying something uncivil withering or supercilious “You have the reading comprehension of a prawn” instead of “thesis, antithesis [pushback]=synthesis[new].”

d) or going against consensus

a. being one editor opposed by unanimity of the other [two] editors working on that article.

Do you have a conflict of interest with the topics you edit?

1) I have a conflict of interest with orthodoxy.

Are there other topics to which you would enjoy contributing?

I have few in which I feel I am personally needed. I started the Life Imprisonment without parole [a concept of barbarity unrivalled in human history] article and contribute to ones I have personal experience in. Free Republic, Cellar Door, John Denver.

Perhaps Parkinson’s Disease might need me.

Tendentiousness It might entertain me to work as a volunteer in refereeing disputes among editors on a topic I didn’t give a rat’s ass about.

Consensus vs. gang. I don’t think I have worked on an article that consensus ever mattered – in my experience it’s two or three like-minded guys trying to strong-arm. Unorthodox beliefs – I overestimate the other editors – Dunning-Krueger effect: highly skilled people tend to believe that people capable of their achievements are more numerous than they really are. Perhaps I am not suitable for Wikipedia recruitment. Perhaps lightning rods are not necessary here.

I could let it go. Eschoir (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Eschoir (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten you. This has been an incredibly busy week and I have had scant opportunity to do anything on Wikipedia that takes more than a minute or two. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No hurry - no worries - acuna matata Eschoir (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the long departure. As I said earlier, my time on Wikipedia over the last month has been restricted to a minute or two here and there, not enough to give your response to my query the attention it deserves.

I asked you questions about how others might view your edits as disruptive, incompetent, warring, or anti-consensus to establish a baseline for how your approach to Wikipedia differs from what is expected of productive members of the community.

So I will clarify a few points:

One way to avoid the problems you've had, particularly when it comes to changing content, is to work on drafts in your own user space and then invite others to review them. Or propose changes on the talk page. That way you aren't disrupting the article with attempts to change and revert things but rather you're offering what a finished product might look like from your point of view. Drafts in your user space are useful especially when proposing to split a long article into two subtopics, such as separate articles on doctrines and history of the Eucharist.

"Warring" does not refer to insults, as you seem to imply above. Did you read Wikipedia:Edit warring? Insults are covered by Wikipedia:Civility requirements. Warring refers to repeatedly re-instating an edit you made in spite of being reverted. Best practice is to adhere to Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle or WP:BRD for short. That is, if you are reverted, your next action should be to engage in talk page discussion rather than repeatedly reverting to the version of the article you want.

You evaded my question about conflict of interest. I ask it again another way: Do you have a close association with any of the topics for which you have edited articles on Wikipedia?

Wikipedia does have productive editors who constantly rile others up, yet they remain here and contribute positively because in the end, they know how to collaborate, rarely engage in edit warring, and know what noticeboards to use when problems arise. User:Malleus Fatuorum is one example that comes to mind, who has become infamous as the community curmudgeon, but he's been around since almost the beginning of Wikipedia. User:Tarc is another example, an editor who believes it is wrong to engage with diplomacy rather than being forthright speaking one's mind.

I'd like to draw a distinction between the legal profession with which you're familiar, and how content gets into articles. You may already be aware of this distinction but I'll point it out anyway.

In the United States, when two opposing lawyers go to court to try a case before a judge and possibly a jury, both lawyers will consult Shepard's Citations to find relevant case histories, judgments, overturnings, and citations to support their respective positions. The judge (or jury) then has the unenviable task of deciding which side has merit. A decision is made, there's a winner, and there's a loser.

Conversely, with respect to presenting a point of view, Wikipedia determine winners and losers other than by what verifiable, reliable sources say. A Wikipedia article represents all points of view weighted appropriately to the extent that reliable sources exhibit differing points of view.

If I were to unblock you, would you be willing to come to me for advice the next time you have an altercation with someone? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that my answer to your question "Do you have a conflict of interest" was glib to the point of evasiveness. To your "close association with any of the topics" I have edited I would say yes. I hitchhiked to Aspen Colorado in the summer of 1971 on the chance of meeting with my "idol" John Denver - and got to spend a couple of hours with him - and I was at the first public performance of "Take My Home Country Roads" at the Cellar Door in December 1970.

I was sued by the Free Republic website for a million dollars because their subsequently disbarred lawyer wanted to impress his friends in a DC firm with the depths of the conservative pockets he could access. Besides being disbarred, he was also banned from the website not long thereafter.

THe Life Imprisonment without parole article began as a paper done for credit during law school.

My connection with Eucharist might be on your mind - my connections there are tenuous - I attended Catholic University and made the National Players, the touring Shakespeare troupe, and the founder, Father Gilbert Hartke, gave me Catholic Communion without inquiring of my religious bonafides, which I have heard is a big no-no, even for a Dominican brother. I was Chairman of the Stewardship Committee for my Congregational Church and served a term as President of the CHurch Council. I have been reading (and listening to) output from the Jesus Seminar since I became aware of it about 1992, and even had lunch with, and gave a lift to National Airport to, Lloyd Geering, who, in 1966, published an article on "The Resurrection of Jesus" and, in 1967, another on "The Immortality of the Soul," which together sparked a two-year public, theological controversy that culminated in charges by the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand—of which he is an ordained minister—of doctrinal error and disturbing the peace of the church. After a dramatic, two-day televised trial, the Assembly judged that no doctrinal error had been proved, dismissed the charges and declared the case closed. So, I still have amateur standing.

To your last point - I don't reckon to have altercations from this point forward, but it is probably predictable that such dislocations will recur sometime in the future. If if you don't mind being bugged, and you are willing to be the buggee, I will happily be the bugger.

Eschoir (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking that you may derive some satisfaction out of assigning me to edit an article that I have no personal interest in and therefore no POV about, to demonstrate objectivity and competence.Eschoir (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Take your time.

Eschoir (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia story arc=

I took the opportunity to check the talk pages of some of the more prominent of my former editor/colleagues appearing on this talk page like TCC(talk) and History2007 (talk) and others going back to 2007 - so many are now absent and bitter. It is almost a trope - putting in tens of thousands of edits without pay and ultimately ending spent and underappreciated and disillusioned at the ultimate quality of the project. I think I allowed myself to be trolled to an extent [ratifying my incompetence]. I never bothered with reporting or even learning procedure for AFIs or whatever - and I could have. Incompetence in some areas like learning formatting and the admininatrative system.

It seems like few editors last over a couple of years - and those that linger like Lima (talk) are just intractable and derive some pleasure out of suffering [see the S&M Bondage picture on Esoglou (talk)'s talk page.]

Perhaps I am still dealing with Wikipedia idealistically, and that may not still be appropriatae.

Eschoir (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Eschoir (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Eschoir (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The guy I emailed to be my mentor never responded.

Is it OR to use photos you have taken yourself? Eschoir (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC) I see from your talk page that self generated illustrations have been an issue for you too.Eschoir (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

New Start

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I have done everything asked by my mentor - he is overseas and presently has not the time or opportunity to ccomplete my rehabilitation. Eschoir (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Apologies for the delay due to technical limitations on my end. I have unblocked you based on the discussion below, and am available for mentorship and advice as needed, as is Anthony Bradbury too. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Without concurrence from your mentor as to your readiness, plus their willingness to review your edits for a couple of months post-unblock, I'm not comfortable with either the statement above, nor any unblocking (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As you know your mentor is currently abroad with restricted wikipedia access. I have asked him to give an opinion. If he concurs with an unblock I would be prepared to review your ongoing edits. Bear in mind that any significant transgression along previous lines would almosr certainly lead to an immediate re-instatement of the block. Feel free to review my userpage and edits and decide whether to accept my offer or await a better one.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I accept your offer, and his, without cavil.

Eschoir (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. I trust that we will have a productive relationship for the next couple of months, until you are cast off to go your own way; but we must wait for the OK from Amatulic. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. No hurry. Eschoir (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I note that the first edit to this page back in March 2007 refers to the usage of the name Eschoir as being 'provocative.' If changing my handle would improve whirrled peas or otherwise impact Wikipedia positively, I would be willing. Eschoir (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally see no problem with your username. I am simply waiting, as I said, for the go-ahead from your former mentor; he is, according to his user-page, currently in the far east with only limited wikipedia access. I would under normal circumstance be willing to go ahead, but in the light of your somewhat chequered past history, of which you are aware (I do not require any form of comment here) I do need to wait for the all-clear. I remain on the case. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that your mentor has unblocked you. I shall, as I said, review your editing as it happens, but do not intend to comment unless either I see a problem or if you ask me to. I note that Amatulic is also willing to continue to help, but as we know his wiki-time is currently restricted. Happy wikiying. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am grateful to both of my mentors and Mr Wilkins as well and am eager to resume participation. Not in a hurry, though, I have no axes to grind that I have been sitting on. Eschoir (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)