User talk:LoveMonkey/Archive 3

"Christian heresy" section in History of Christianity

Sorry to revert your last edit but apparently you are not aware of or are ignoring the discussion that we have been having about that section on Talk:History of Christianity. You are invited to help expand and correct the Christian heresy article but we need to trim the "Christian heresy" section in theHistory of Christianity article because that article is already too long. I have copied much of the deleted text to Christian heresy except for big chunks of your last edit because, quite frankly, your last edit was so poorly written in certain parts that it was incoherent.

I would be glad to work with you to express your ideas. Let's discuss the points that you want to make on Talk:Christian heresy.

--Richard 23:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

use of copyright material

Rather than copy and paste copyrighted material with plans to come back and edit it later, it would probably be a better idea to paste it into the edit box, and edit/rewrite it immediately, before saving. In the long run, this will be less work for you and less work for anyone who feels the need to police your work so closely. If you don't have time to do this all at once, another alternative might be to paste it into your favorite word processor or text editor, work on it there over a period of time, and then paste it into wikipedia after you've had time to rewrite it at least enough to alleviate any copyright concerns. While I think a case could be made regarding the appropriateness of the speedy deletions, it's probably a better use of time to adapt your style of work. The final result should be the same in either case, right? Wesley 15:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

re

Sure, I would just need to know the address to mail. Lostcaesar 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal issues with me

I am contacting you to try to clear the air of personal conflict between us. While we haven't always agreed in the past, I'd like to think that we can move past our differences and work positively together. I don't know why you insist on bringing up past incidents that I have already explained to you. I said "we don't have any original writings of Porphyry", but because of how comment boxes limit word count, I was hasty in my reply. What I thought was implied was that we do not have any original writings of Porphyry that mention Ammonius Saccas. So I wasn't entirely clear in my edit summary, big deal. We both agree that my actual edit (not the summary) was 100% accurate. It is patently false that "[mention of] Ammonius is retained in a fragment of Porphyry writing", because none such fragment exists, except in the quotations of others.

You are also wrong about misquoted the source regarding Ryland Papyrus. You spent days of discussion arguing over this matter just because you didn't understand the various meanings of the words "use" and "useful". Multiple other editors sided with my assessment, and helped to reach a wording that wasn't as ambiguous and confusing to you.

As for the deletions, to my knowledge (I could be mistaken) I have only AfD one article you created, and that was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by atheism. And I didn't delete it, the community voted and reached a consensus on the matter. It should have told you something that there was only one keep vote, and it was yours. I also supported the speedy deletion of the papyri articles you had copy and pasted from a copyrighted source. However, other users physically tagged the article, not me. You simply don't copy and paste from websites to create wikipedia articles. It's that simply. While I would love it if we had very thorough, well written articles on the papyri, violating wikipedia policy, and infringing on copyright material is simply not the way to do it. By all means, recreate the article if you can use multiple sources and put the research into your own words.

So, yes, I am still defensive over these incidents. I feel my positions were justified. But if I came off harsh, if I was uncivil, and if I hurt your feelings, I sincerely apologize. We can disagree without it getting personal, and that line was crossed somewhere. So, please accept my apologizes in that regard.

I seriously don't know why you have so much animosity towards me, and I seriously would like to clear it up. I have edited far more controversial articles than Ammonius Saccas and P⁵², and encounter far some serious POV warriors, but have been able to be civil and respectful to just about everyone, and I like to think that others feel the same towards me, so it surprises me that I have offended you in such a manner that you hold such a grudge. Please, what can we do to clear up the bad heat between us.-Andrew c 00:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Stub

When you a labeling the article as a stub, please make sure it is a stub indeed. Tyutchev article was clearly longer and more comprehensive than a stub, while admittedly not a masterpiece. --Irpen 01:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Florovsky bookcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Florovsky bookcover.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning on attributing imports from OrthodoxWiki

You have been importing a number of articles from OrthodoxWiki lately. ALL of these must be attributed as to their source, or else the terms of the OrthodoxWiki release license have been ILLEGALLY violated. A massive amount of research and editing has been done to develop these articles, and it is outright immoral to take their contents without honoring the terms of their license. Please edit all of these articles you've imported en masse to note their source. 72.28.30.34 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that OrthodoxWiki's dual licensing may preclude importing its articles into Wikipedia, since Wikipedia's GFDL license may not be compatible. Please engage the relevant discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy before continuing your rapid importation of OrthodoxWiki material. 72.28.30.34 18:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure it does it allows is for educational nonprofit purposes. LoveMonkey 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what makes it incompatible. Wikipedia's GFDL explicitly allows for commercial, for-profit use, while one of OrthodoxWiki's licenses does not. 72.28.30.34 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No this article is what I have followed. [1] It makes no such mention. It sets the rules for exporting content and make no such reference as the alternate license by Orthodox wiki being in conflict with exporting to Wikipedia. LoveMonkey 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lovemonkey, will you please remove the material that you copied from the Orthodox Wiki? I have no doubt that you thought you were in accord with copyright policies when you added the info, but it is now clear that it is not. Thank you. -- Pastordavid 19:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you have seen the update to the COpyright page for OrthoWiki, but it now reads "Note to Wikipedia editors: Because the terms of the Creative Commons license are not fully compatible with that of the GFDL that Wikipedia uses, exporting material from OrthodoxWiki to Wikipedia violates the terms of OrthodoxWiki's dual licensing scheme."-Andrew c 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Notices of Speedy Deletion

I have tagged {{Orthodoxyinamerica}} for speedy deletion as a copyright-vio. The underlying image (Orthodox us.gif) was auto tagged as well. -- Pastordavid 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged Enlightener for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, since there is no material in the article that did not originate at orthodox wiki. -- Pastordavid 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged New-martyr for speedy deletion -- all content orginated here. Jacob Netsvetov as a copyright-vio of this. Varnava (Nastic) from here. List of American writers from here. List of American bishops fromhere-- Pastordavid 21:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I too have tagged a number of articles that you created today with OrthodoxWiki text. However, not everything is bad news. I found about 4 articles that already existed on wikipedia under different names and have redirected the new articles accordingly. It would be nice if OrthodoxWiki had a different license, but then again there wouldn't be a need for OrthodoxWiki if everything there could easily go in Wikipedia as well. Licensing issues can be complicated, but I respect OrthodoxWiki's decision to be wary of Wikipedia's unabashed use of a license that allows commercial, for profit use. -Andrew c 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it now appears that most of what was copied from Orthodox Wiki can be used here. I apologize for being overly hasty in tagging things for speedy deletion. -- Pastordavid 22:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As an "outside observer", I find this whole OrthodoxWiki copyright issue confusing. Pastordavid, on what basis did you finally decide that it is OK to import text wholesale from OrthodoxWiki? Andrew c, do you agree? --Richard 22:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is here [2] Please (pretty please with money on top) don't post a 3rd party conversation on my talkpage. PS the founder of Orthodox wiki posted authorization. LoveMonkey 23:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not immediately obvious from what was written here that a larger discussion had taken place elsewhere. Both Andrew c and Pastordavid left messages on my Talk Page telling me where that discussion had taken place for which I am grateful. --Richard 17:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Per some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, I've reverted all these speedy tags. It seems we need to evaluate these specific articles on a case-by-case basis. I propose we coordinate efforts through the WikiProject talk page. In the meantime, please don't copy any more articles until we get an idea of which ones we can keep and which ones we can't. Mangojuice^talk 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"minor" edits

It looks like you've designated some of your edits as minor when they are not. For example, [3]. Jonathan Tweet 23:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this a few weeks ago but hadn't made the effort to comment on it because I was still mulling it over. Here's the problem in a nutshell - many editors see the "m" indicating a minor edit and choose not to review the edit. Well, at least that's what I do. My assumption is "if I trust the editor, I don't need to check his minor edits because they are just spelling, grammar or format changes".

Consult this link.

A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.

Now, my guess is that you have your preferences set to "mark all edits minor by default". I think this is a bad idea unless you pay close attention to determine which of your edits are not minor and uncheck the "This is a minor edit" box accordingly. I think it is better to accidentally fail to mark a minor edit as "minor" than to accidentally mark a major edit as "minor".

--Richard 16:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Richard again please don't have a third party conversation with John on my talkpage. Go to John's page and converse with him there. As for minor edits I got a notice that I was not marking my edits just a few weeks again. So it appears I can not satisfy either or. Could we fill up these pages with something other then minor complaints and actually improve the articles? I left you a link on the talkpage for the Russian church that explains the hesychast and monastic traditions within the Russian Orthodox church including a history of the Startez. Instead of coming here on my talkpage and complaining that you think my minor edits are not minor (?????) maybe we could cover the article and find the best way to articulate it for wikipedia instead of this bickering and the lot. Also it would be nice to actually write something at least somewhat original for Wikipedia instead of copy pasting articles in order to create new ones. Also hows the whole intregrating the Eastern Church into the History of Christianity coming along there Richard? LoveMonkey 16:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not having a third party conversation if I am joining in and adding to something someone else says to you. I was speaking to you and not to Jonathan in what I wrote. If you wish me to stop watching your Talk Page, let me know and I will.

As for the "minor" edit issue, I understand that it is frustrating that there are different opinions on what is minor and that it is a pain to "get it right". Read the link to understand the guideline. It is my personal opinion that it is better to err on the side of not marking something minor than to mark something minor when it is not. You may disagree. It appears that you do. Or else you are just doing it to avoid complaints or to make a WP:POINT. Anyway, you now know that I agree with Jonathan and perhaps other editors do as well. Respond as you will.

I'm not much interested in writing "anything original" for Wikipedia. I'm a WikiGnome. Most of my major contributions come from organizing articles around logical frameworks and improving the expression of ideas to improve clarity and readability.

As for "copy and pasting articles in order to create new ones", I presume that you are talking about History of the Eastern Orthodox Church and History of the Russian Orthodox Church. These were done to allow the "History" articles to expand significantly without making the primary articles overly long. They also were a first step toward responding to your complaint on History of Christianity about the lack of coverage of the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The relationship between the Eastern Orthodox Church article and the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church article should be approximately the same as the relationship between the Christianity article and the History of Christianity article.

Clarification: The point being that, over time, the History of X articles should be expanded to cover more detail and the "History" sections in the X article should be trimmed to be as summary of the History of X article. I put a lot of work into the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church and History of the Russian Orthodox Church articles especially considering that I didn't know a lot about either topic a month ago and frankly, neither topic was very important to me as a question of personal interest. My only interest was to help fill the "hole" in Wikipedia coverage that you identified on Talk:History of Christianity. I haven't gotten around to trimming the "History" sections in the primary articles yet but that is definitely something that should be done to avoid duplicate treatment of the same topic. --Richard 17:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I agree that History of Christianity does not have any more coverage of the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church than when we started. I'll get to it. But that counter-parry is not an adequate defense against legitimate criticisms of your editing style. (see below for more of that)

--Richard 17:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to join the crowd, but could you please consider not marking non-minor edits as minor, such as this. If you are confused on what a "minor edit" is, please read Help:Minor edit. If you have any questions on what a minor edit is or is not, please feel free to ask. Thank you for your consideration.-Andrew c 18:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

On Talk:Gospel of John, you wrote "Please anyone can go to my talkpage and see your personal attacks on how I misuse the minor edit feature for a start". I'm sorry that you feel that we have been making "personal attacks" when I think we have just been suggesting that you could improve the way that you edit Wikipedia so as to make collaboration on articles easier. If you label all your edits as minor, we are forced to look at each edit and your having labeled them as minor winds up having no value unless you somehow feel that it is nobody's business what you insert into an article. If that is the case, you should read WP:OWN.

I'm sure that different people will have different opinions as to what is minor and what is not. I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the specific definition of what is minor since there are no clear guidelines in this regard. However, based on a few random samples, I doubt that 90%+ of your edits are truly minor.

Please consider using this guideline "if it changes the meaning of a sentence in a substantive way, it's not minor". Naturally, insertion of new sentences or deletion of existing sentences should not be considered minor.

Hope this helps.

--Richard 07:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You recently incorrectly added Friedrich Nietzsche to Category:Sophists without an edit summary and with the edit marked as minor. Minor edits are "typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Please refrain from doing so in future, it gives the impression of bad faith.Skomorokh 23:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, LoveMonkey... this minor/major edit thing must be giving you serious heartburn by now. My sympathies. It isn't really that important and you're getting a disproportionate amount of grief over it. My recommendation would be to turn off the "mark all edits minor by default" flag in your preferences and mark the obviously minor edits as minor by hand. And if anybody complains to you that you failed to mark an edit minor, either ignore them or tell them to take a long walk off a short pier. (Nah, forget that last idea, that would violate WP:CIVIL).

--Richard 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Lovemonkey, please accept my apologies for adding to the confusion in all of this mess. Just so you know, it was never my intention to say or even imply that you were intentionally violating copyright - I was only trying to bring us into compliance with what was on the orthodox wiki page at the time. If I have caused you any extra frustration, I am sorry. I hope we can work together in the future. -- Pastordavid 16:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use articles as scratch pads, even temporarily

You deposited a number of links into History of the Russian Orthodox Church. At a macro level, it drew my attention to the fact that the "Traditions" section belongs in the Russian Orthodox Church as there is no "history" implied in these sections. Perhaps you mean to add a historical perspective but the existing prose does not indicate this. For this reason, I moved the entire section to Russian Orthodox Church where I think it belongs.

On a more micro level, you just dumped a bunch of links in the section without any prose or formatting which resulted in a highly unprofessional appearance to the article. I felt compelled to fix the formatting even though I need to get off Wikipedia and get on to other real-life tasks. Please do not leave articles in a mess, even temporarily.

As a general comment, I would request that you treat articles with more respect than you have in the past. Your English in Talk Page discussions is far superior to your English in articles. If anything, it should be the other way around. Take more time with spelling, grammar and formatting in articles than you do in discussion.

With respect to the links that you dropped into History of the Russian Orthodox Church, it would have been far better if you had written some prose or basic formatting before inserting them. I don't know enough about the topic to write any prose so I just put them into a bulleted list. This is not ideal but it's the best I could do in the limited time that I have today.

If you want to work on something, then put it in your userspace. You could create a subpage like User:LoveMonkey/Russian Orthodox Church and drop the links there until you have time to write the appropriate prose. Or, if you need help with cleanup of the prose, then put it on the article's Talk Page and ask for help. But please don't leave articles messy. Other editors have made this comment and you seem to have blown them off.

If you continue to act with disrespect towards other editors and the readers of Wikipedia, we may have to resort to just reverting your edits. I would hate to do that. You know that I have supported your efforts to expand the coverage of the Eastern and Russian Orthodox Churches so you know that this message is written in love rather than with antagonistic intent.

Finally, you have a habit of making many small edits to articles. I have a similar habit but you do it more than I do. This makes it hard for other editors to review your edits as it is very tedious to step through a number of small edits. It is also hard to do a "compare versions" on a large number of edits. I would suggest that you try to make all your edits to a section in one single edit and then move on to another section.

--Richard 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

PhD

Sorry, my PhD is not in philosophy, it's in computer science, so I can't really help. Btw, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy; I've made some permission templates for use when importing articles from OrthodoxWiki. For some of your articles, I've changed them to copy an earlier version of the OrthodoxWiki page, because the current version may not be compatible copyright-wise. I haven't deleted the old revisions, but please don't revert to them or pull out material from the old versions, it wouldn't be ok WRT copyrights. Mangojuice^talk 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my editor review

Thank you for commenting on my editor review. I am disappointed that you chose to focus on a narrow scope of edits made on this Talk Page rather than commenting on the whole of your experience with me as an editor. I feel that, if you had provided an assessment of your overall experience with me, the result would have been more generally positive.

Nonetheless, you asked for a clarification of the comment that I made earlier on this Talk Page and so I will provide it.

First of all, I apologize if the terseness of my message seemed overly harsh. I was in a rush to leave on vacation and I tried to explain what I meant as best as I could without turning an already long message into a really long one.

Here is the full explanation of what I wrote last week.

On Talk:History of the Eastern Orthodox Church, User:Andrew c made the following comments...

Since this article is shaping up, I felt I'd jump in with a few helpful comments before things get too carried away. Everyone, keep in mind to cite sources. If we ever want this article to reach GA or even FA status, we MUST have sources. It is no longer option, wikipedia simply requires it, and any unsourced info can be removed at any time. So while the user who are writing content are still around, please, please remember to use inline citations for all new content. Next, make sure to COPY EDIT your contributions. I found the following, just as an example:

As far as buildings being churches there where none above ground until the first above ground churches where built in Armenia. Since Armenia was the first country to legalize Christianity and also embrace it as the state religion around 301 AD.

I mean, there is no reason for such garbled English to be in an encyclopedia. If you need help copy editing, please post to talk first, and I (and other editors) would gladly help. But it just makes me cringe when I find stuff like this in the main article space. Anyway, thanks to the editors working on expanding this article, keep up the good work!-Andrew c 00:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:71.241.79.69 chimed in...

Agreed. Would it be too much to ask LoveMonkey to please stop adding to the article before copyediting can be done on the contributions? Much of what is being added is pretty garbled. 71.241.79.69 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

At the time that Andrew c and 71.241.79.69 made these comments, I agreed with what they wrote but I refrained from "piling on" since I generally try to cut a lot of slack to people if I perceive that English may not be their native language. Being a WikiGnome, I have spent a lot of time cleaning up other people's edits and I do so willingly if I have the sense that the problem is that their command of English is weak. After all, my best language other than English is Spanish and I would murder the language if I tried to edit the Spanish Wikipedia.

However, your recent edits on Talk Pages suggest that your command of the English language is better than some of your edits to Wikipedia articles would suggest. This raises the possibility that the poor quality of some of your edits is due to haste and sloppiness rather than a poor command of the English language. If so, this is really unacceptable hard to accept without feeling a bit of irritation while cleaning it up. I would exhort you to slow down and spend more time with each edit. Wikipedia will be here for a long time and an incomplete high-quality article is preferable to a poor-quality article with lots of poorly organized and badly expressed information.

Until last week, I have generally refrained from complaining about the quality of your edits because I generally prefer having more content to having perfect spelling and grammar. After all, it is easier to fix poor English than to find new content to add. However, we do need to maintain minimum standards in order to keep Wikipedia a useful resource for the general public.

Whenever a poor quality edit (in this context, I mean one written with poor English) is made, the next editor who reads it is faced with one of three choices:

1. Leave it as is and allow the quality of the article to be degraded
2. Invest time and energy into fixing it
3. Revert it and put the onus on fixing it on the editor who made the original poor quality edit

I don't think option #1 is a good idea and I generally choose option #2 without complaining. However, the prolific nature of your editing is far outrunning my ability to do option #2. I think Andrew c and 71.241.79.69 were making the same complaint. \

What you perceived as a "veiled threat" was not meant as a threat but simply a statement that, if I feel that I cannot do option #2 adequately in the time I have available, I may decide to go for option #3 in order to maintain the quality of the Wikipedia article. In all sincerity, I would really hate to do that because I think your contributions have helped to fill in this hole that we have identified in Wikipedia's coverage of the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I want to encourage you to contribute rather than discourage you with reverts. You may notice that I have not generally reverted your edits.

--Richard 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox theology

I'll help if I can, but I don't claim to be any kind of theologian. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ambrose of Optina

The whole idea beyond the navigational templates is to have a tool to quickly jump between closely interconnected topics. If we put the Russian Orthodox Church template on the article about Ambrose we have to insert Ambrose to this template. I do not think it would be a right thing.

Maybe we should create a template {{Russian Saints}} or {{Russian Saints of 19th century}} and put it to each saint? Alex Bakharev 04:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict Between you and Andrew c

Good day, I am writing to give my opinion on the editing conflict between you and user Andrew c on the matter of the Gospel of John. After looking at your contributions on the matter I have conluded that your work is of great value to the article. However, as you could read here, the lead section of any article is not the place for an overfill of information. I suggest you take this user's advice and move the information to the authorship section. Doing so would avert an edit war, and prove to fellow Wikipedians that you are in fact, a good-faith editor, which at this moment, I am compelled to believe. I also must urge you to take better efforts to be civil in your conversations with this user. I understand you are frustrated to see your work be reverted, I've been there, believe me, but policy is policy here on Wikipedia, and those are the clearest standards we have to work with. I would like to see you voice your take on this dispute. I recommend you discuss the matter link here to ensure this is out in the open. Have a good day, and let's get this resolved.EnglishEfternamn^talk_contribs 21:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You obviously did not read enough since I moved it and then Andrew distorted it go back and read the dispute again your comments are not informed and are incorrect. LoveMonkey 04:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)