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)
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)
Sure, I would just need to know the address to mail. Lostcaesar 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Sure it does it allows is for educational nonprofit purposes. LoveMonkey 19:03, 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Mangojuicetalk 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
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...
User:71.241.79.69 chimed in...
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:
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)
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)
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)
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.EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 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)