User talk:Esoglou

"Sorry, Mom, I can't talk about that. I'm too tied up just now."

WARNING

THIS EDITOR HAS A SENSE OF HUMOUR THAT OTHERS FIND OFFENSIVE AND SANCTIONABLE

Notice

Per this AE thread, you are topic banned from all articles and discussions about abortion for 6 months, broadly construed. If you have any questions regarding the scope of your ban, please feel free to ask me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems a tad melodramatic, but whatever floats your boat... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a joke. I'm sure I am by no means the only one to smile at it. In fact, the image is the basis of many such jokes here. Enjoy. Esoglou (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

She's smokin – Lionel ^(talk) 07:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Conflict and the consequent sanctions don't seem to bother you much. Nonetheless, I wish to re-emphasize that the posting of this image on Roscelese's talk page contributed to the imposition of your topic ban. You have a way of pouring gasoline onto wastepaper basket fires and starting conflagrations unnecessarily. As one who respects you and enjoys working with you, I wish you would put that gasoline can away and maybe lose the matches too while you're at it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not only "contributed": it was the reason for the ban, while nothing followed this. Esoglou (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I remember, the ban was requested by Roscelese before the image and the image was just the last nail in the coffin. Were it not for your image, it might have been easier to argue that both you and Roscelese should receive the same treatment (which, IMHO, would have been to do nothing). I wonder if cultural differences are involved here. Americans are more puritanical about things of a sexual nature. It also didn't help that Roscelese is a woman and your picture was of a woman in bondage rather than a man in bondage. Your image could thus be interpreted as some sort of an attack. Or maybe I'm reading too much into things. In any event, err on the side of caution. With the various sanctions you've received over the years, a little circumspection would help you a lot. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested, yes, but not granted for that reason: see the link I gave above. As was stated, the woman tied up represents me, not Roscelese; the woman free of bonds and more fully dressed could be taken to represent her. Yes, the image was in fact interpreted as some sort of an attack. I have forgotten what sanctions you tell me I received over the years, other than the shorter tying up on the same subject due to the same person's interaction. I also agreed to abstain from another topic as a price well worth paying for getting another editor to abstain. Esoglou (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agape feast and redlinks

Esoglou, there is nothing wrong with a redlink, unless it's a typo. Links to disambiguation pages, however, must always be fixed. So, either write an article, create a relevant redirect at the redlink (to a closely related article), or leave the redlink. Redlinks are fine. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

On this seemingly remediable redlink we disagree, but I will not again blue something on which you put so much store and I don't. Esoglou (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's an article to send it to, either leave it red or not have a link at all (you know, no link at all might be the right solution, actually). Just don't link to disambiguation pages. Also, redlines are a significant source of new articles, so it's good to have them in general (tho I can't say in this specific case) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on this specific case does not attract me. Esoglou (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

All Saints Sisters of the Poor

In this edit, you completely blanked an article, with the edit summary Roman Catholic only since 20th century. Did you simply intend to remove or modify a category here? Elizium23 (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A bad inadvertent mistake by me. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. Esoglou (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Order vs. Institute

I note that you have changed the category for several entries about religious groups from that of Order to Institute. I have no objection, given that it is the current canonical title. There are now two parallel categories, however, for them. Have you considered merging them or transfering the entries from one to another? Having both seems confusing. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest? All Catholic religious orders are religious institutes but, as you know, not all religious institutes are religious orders. It is certainly wrong to call the institutes that were founded as congregations orders. I have therefore started to remove from the heading "orders" the institutes that are not orders. It would seem logical to use the more inclusive term ("religious institute") for all, even for the orders, and someone could propose - would you propose? - that the heading "Roman Catholic religious orders" be changed to "Roman Catholic religious institutes". Those listed at present under the heading "Roman Catholic religious orders founded in ..." include a few associations that are not religious institutes, such as societies of apostolic life. These should be weeded out, but I have been leaving them partly untouched. There is another category that, as it stands, has a title so all-encompassing that it would include any Catholic association whatsoever, religious or lay:. This heading would include not only religious institutes and other institutes of consecrated life but also orders of chivalry and all sorts of societies, even political ones, involving Catholics. That category perhaps requires attention even more.

I shall make no further changes in this field at least for several days, to allow us both more time to reflect on the question. Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Audio Tutorial

Esoglou

Could you please let me know what is wrong with the link I posted? I thought it would be very helpful to people? Why would you mark it spam?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristide1811 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the addition of that link served not to provide information on the subject of the articles but only to advertise the link, in line with WP:BOOKSPAM and WP:REFSPAM. (The insertion in Latin Mass was doubly inappropriate, since, as the article itself states, "Latin Mass" does not necessarily mean "Tridentine Mass".) If you disagree, I suggest that you raise the question on the Talk pages of the articles, so that we can see what others think. Esoglou (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am new to writing on Wikipedia. I think the link helpful to people who are interested in both. Could you reccomend a place for the link? Thank you.Aristide1811 (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I really should have given you this advice unasked. So I apologize. The place for such links is in the Media subsection of the External links section towards the end of the Tridentine Mass article, where there are several such links. I don't think it appropriate to insert it anywhere in the Latin Mass article. Esoglou (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

thank you. I agree with you. If you want to place the link in the media section that would be great. Do you want some photos off the website? I would be happy to contribute them. --Aristide1811 (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I would much prefer that you yourself chose where to put it, high up or lower down among the items already there. Esoglou (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

St Patrick's Missionary Society

Hello Esoglou

I have just reversed an edit on the page <St Patrick's Missionary Society> which you had made. I had tried to find out how to contact you first but was unsuccessful. Only later found out how to contact you through online help.

You refer to Fr Kevin Reynolds. Fr Kevin is a member of the Mill Hill Missionaries. He is not a member of St Patrick's Missionary Society. [I am the communications officer of the St Patrick's Missionary Society and would be happy to speak to you if you wish.]

I am sorry for changing the article before speaking to you. I am new to this and could not find any way, from your contributions page, to initiate a conversation with you.

Tim Redmond St Patrick's Missionary Society Docxrkt (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You did right to correct the article. The inclusion of the Alan Shatter quotation in the article on your society made me think Reynolds was a member. I am sorry to learn that Shatter was referring not only to non-member Reynolds, the accusations against whom have been proved unfounded, but also to actual members of your society. Esoglou (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Matthew 5:17-48

Hi, any comments on Talk:Expounding_of_the_Law#AfD.3F? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion of concern to you

You may like to know about the conversation happening at Talk:Catholic Church#Order of Sacraments. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeking your opinion

Hi, I have looked at God in Christianity and I think it can at best be described as "neglected". Although that has the fortunate implication that there is no contention or debate, the page seems to be suffering from pure neglect - images and templates thrown around at random, unsourced sections - and it is anyone's guess how correct the content may be.

Of course God's page gets viewed only 12,000 times a month (compared to over 600,000 for Johnny Depp) but that is still a key page for WikiProject Christianity and should be in much better shape. I have started a discussion on the talk page there, and your comments will be appreciated. I have also asked Jpacobb and StAnselm to comment so if you could discuss the issues together and suggest improvements, or even better improve the page that would be great. Thanks History2007 (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The traditional manuals of theology had a volume of a couple of hundred pages de Deo uno et trino, half of it on God as one in nature, the other half on God as three in persons. This treatise was only on God considered apart from relationships outside of God. Another treatise was de Deo creatore: on God in relation to creatures, including human beings, on whom he bestowed a supernatural status. A third was de Deo reparatore or redemptore, mainly but by no means exclusively about Christ. A fourth section was de Deo sanctificatore, concerning the application of redemption to individuals, a matter that took up several volumes: on grace and on the sacraments, collectively and individually. A fifth was de Deo consummatore, on "the last things" or eschatology. I certainly do not feel up to even attempting to summarize all that in a single Wikipedia article. Esoglou (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think the article can/should summarize all of that. But I do feel that it deserves to be at least a little better than the neglected cobweb stricken item that it is now, given that Depp's page looks so much better... History2007 (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Shortened form is what it means

It's simply a fact that "Praise ye Jah" is a shortened form of "Praise ye Jehovah". (Or "praise ye Yahweh".) That's not really a debatable issue, per se. (Though for some reason you always tend to think it is.) And it seems necessary to clearly indicate somewhere in the article (especially the lede) just what actually "Jah" is referring to. And it would seem incomplete to leave that out. And it's what the refs there (by the way), as well as a number of other sources in general many times indicate. No valid reason to remove that. Better to stick to what the refs say, and not push an anti-Jehovah name bias either. Praise Jah does NOT literally mean "praise God" or "praise the Lord". "Jah" is NOT a shortened form of "Lord", but of "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") and that's simply a linguistic fact, not a conjecture or POV. And refs do support it. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

ADDENDUM

Per your comment and point, I included the "more than one view"...of "praise ye Yahweh"...for sourced balance... Hashem sfarim (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never even remotely questioned that יה is a short form of יהוה - this is in fact part of the reason why "Yahweh" is generally believed to be the original pronunciation - but I am not convinced that the Yahweh/Jehovah question needs to be mentioned in the Alleluia article. However, if you want it in, so be it. Esoglou (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Church and human reproduction

Please take a look at this draft article that I am working on and give me your feedback and suggestions from improvement. Thanx! --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for amplifying the text on the position of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. The text that you amplified was taken from here. I think you would want to make the same clarification to that text.

The current draft consists of copy-paste extracts from other Wikipedia articles. I was surprised that Wikipedia really doesn't address this topic at all well. It's really only covered in fragments in articles such as [[

Christian views on contraception]] and Catholic Church and abortion. There's not enough emphasis on the fact that these various teachings are part of an overall teaching for the respect of life and the sanctitity of marriage. I'm looking for suggestions on how to present the overall topic of the Church's teaching on human reproduction in the context of this overarching theme.

I want to say something along the lines of "The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies that all sex acts must be both unitive and procreative." However, I think a fuller exposition is needed than that. I think the article needs text that grounds the Church's teaching by making references to the various encyclicals that have been issued on this topic such as Humanae Vitae. Unfortunately, my knowledge in this area is sorely lacking. Can you help provide a framework for me to research? If you have time to actually write text, that would be much appreciated. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You have already more or less stated and documented that CCC declares that "sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes" (CCC 2351). It has a perhaps not unimportant clause, "when sought for itself". A point that should perhaps come first in your exposition is: "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose ... (i.e., when) sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved" (CCC 2352). Would this be of any use to you? Or this? Or this? Or this with its reference to the encyclical Evangelium vitae? I am not knowledgeable enough to "provide a framework". All I can do is to look at some point or other that is brought up, as I did with the mention of the Winnipeg Declaration. I did see where you had taken that from, but I hoped that any modification of that article would be done by you and done more effectively than if done by me. I am avoiding actions that might be taken as indications of the battleground mentality that I am supposed to have. However, if you do not touch it, I may get around some time to modifying it myself. Esoglou (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Women at the crucifixion/ Three Marys

Hi Esoglou. Mark 16:1 separates "Mary, mother of James and Salome" so evidently something has gone amiss in copying into this article. Can you help with a good Catholic source in the Three Marys section above Adam Clarke?

The supposed "Roman Catholic tradition" is perhaps baseless. Esoglou (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Church and women

Please look at the section titled "Religious vocations" in the article on Catholic Church and women. Someone put a {{citation needed}} tag on this sentence: "In the Catholic Church, a nun is a woman who has taken solemn vows (the male equivalent is often called a "monk" or "friar", although the positions actually entail very different religious origins and constitute very different duties of the church". Could you evaluate the sentence in question and give me your opinion on whether it is (1) accurate and (2) helpful to the flow of the section? Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Made some changes. Esoglou (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Pope Gregory I

Thank you for your assistance and understanding. I will attempt to bring further information on this historical Pope Gregory I and Papal matter. Your efforts are certainly and most greatly appreciated. Thank you so much. All Worlds (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Esoglou, your repeated insertion of original research in order to further your political positions was the primary cause of your several-month topic ban from abortion under arbitration enforcement. Your recent edit, in which you state that news organizations refer to CFC as Catholic in spite of its violations of canon law, clearly demonstrates that you learned absolutely nothing about NOR and NPOV from this sanction. How many more preventative measures must be taken to get you to stop disrupting the encyclopedia? Don't do this again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Let us leave all bellicosity behind. Esoglou (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree. Once you abandon your project to make Wikipedia conform to your personal beliefs, there will be no need for hard feelings. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for declaring your agreement. Let us work together in mutual respect and consideration, with the common aim to make Wikipedia conform not to personal beliefs but to what reliable sources say. Esoglou (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Esoglou –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

I have unblocked you, because I realized that I wasn't sufficiently uninvolved to make that judgement call. I apologize for not realizing that before hitting the block button. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Mass (liturgy)

Hello User:Esoglou, I hope this message finds you doing well. The article currently reads "because they lack the sacrament of orders," making it seem that this is a statement of fact, when in reality, this is the belief of the Catholic Church. My edit served to point out that this is a belief of the Catholic Church, rather than stating it as fact. The Anglican Church, for example, does consider her orders to be valid. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope we can immediately overcome our mutual misunderstandings. The article already spoke about what "it (the RCC) considers". Is that fact clear now? Esoglou (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I might add "their belief" after the word "considers". I might also consider adding a wikilink to the term Holy Orders. I hope this helps. In Christ, Anupam^Talk 20:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Grigori

At the rate we are going... lol... we might want to consider making a new wikipage for the Grigori. What do you think?

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. It doesn't attract me. Esoglou (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you're right... three pages to toggle with is too much.Jasonasosa (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Esoglou, I want to thank you for your watchful eye and editorial modifications to the Fallen angel, Watcher (angel) and Lucifer pages. Even though I may be hard and even wrong at times, your input has helped define these pages on wiki. I think the articles are looking good. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, which I believe you will on second thoughts choose to withdraw. I do not think the pages in question are looking good. Esoglou (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I will not withdraw. Our skirmishes are helping to shape the pages. I understand that we both get frustrated sometimes, only because we are looking through different lenses. I noted your being annoyed on the Talk:Watcher (angel)‎ page. I know I can be an ass. I also know we both have good intentions for the articles... and so when it comes down to the bottom line, we both share something strong in common. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Resurrection of the dead

Hi Esoglou, would you do me a favour, would you mind posting Talk:Resurrection of the dead on WT:CATHOLICISM, I can't get the page to load - something on it must be triggering my firewall, I get this occasionally. Thanks! In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my inability to understand. I can't find WT:CATHOLICISM. If I could find it, I might understand what is meant by "posting Talk:Resurrection of the dead". I can only suppose it means posting this. But where? Esoglou (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the page in question is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The shortcut WT:CATHOLIC will already take you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Let me know if there is a desire to also provide a shortcut spelled as WT:CATHOLICISM. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I created WT:CATHOLICISM as a redirect to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. That should prevent this kind of confusion in the future. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that I know the page you meant (WT:CATHOLIC, not WT:CATHOLICISM), I have done the posting. I have also added a brief comment on the matter you wished to draw attention to. Sorry for not having linked up to Wikipedia sooner. Esoglou (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I can actually today access the page from my home PC. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban breach

This edit is pretty clearly a breach of your topic ban from "all articles...about abortion, broadly construed" as listed above. Please be more careful going forward. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I failed to notice that my correction of the description "religious order" mistakenly applied to societies of apostolic life and religious congregations had, among other articles, touched one that could be quite broadly construed as about abortion. Esoglou (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering it's the lay arm of Priests for Life, you don't have to construe very broadly at all there. But, since the edit didn't touch directly on your topic ban, I don't think it's a big deal -- just wanted to point it out so you'd remember to watch out next time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox opposition to the doctrine of Papal Primacy

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.

Ugh. I wrote you a long message to go with the notice above but it got lost when I hit "Save page". In brief, don't panic. My ANI posting was to propose a lifting of your voluntary topic ban on Eastern Orthodox doctrine.

I need your help at Eastern Orthodox opposition to the doctrine of Papal Primacy. Please review the structure and content of that article and give me your thoughts at Talk:Eastern Orthodox opposition to the doctrine of Papal Primacy.

For now, please restrict yourself to Talk Page comments. If no one objects to the lifting of your ban, you will be able to edit the article text directly.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. However, ever since you isolated that straw-man-strewn and self-disqualifying material from the article on papal primacy I have felt no desire whatever to work on it, not even on its talk page. Does that count as a review of the structure and content? Scarcely. But I don't see what more I can do on that generic level. Esoglou (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no more hope of getting either Taiwan boi or Montalban to agree than to get LoveMonkey to do so. Cody might. By the way, did you notice that I bought Siecienski's book in order to clear up my doubts about its interpretation? Esoglou (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Notification (Holy See)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. When you recently edited Mediatrix of all graces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zenit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)