User talk:Endymion.12/Archive 2

January 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Christian socialism, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Language such as "purported to be" has no place in Wiki article. It is not impartial, but an attempt to add bias to the article.'' Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 02:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be considerate enough to actually explain your concerns, rather than leave generic, and in this case inappropriate notices about vandalism and the manual of style. The phrase "purported to be" must be unfamiliar to you, because it does no such thing. "Purported" in this instance is interchangeable with "believed" or "claimed". At the moment, there is some ambiguity in the article as to whether socialism was advocated by Jesus of Nazareth himself, or whether Christian socialists believe the example of his life should lead followers to socialism. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the links I provided. It is not for Wikipedia to judge the validity of others beliefs. You have introduced (your own?) bias through your edits. As per MOS:ACCUSED, "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate". I assume you yourself take issue with "Christian socialism" being defined as "based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth"? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume you yourself take issue with "Christian socialism" being defined as "based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth"?: Absolutely not. I was correcting the ambiguity inherent in the first line, as I explained above. The Manual of Style list of "words to watch" is not a blacklist of vocabulary, and many of the words listed are appropriate for use in specific contexts, such as this one. I have however rephrased my edit to avoid use of the word "purported". In future, do not lazily accuse good-faith contributors of vandalism. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "purported to be" has negative connotations and suggests that that interpretation is wrong, which is why it shouldn't be used in such a context. There is no ambiguity in "Christian socialism is a form of religious socialism based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth." A dictionary definition : "[base something on something] to use particular ideas or facts to make a decision, do a calculation, or develop a theory". You addition of "purported to be based on" moves it from "they have taken the teachings of Jesus and decided it means Christian socialism" to "they have taken the teachings of Jesus and probably wrongly decided it means Christian socialism". That is why is appeared to be vandalism: religious articles are frequently edited by individuals who changed the wording to suit their own beliefs. You then continued to insist in using the word, so I used a Level 1 warning template to provide you with the relevant reading matter. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 15:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You have quoted the transitive form of the verb above, and in the original construction of the sentence the verb was given in the intransitive form. Now that I have changed it, "followers" is the object of the verb "based on" (with the object being implied with "purported") and there is no ambiguity. "Purported" definitely does not imply that something is "probably wrong", at least where I'm from (and most likely it doesn't where you are from, either). Endymion.12 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Lovely poem
That is a lovely poem you have on your userpage - thank you for putting this on your userpage. Vorbee (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Re ANI
In regards to - the ANI thread closed prior to me being able to comment, however I wish to reassure you that I meant Wikipedia community attention - which may be warranted due to speculations regarding motives of other users, and arguing against content from a multitude of mainstream academic sources. While I do not think such a discussion should be opened now, I do however request you reflect on your own actions. Thank you.Icewhiz (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My comments and actions on the page are manifestly inconsistent with your view that I have been arguing against content from a multitude of mainstream academic sources. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Henry Hardy
What was wrong with 'academic', just out of interest? RD (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * He didn't hold any academic positions, that's all. Endymion.12 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Research Fellow at Wolfson isn't an academic position? RD (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Missed that, apologies. I will restore it. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Hi, what's your basis for describing this edit as "trolling?" It was actually quite helpful to you and me both. R2 (bleep) 17:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi R2, this user has been leaving snarky/sarcastic comments on the talk page, often exhibiting a faux friendliness/concern, presumably to provoke a response from me and manufacture a behavioural complaint out of a content dispute (see these and the edit summaries, , , ). Some more examples of this on their talk page (Why are you here?, How are you today?). Perhaps the comment was in good faith, but given the general pattern I removed it because I assumed it was purely disruptive. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree they haven't behaved very well, but snark and trolling are two very different things. And there was neither in the comment you deleted. More to the point, do not delete comments from other editors based on alleged trolling unless the trolling is clear-cut. That can get you into trouble. If you're not inclined to assume good faith, then think of it this way: don't let other editors bait you. R2 (bleep) 17:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Point taken, will refrain from doing it again. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:LOUTSOCKing by Merphee
I must ask you Endymion.12 to avoid making personal attacks in future and always focus discussion on talk pages on content only. I draw your attention to our policy on Civility which is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. I will need to report further uncivil behaviour directed toward me. No need to reply. Thank you. Merphee (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I realise that the comments and diffs you provided directly above,relate only to conflict with another editor. However your personal attacks and lack of civility and accusations of bad faith were not only directed towards the other editor but at times toward me. I am wanting to cut off any further personal attacks or lack of civility of any kind toward me in the future. Hope you appreciate my civil and polite warning. Thank you. Merphee (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll post this here, since you asked that I not post to your talk page. I am confident that you twice edited while logged out under the following IP address: . If you admit to doing so here, and promise not to do so again, I won't file a check user request at WP:SPI, which would probably result in a long-term block for you. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL!!! Go ahead straight away and do it. But make sure you check their IP address location first like I just did by typing it in on https://www.iplocation.net/ I'm in Australia. LOL!!!!!!! Merphee (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I seriously think you did it yourself as a set up. LOL!!!! Merphee (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Very well, I'll go to WP:SPI this afternoon. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you report me without checking the location of this IP address I will report you for ongoing harassment after it is done. I am in Australia!!!! I actually think you did it as a set up. Merphee (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have to take your word for it that you are currently in Australia. If this wasn't you, you have nothing to worry about. For my part, it's just too much of a coincidence that after you added references supporting your view, an IP user changes the parameter over two successive days citing your changes to the references in edit summaries that match your writing style. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said if you do that, given the IP was in Thailand, I will report you for Harassment. Dead set. A lot of people watch that article. Left-wing politics is not the same as Far-left politics by the way. I have provided a very well reasoned attempt to resolve this stalemate but it seems you won't compromise nor follow Wikipedia policy. You have continually abused me and other editors and any mischievous report as a sockpuppet, when you know I am in Australia and the IP is in frigging Thailand, will be rejected and I will report you to ANI for harassment. Learn to compromise with other editors and pull your head in. Merphee (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This may make interesting reading. If Merphee's complete ignorance of the possibility of VPNs &c is feigned, it's feigned quite persistently. Of course, several people explain in the comments there how such a thing is possible, but you're probably already aware Merphee doesn't actually read anything that doesn't suit them. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow that's extraordinary. I didn't realise they had potentially done the same thing before. If they're using a VPN, would it make more sense to go to WP:ANI than WP:SPI, if the check user will likely be negative? Endymion.12 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I am hinting at the opposite; it is possible Merphee is completely ignorant of the possibilities there, and as such, wasn't in fact LOUTSOCKING. I presume eventually they'll earn a block for their general habit of boring everyone to death on talk pages. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, Merphee was actually the first person to mention the possibility of using a VPN on his talk, in a post which began "Ponyo and NeilN just in case you say I've used a Virtual private network which I just read about on Wikipedia (because I had honestly had no idea what it actually was although I've heard the term VPN ..."), which is about the least convincing thing I've ever read. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
 * Thanks. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I responded to this on DrKay's talk page. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hans Globke
Hi I had to revert your edits. The lede is far too long. You have recovered information that is already present in the article and detail information in the lede that unsuitable for a lede. There was consensus about a year and half ago that the lede was too long and it had to be reduced, which was done. At the time the article was expanded by myself from a German translation. So please don't increase the size of the lede. You can rearrange if you want, push up the period information and certainly add content the body.  scope_creep Talk  11:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see any evidence of a "consensus" on the talk page, but to avoid a dispute I'll leave out the third paragraph. I have restored the other edits I made however, which did not materially add to the length of the lead (174 bytes), and are necessary to preface the stuff about his role in the Third Reich. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There was minor dispute about the size of it and the conversation was done off page. I welcome you editing any other article I've written.  scope_creep Talk  12:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"Reason of state"
Hey—I do accept that reason of state is not the same thing as national interest, but I also find it very unlikely that many people searching for "reason of state" are looking for the Botero book—of the first 10 pages of Google results I get for the query "reason of state" -Witcher, only 5 entries are about Botero's book. I'd like to propose creating a short article at reason of state now, rather than waiting with an unsatisfactory redirect, but I'm not sure which aspect you were intending to focus on: the genre of literature in primarily 16th–18th century history of political thought or the more extended theoretical concept traced by Meinecke etc up to the modern day? —Nizolan (talk · c.) 00:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It will be on the genre of 16th and 17th century writing, with its relationship to Tacitism and scepticism: principally Botero, Justus Lipsius, Michel de Montaigne, Francis Bacon, and Henri, duc de Rohan among others. It might later include discussion of more recent developments, like Meinecke and realpolitik etc. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I will only have time to do this in September, so you're welcome to create a stub or perhaps something larger in the meanwhile. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

sourcing of family connections
Hello, I saw your discussion with User:DrKay and User:Surtsicna. I thought it worth showing similar discussions, in case it helps for future reference. (There must be many such disputes, because they mentioned to you they've explained the same thing many times.) See Template talk:Ahnentafel. To cut a long story short, as finally clarified here, we are supposed to understand that the aggressive tagging, edsums and section deletions are part of a "bargaining" strategy to get people to compromise and accept that pedigrees should be no more than 4 generations. I find this strategy unethical, but in practical terms I also wish I at least knew their real desires from the beginning! Could have saved a lot of time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not true. You're taking my comments out of context, and ascribing views to me that I have never propounded and do not hold. DrKay (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty clear to me. I did not just "ascribe". I linked to your own words and actions. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to seek due weight compromises on honest and properly explained due weight concerns. But please present these properly in future. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're being disruptive by deliberately misrepresenting my views. If I say to you, "I won't discuss meat and potatoes, but I can offer you a carrot." The bargaining chip is the carrot, not the meat and potatoes. Similarly, to paraphrase my comments at those discussions, "I won't discuss wikipedia policies, but I can offer you a 4-generation ahnentafel." The bargaining chip is the 4-generation ahnentafel, not the wikipedia policies. The wikipedia policies can't be bargained with: it is not in my power, gift or inclination to do so. They are fundamental wikipedia principles that are determined by consensus at the policy pages, not on template talk or article talk or user talk. DrKay (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Bargaining" and "compromising" (the two verbs you keep using) are both concepts which necessarily mean giving away on both sides. Your offer, that you keep posting, is that if we allow a generation to be deleted, and not dispute it (see your threats on the template talk), then you will not work against WP:V by deleting footnotes and verifiable information, which is of course an offer to not work against core principles of WP. It really is undeniable. But let's just please discuss generation number preferences as editor preferences in future, which is what they are? In fact I think this will work better for you anyway, at least with experienced editors. My apologies to Endymion for this happening on this talkpage!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've not offered that. And am not offering it. I've made no such threats. Please stop lying about me (and there really is no other way to describe this now at this point). DrKay (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC) You were the one who introduced "bargaining". DrKay (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, anyone who wants to check can follow that link above, which is only one of the examples I've been analyzing to understand what has been happening. Perhaps now you will go out and delete something to teach me a lesson? Or perhaps (I hope) we can get on with more constructive things? I'm trying to be optimistic to be honest. I believe that if we may have honest discussion on articles, and no mass deletion "races" (as per WP:FAIT), reasonable solutions can always be found.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Honest discussion is apparently something you know little about. DrKay (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Try assuming good faith and giving a real chance to discussion, and the opinions of others, before you start firing off more missiles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Same goes for you. DrKay (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Good.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sydney Morning Herald
What is your issue exactly with this well sourced edit on the article page? You have not provided any reasoning whatsoever! You can't go around reverting well sourced edits and then not explain why on the talk page? You need to follow policies and edit warring is not the way to get resolution here at Wikipedia. So what exactly is your issue with the edit? Seems to me you just don't like it, which doesn't cut it. Merphee (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Grand Tour
I was in the process of starting from the last stable version and going through the removed material and adding it back incrementally as I verified it when you decided to revert me while demanding an explanation. I will therefore abandon my effort to improve this article due to your shortsighted roadblock. The article, however, is not stable, and is in serious need of cleanup. Since you appear to have volunteered to do the job that you have prevented me from doing, I will now take it off my watchlist. Good luck with your future efforts. Viriditas (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You removed a vast amount of cited copy without any explanation. If you make such changes and fail to communicate your intentions to others you are likely to be challenged. This is an extraordinarily childish and unreasonable response. Have a nice day. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverting to a stable version and adding content back incrementally is best practice when it comes to articles that have significantly degraded over time due to vandalism and poor edits. Since you have chosen to assume the worst rather than to support an editor trying to improve the quality of an article, I’m happy you have come forward to claim the job.  Looking forward to your great work... Viriditas (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is stable, i.e., has not been subject to any content disputes. You appear to have reverted to the version of the 9th April 2017, which might as well be a random version since it has no obvious relation to previous content disputes or "poor edits". You are welcome to your view that this method of editing constitutes "best practice", but I have never encountered this before, and it has no basis in policy/guidelines. Either explain your changes in future or use the sandbox. Endymion.12 (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m happy to educate you: “stability” does not necessarily refer to a content dispute, it includes vandalism, formatting errors, erroneous additions and deletions, and editorial judgments about content quality. I came to the page and noticed the unusual quotation marks, inline maintenance tags asking for sources in the lead (lead is supposed to summarize the body, no sources needed), unusual paragraph white space, and a recent page revision history consisting mostly of IPs.  The most stable version lacking these changes happened to be from 2017, so I reverted to that clean version. The next step consists of adding back the content that should not have been removed.  Working my way down from the top incrementally, I added back the lead heading.  My next edit consisted of adding back the newer quote formatting and deleted content, which could not be completed due to an edit conflict from your hair-trigger reversion. If you had hesitated for thirty seconds, we would not be having this discussion.  And if you haven’t encountered this kind of cleanup before, then I suggest you haven’t been here very long.  Restoring and reverting to a clean version and adding back content is the easiest and safest method for maintaining quality.  And if you stop assuming the worst about your fellow editors in the future, this won’t happen again. My behavior was quite far from the “lazy”, “deceptive”, and “childish” behavior you attributed to me.  Good luck with your future efforts at improving this article. Viriditas (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Edit: per your query about best practice, the method I describe is detailed in various places, particularly at Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't need someone with a block history like yours, and who hasn't edited for three years, to patronize me. "Stable version" refers to WP:STABLE and nothing else. The content added since April 2017 represents a substantive contribution (i.e. improvement) to the article, and actually (as a cursory glance will confirm for you) is better supported with inline citations than the version you restored. In future explain your changes in edit summaries or on the talk page as you ought to in any case, and please stop bothering me. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)