User talk:Eldamorie/Archives/2011/October

TOMS Shoes

Hi Elda. I was hoping we can come to a conclusion regarding the description of Focus on the Family on the TOMS page. My concern is that the CEO of the company will rightfully be associated with Focus on the Family and as FotF is contentious in their beliefs, I feel that we owe if per WP:BLP to the living person (the CEO of TOMS) and more importantly (to me) WP, to be as accurate as possible. I have no idea what the usual nomenclature is for describing such groups and have no interest in the views of TOMS or FotF. I thought maybe your degree might help or that we might be able to find help in making the paragraph and article as encyclopedic as possible. Any suggestions? Is there anywhere that I can read about nomenclature regarding the stance on marriage by groups of FotF? I've tried to find some sources that are more reliable than a blog or watch dog group to describe Focus on the Family but it seems that most news sources shy away from describing Focus on the Family in short and accurate terms. Anyway, I'm stumped at this point. I've tried to restart the discussion on the paragraph on the talk page and invite you to join. OlYeller^Talktome 14:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - it's a thorny issue. I'll see you on the talk page. eldamorie (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's pope

I don't believe the IP has justified his changes. For one, he simply claimed that he removed some words because those exact words were not used by Cornwell. Those words were "claimed" and "alleged". But as we know, since they are Cornwell's claims and allegations, we are well within policy to use those words. In addition, his other argument is that the Economist's statement was not stated as the opinion of the Economist, and thus it must be...completely removed. Not re-worded. Not restated as an opinion. Removed entirely. The fact that because of the nature of the article there is no need to express the statement as an opinion aside, does removing the statement completely really make any sense to you?

More importantly, the spirit of BRD is Bold, Revert, Discuss. The IP was bold. He was then reverted. He then posted and changed it back again. That is not how it works. He posts, he gets reverted, then he leaves it that way and discusses the issue with other editors, and certainly never declares that it "shall be" one way or another as that flies in the face of efforts to collaborate, especially when his changes lean against policy.

The IP has been told this many times before. What he does is pop into an article, declare that some change "shall be" made, argue, insult, falsely report and warn those who disagree, sometimes delete their talk page comments and overall throw a ridiculous temper tantrum. When this does not work for him to get his way, he stops posting for a few days and then picks another Catholic-related article, gets a new IP, and does the same thing all over again. This is the 7th or 8th article he has tried over the last 6 months or so. Farsight001 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. After looking over the history a little more carefully, I see that it the IP and not Mamalujo who made the initial changes. Thanks, by the way, for commenting on the talk page - I didn't read the IP's comments very carefully, just saw that they were there, and that several editors had continued to revert the changes without replying. I see that even in the section the IP quoted on the talk page, the views are clearly attributed [to] the Economist as well. Thanks for the clarification. eldamorie (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)