User talk:TomMoore/JM
I understand that CP needs a lot of help. There are thousands of articles to be done and thousands to improve. I have no time to loose in useless discussions. But for this time I will spend some minutes.
This was your first foul:
You lost among other things:
Traditional Western Culture is said to have been created by three main historical factors: ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and Christianity. As such, it is also known by the terms "Greco-Roman culture", " Judeo-Christian culture", or "Judeo-Hellenic-Christian culture".
All with an insult: Rewrote the whole mess.
This whole mess was started by SharonS and she follow a system that I found very Greek, based in questions.
Your second disgrace:
Loosing among other things:
history, in Greek, means "investigations".
and
The Greeks also invented tragedy, the basis of modern plays, skits, and movies. Comedy made its appearance with Aristophanes. Ibidem
and the image of Pericles.
YOU DID THIS WITHOUT WAITING AS YOU WERE ASKED TO.
But that was not all.
Now in:
You lost another image as well a valuable information:
Image:Greece Delphi Oracle.jpg
You have been 2 times asked not to delete before using the talk page and as expected waiting for the reply. See http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Europa&direction=next&oldid=466116
But you think you are along here. What you need is a good lesson that sooner or later will come, because, I am sure, you don't want to work in this team. You have questioned even Andy. What else may we expect from you?
--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 19:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
All with an insult.
When you started writing on the page, Joaquin, it was already roughly in the shape it is in now. You can see here. Contrary to what you appear to believe, this is not your article. It was a collaborative work. And it was a mess. It had vandalism go unnoticed for your dozen edits, blockquotes to no purpose, and was written like a collection of children's answers to the opening rhetorical question. I'm sorry we have to get into this, but it only vaguely resembled an encyclopedia article. I'm sorry you object to that characterization, but the only thing I was insulting was the article itself. You don't own it.
You lost among other things
The first example you chose is in my version, actually. Did you read it?
"Traditional western culture is said to have been created by three main historical factors: ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and Christianity. As such, it is also known by the terms "Greco-Roman culture", "Judeo-Christian culture", or "Judeo-Hellenic-Christian culture"."
This whole mess was started by SharonS and she follow a system that I found very Greek, based in questions.
And that's fine, if encyclopedias like this one were written using the Socratic method. But they're not, because it looks... well, because it winds up looking like that. Encyclopedias are intended to be concise reference works.
Loosing among other things: history, in Greek, means "investigations".
I actually have a section about history and Herodotus in there, again if you read it. It's true I lost that anecdote about the mean of the word. It seemed superfluous. But that one is arguable. You could have easily re-added it. Instead you reverted all my edits as a whole, repeatedly.
The Greeks also invented tragedy, the basis of modern plays, skits, and movies. Comedy made its appearance with Aristophanes. Ibidem
You're right that I fixed the reference that you tried to put in. That's not how you do it. In wiki markup, it is generally advisable to use the <ref> tag. But you're wrong that the other information is not in there. "such as the whole of the initial development of dramatic and comedic plays by such figures as Aristophanes"
and the image of Pericles.
Which I have exhaustively reminded you is irrelevant to a page that doesn't even mention him. You should probably add something about him before you add a picture of him. There are no pictures of busts of Plato on the page... why don't you add one of him, since he was infinitely more influential and actually is in the article?
YOU DID THIS WITHOUT WAITING AS YOU WERE ASKED TO.
You asked me to wait? I'm sorry, I must have missed where you replied to me. Would you do me a favor and link me to that? I do see on this page how I said well before my edits on this page began that I was going to do them, and I see how in the description of my later edits to your new material that I explained what I was doing and made a suggestion. And I see how on your talk page I posted more than a half-dozen messages asking you if you would please mind discussing this rather than just reverting. Could you help me out and show me where you told me to wait?
You lost another image as well a valuable information: Image:Greece Delphi Oracle.jpg
You're right, I deleted that image. Not only is the oracle not mentioned on the page, it isn't even on the links. It has even less excuse to be on the page, even in comparison with the Pericles image that didn't belong there.
But you think you are along here. What you need is a good lesson that sooner or later will come, because, I am sure, you don't want to work in this team. You have questioned even Andy. What else may we expect from you?
You may expect enormous improvements to articles, like I did to this one. If I might ask, would you prefer we change it back to what it looked like before me?
So, Joaquin, I will sum up. You assert I deleted a section on descriptors for civilization, which I didn't delete (although I probably should have). You assert I deleted a four word blurb about the meaning of "history," which is somewhat less than tragic and which you could have added back easily. You assert I deleted a section about tragedy and comedy and Aristophanes, which I didn't delete. You assert I deleted a picture of a general who is not mentioned in the article but only the links, and you assert I deleted a picture of an oracle which isn't even in the links. You assert I began with an insult by calling an article that was a mess by its rightful label, apparently because you think any criticism of the article is a criticism of yourself. And lastly, you assert I didn't try to talk about these edits even though I gave lengthy comments in the edit summary and, as soon as I got back from being blocked by you and unblocked by another, I went to your talk page and proceeded to leave a very long series of messages in the one place you couldn't have failed to see because MediaWiki informs you when you have new messages there?
I trust the other people reading this can reach the obvious conclusion that I have done nothing wrong. I take exception to the manner in which I have been treated by this sysop, and have acted only with the utmost reasonableness at every turn, begging him to contact me so we could discuss it and compromise. Finis.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 19:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- Greeks had a name for your philosophy: Sophists!
- To be clear, next time you delete some valuable material I will do my best to see you out for some time. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 19:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)