Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 2

message: Where does the name 'Blessed Teresa of Calcutta' come from? Is that the name she took, or what some people call her?2toise 03:18, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - it still isn't really apparent to me from the text that that is the source of the title - parhaps that would bear a little more explanation in the text?2toise 22:14, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Name / titles

message: Alexander, if you unilaterally make another major deletion like you just did, someone may list you on Wikipedia:Problem users; further such contraventions of Wikiqette may result in your being banned, which would be a pity. Based on your other contributions, you have lots to offer. Maybe you need to take a break from Mother Teresa for awhile. -- Viajero 22:30, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note for Alexandros 

message: Given Alexandros's insistence (>6x) this evening on making major unilateral deletions, I have protected this page. -- Viajero 22:33, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: I have just re-read the whole of this page. It is quite evident that the only way to usefully restart editing on the article is to ban Alexandros from participation in it. We almost had an agreed text, at least for the biographical section (I agree there are problems with the "criticism" part), but that process was completely and deliberately derailed by Alexandros. He is not interested in creating a consensus text, only in imposing his Catholic dogmatic position on everyone by a process of exhaustion. I understand that there are personal reasons why he behaves the way he does, but that doesn't alter the fact that he cannot edit co-operatively, at least on this topic. I don't know if there is a procedure from banning a person from a particular article, but unless and until he is banned from this article, I won't be taking any further part in editing it. I suggest that others who are concerned about the quality of articles we create for this project should take the same position. Adam 13:54, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right in stating the facts (I may or may not agree on the precise solution), but past tense is in my opinion better when dealing with past facts. I was not happy with his behaviour either. Pfortuny 14:51, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Viajero 17:11, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: As anyone else, I'd like the page unprotected asap. I may agree with Viajero's proposal but I cannot give an answer now. May I ask for 24 hours' time counted from now? If I do not answer by then it means I cannot agree to it and the solution might need to be different. Pfortuny 17:55, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text:   Look at my User contributions.  I am not a problem . Adam who proposed banning me is one however, and now has so many complaints that he needs his own problem users page.  One accidental edit war certainly does not mean that I should be banned.  Tim Starling's first edits were an edit war and he became a sysop. With that said, I have never engaged in an edit war on any article, excluding the accidental one on this page caused by confusion with edit conflicts.  adam said . "He is not interested in creating a consensus text, only in imposing his Catholic dogmatic position" which i disagree with.  I never even said that I was catholic.  If you had read my talk page, you would have realised that i had stated yesterday, prior to adam carrs comment, that i was going to give up on this page anyway.  I only heard that yuo were talking about me from pofourny who informed me on my talk page.   Alexandros 19:18, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Mother_Teresa&action=history&limit=250&offset=0
three times you've gotten into edit wars over this article: on 29 October, 9 November, and 10 November; all three times it had to be protected. I would call this a problem. -- Viajero 19:35, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: You made a mistake.  Only two "edit wars".  It had to be protected twice.  Regardless, It is not as if I protected a page that I am involved with.   Alexandros 21:04, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: Unblock the page. If Alex behaves in a non cooperative way, then the resources of Wikipedia to prevent this non cooperative behaviour will be used, as with any other user.
But I mean as with any other user. If he were going to appear in the problem page, he has to be told in his talk page in advance; if he were going to be banned, then he has to be told explicitly in his own page and by a sysop, or whatever the standard procedure is. Pfortuny 12:35, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the above and agree with Pfortuny.  Alexandros 13:14, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: What to do about this article

message: Apologies for the delay and for the following text which is far too long and I think out of place, but the discussion has led us here. By no means I intend my opinion to be regarded as more important than any other's, but for obvious reasons some people are expecting it. Here it goes. The history of this text is in User:Pfortuny/private1 which I shall clear this evening. The text ends at "EOT" below. Pfortuny 15:09, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Unblock the page. If Alex behaves in a non cooperative way, then the resources of Wikipedia to prevent this non cooperative behaviour will be used, as with any other user.
But I mean as with any other user. If he were going to appear in the problem page, he has to be told in his talk page in advance; if he were going to be banned, then he has to be told explicitly in his own page and by a sysop, or whatever the standard procedure is. Pfortuny 12:35, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the above and agree with Pfortuny.  Alexandros 13:14, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Pfortuny on Pfortuny's mediation

message: Errm. We've all agreed that all changes should be discussed on the talk page - and User:Ed Poor changes the name of the article and starts editing without telling anybody ...  Secretlondon 15:51, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
: I don't think the move was such a great idea. The old title was much more used and this move will mess up a lot of links. Dori 15:54, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
:Sorry, S.L. -- there was so much unproductive talk that I pretty much ignored it. If somewhere in the above 67 KB there is an agreement about how to proceed, I must have missed it among all the bickering.
:You want me to revert my changes? --Uncle Ed 15:56, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the page got moved back to Mother Teresa. Okay now? --Uncle Ed 19:07, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: Ed, you are way out of line. You dismiss the previous discussions as "unproductive talk" and "bickering" and simply ignore them, and walz in here and make a major change without discussion, setting a very bad precedent. We were making slow but gradual progress without you. Go away, you are not needed here. I think that Secretlondon should immediately revert this change, and any other change made to this article without prior agreement. -- Viajero 17:39, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving the page