User talk:Xandar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive

William of York[edit]

Wonderful additions, but you've only put in page numbers, what work are you using for those references please? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"St William of York," by Christopher Norton (2006). I was going to fill in the details later. Xandar 02:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought it might be, it's been sitting on my shelf for a little bit waiting for me to actually add details in. Glad to see someone doing it. I just try to keep the article pretty spiffy since it's a GA, that's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I moved the following post from User:Nancy Danielson which was erroneously posted on Xandar's userpage [1].NancyHeise talk 04:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Nancy D.


Archived your talk page[edit]

Xandar, just revert me if you prefer. Your talk page covered a year and a half of conversations I hope you don't mind. Merry Christmas! NancyHeise talk 03:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


User:Xandar/CatholicChurchExmple User:Xandar/CatholicChurchTrial

Economic history of China (pre-1911) FAC[edit]

I noticed you have participated several China-related FAC's and seem to have some expertise in this area. Can you give me some input at the FAC? Thank you.Teeninvestor (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

i'll try and have a look at this, but it may take a day or two in the lead-up to Christmas. However I don't really claim expertise in this area. I participated in the other FACs more in terms of copyediting issues and making sure that I, as a NON-expert, could understand what the articles were saying and that the historic narrative was clear and consistent. Xandar 01:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas[edit]

Hi, merry Christmas to you and yours. I'm wondering if you could come and join recent discussion at Talk:Christmas, where there is a dispute about the leading sentence. I am in favor of keeping the opening as "Christmas is a Christian holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus", but another user has insisted on changing this to "Christmas is a holiday that, in Christianity, commemorates the birth of Jesus". Please voice your opinion about which you prefer (or any alternatives) at the talk page. Thanks for your participation in this. — CIS (talk | stalk) 19:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


Merry Christmas, History2007 (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Xandar! NancyHeise talk 07:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Catholicism[edit]

Hello, I haven't been feeling well for the past few weeks and so I can't help with the project right now. I have some ideas for articles (not all strictly Catholic) but those will have to wait. LovesMacs (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Clerical child abuse in the Middle Ages[edit]

Most of the "material" in this "article" is made up of innuendo and supposition. I fear that it borders very much on being sectional polemic and original research. As far as I can see, there is not one solid fact concerning the alleged subject-matter. It seems like a speedy deletion to me. Xandar 00:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been whole books written on the subject, so it's more than just innuendo. Of course, if you're not willing to collaborate on the article and just want to complain that the subject is taboo for some people, that's an entirely different matter that should be discussed separately. ADM (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see one, fringe, work has been written on the subject, by people who make money out of abuse cases. This sort of fringe opinion is NOT the basis for an article, and if it were, it would have to be far more balanced than the amalgamation of innuendo produced so far. This is a fringe subject with absolutely zero actual solid information - and just a lot of innuendoes based on laws condemning whole masses of actions. Wikipedia is not the place for pushing fringe POV and catholic-bashing propaganda. Xandar 00:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The Catholic Church itself has ackowledged that there were many abuse cases in the Middle Ages. In fact, during that time, it served as its own police force and had priests write down reports about who was committing what types of abuses. You can easily understand what was going on when you read the works of people like Peter Damian and Gregory VII. ADM (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the Church has stated this. I don't doubt that there were cases of abuse in the Middle Ages, in the Church and elsewhere, and in the various cultures of antiquity. It is most likely that child abuse has gone on since the stone age. It is one of humanity's perversions. However what the present material proves, if anything, is that the Church was perhaps the only historic institution that legislated against and condemned the problem. However, instead, the article and its fringe sources try to seive through the few historical documents and falsely infer that a) Catholicism was prone to sexual abuse, because it legislated against it, and b) that therefore Catholics have always been (for some mysterious reason) more involved in sexual abuse than anyone else. It is this latter unproven claim that the article seems to be intending to bolster through inference and innuendo. Xandar 01:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I meant to write this entry as a complement to the article pederasty in the Renaissance, which already has reliable sources. It is possible to review the style and remove certain POV issues, but I will not deny that pederasty existed quite a bit in the Middle Ages, i.e. within Latin Christendom. In fact, there is really no other way around it, when you consider the significant role that the clergy played throughout history, in all aspects of social life, including marriage and the various types of ordained and un-ordnained sexuality. It has to be included somehow in order to improve the category:history of pederasty.
I am also ready to gather additional material about child abuse in the history of other religions, such as Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Judaism and Islam, if this will seem less discriminatory. Regarding the causes of child abuse, I am in agreement that it has nothing to do with celibacy in particular, but that it has much to do with the fact that clergy tend to be homosocial, i.e. if they were kept isolated in monastic cloisters instead of urban parishes, this would never happen as much, because they would not be constantly surrounded by other males, like some sort of men's club that needs its own type of sexual recruitment.
ADM (talk)
All very well, but this homosociality business is just a theory. I think figures show that the majority of clerical child abuse consists of homosexual-linked relations between religious males and boys in their teens. It is also very probable that historically the celibate priesthood has for various reasons been an attractive profession to those with homosexual leanings. But I don't think there's convincing evidence, that with (the possible exception of the latter form of abuse), abuse is more prominent within the priesthood than elsewhere. As far as I can see, child abuse in general has been seen as MORE likely to occur in active heterosexual and family circumstances than elsewhere. Also there is the familiar story of "Mr X does Y, it's local news, Rev X does Y, it's major national news", which distorts reporting and perception. So a per-se link between child abuse and clergy is highly speculative and based on projection back of false assumptions. I don't think that we are ever going to get much in the way of figures for non-clerical medieval child abuse, which is probably one of history's most under-reported crimes. Xandar 11:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Christmas[edit]

Hi there. Noted your vast knowledge of theology (mine is somewhat limited) and your contributions to the topic hence why i'm messaging. On the Christmas article, if you could ensure that any contentious ammendments are veted... one such being...Although a Christian holiday... changed to...Although most consider this to be a Christian holiday. This doesnt sit right. Thanks. Bill.Roache - Talk 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church and AIDS[edit]

Ugh. What a horrid article that was. I have performed some radical surgery on it. Please take a look and tell me what you think. My next step will be to add in the stuff about Ed Green. --Richard S (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is poor logic, I find. If we want to know about Jewish views on anything, we would cite a list of responsas from rabbis, and that would presumably correspond to the sect's views. These Cardinals are no different from chief rabbis, in that they present the opinions or philosophies of their peculiar religious group, which tend to build a type of consensus. It is a type of collegiality or conciliarity, if you like. Cf concept of ordinary magisterium. ADM (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. Karanacs (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at RFAR[edit]

Hi Xandar, I read your statement at the Catholic Church RFAR, and I noticed that was quite prolix and verbose. It has roughly 1300 words at the moment, while most people see 1000 as a reasonable limit. Not only does it make it harder to browse, but your statement may be much more effective if it is more concise. I would recommend that you try to trim it down quite a bit, and make your main points in a little less words, if not to make your point come across more. Happy editing! (X! · talk)  · @179  ·  03:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your statement on the Catholic Church arbitration request[edit]

Please note that there is a 500 word limit on the request for arbitration page. That includes your initial statement and replies to others. Yours currently stands at over 1300 words. Please shorten it so it is below 500 words as soon as possible. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to sort this out - it's much appreciated. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Request - Longer version of statement[edit]

I'm afraid that I consider Karanacs and her friends are bringing a content dispute on what is always going to be a controversial and contentious article to the wrong place. What seems to have happened is that she and her group want the article to peresent a certain POV, largely antagonistic to its subject, and have lost patience with discussion, evidence-based argument and due procedure. There also seems to be a personal animosity borne by karanacs for Nancy Heise which gave rise to her earlier attempt to launch an RFC on her.

A request for arbritation is also improper here since all forms of dispute resolution have not been used. The cited mediation was on a very different issue raised by very different persons - namely the naming issue with regard to the article. This was settled amicably after a lengthy mediation process. Virtually no RFCs have been made on any of the issues raised here. Nancy Heise raised one after arbitrary changes were made by certain editors without consensus, and the RFC went in favour of the position Nancy upheld. This dispute is allegedly about POV, yet no attempt has been made to involve the POV noticeboard. There has also been absolutely no attempt to enter into either a formal or informal mediation process on the issues raised as set down in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy. If real disputes exist mediation is the obvious course of action here.

As far as the accusation that the article is pro-Catholic in POV is concerned, the article compares well for balance with those in Encyclopedia Britannica and other encyclopedias, and actually presents a more critical view than such articles. The article has been (even before recent changes to favour Karanacs position) rated as a WP Good Article for many years, and has been put up several times for Featured Article, with a majority of commenting editors in support. Yes. Editors have been opposed to promotion. This happens on many controversial topics. What Nancy heise, myself and other long-term editors have insisted on is that we don't have a one-sided negative and caricatured portrayal that some seem to want.

For the past six months there has been a running review of the article, and particularly the history section, with the participation of several of the most highly-critical editors. Nancy, myself and others have tried to keep this orderly and deal with issues on the basis of Due Weight and reliable references. Nothing has been barred from discussion, and considerable change has occurred to the text. However this has been made more difficult by certain antagonistic editors such as Taam and PMAnderson, who have made continued personal attacks.

As far as other complaints go:

  • Karanacs seems to think it a "personal attack" to say that some editors present an anti-Catholic position. However she seems to think it quite all right to accuse other editors of being pro-Catholic or "pushing Catholic POV." That is an illogical position.
  • The accusation that I or Nancy Heise greet newcomers with personal attacks is also false. All editors coming in with a collegiate improving approach are and have been warmly welcomed. Some people come in to the article with extremely vituperative attacks on article editors whose views they disagree with, however. It is harder to be so engaging when people are insulting you and calling you a liar because the article doesn't back up their prejudices and preconceptions.
  • The charge that changes are often reverted is again outlandish. Controversial changes made without discussion are reverted on this article and most others on the Bold Revert, Discuss principle. Most editors on the page have agreed that we discuss important changes on the talk page and implement when there is consensus on new wording. Some editors have tried to make controversial changes without agreement or discussion, or have decided that their opinion outweighs that of other editors. Sometimes they have tried to edit war these in place, causing the page locks. Agreed changes are not reverted.
  • "Assume good faith" is also something that I, Nancy and other editors have not had the luxury of receiving. Karanacs concern on this score is incredibly one-sided. I could provide dozens of links to prove this and other points, including those backing the article and complaining at the behaviour of those attacking editors on the page. But at this stage that would make this post incredibly long.
  • "Undue weight given to unimportant matters in aid of a pro-Catholic POV". This can be refuted by a look at Britannica's article, or any serious history of the Catholic Church. The evangelisation of Europe, educational foundations, monasticism and similar issues are central to the history of the Church and its interaction with society. Some people may want only to discuss negative perceptions, but that is not the purpose of a WP article.
  • Hamiltonstone complains that I altered Richardhusrs edit on the subject of AIDS and the Church. This is typical of the false sort of issue being raised. The original text raised the issue of criticism of the Church and stated why the church rejected this. Nancy wanted to add additional scientific information supportive of the Church's position. SHE DID NOT DO SO, but brought it to the talk page for agreement. Others then tried to remove the existing text giving the Church's response to this extremely contentious accusation. Haldraper removed the issue entirely, pending agreement. Richard then again added a one-sided piece, without agreement being gained, making the accusation but failing to put the church's response. He asked others to amend his sentence. Hamiltonstone then accuses ME of disruption for returning a sentence stating the Church's response. The simple fact is that the substantive change, removing the Church's response to the accusations was made by the complainant's allies, not us. In this, THEY acted improperly, removing referenced material without agreement. This is unfortunately typical of the approach of some of those complaining here. They want an article that makes serious and unbalanced accusations against the Church while not permitting the response to be set out. With regard to Mike Searson. Again he removed referenced text without agreement. HE may not consider the issue important, but that has to be agreed before removal. Hamiltonstone also misrepresents History2007's contribution, since that editor was turned off by Taam's personalised attacks on myself and Nancy. Xandar 00:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

On the page we have tried to meet all content objections through discussion, and asking objectors to make and prove their points with reliable references. People have been challenged time and time again to provide a list of demonstrable factual errors in the article, and by and large such evidence has not been brought forward. Instead some people have demanded that no author with catholic connections be quoted in the article, or that statements such as Catholics were anti-women, pro-slavery, pro-fascist etc be present without reliable countering information.

I feel that what some people seem to dislike is the principle of making changes by consensus. This is an important Wikipedia policy since it forces us to examine the sources and come to an agreement on what is a fair NPOV presentation of the source material. The simple fact is that there is not a consensus among editors for the position of Karanacs and her allies, or they would have what they want already. From Karanacs complaint it seems that she is impatient with the process of reaching consensus and wants a ruling that she and her allies should have the article they want without interference from people who disagree with them. That is not the Wikipedia way. I propose that if karanacs and others have disagreements about content and the way their objections are being dealt with, they bring it to mediation. Xandar 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Would like to comment on the case. Not sure that I have "standing" to do so since I am not named in the request. It seems to me that mediation is an important prelude to arbitration. Even mandatory. It appears that step has been skipped. Where do I comment? What would be my position in the request, if any? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How many[edit]

Are you going to dodge the question of how many clergy were killed before the Church embraced Franco? If you say 'what do you expect', they attacked a church in the asturias in 1934, they have to expect revenge, is that in line with Jesus teaching? Sayerslle (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

QEII page move request[edit]

Because you have participated in one of the previous move requests for the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article, I invite you to take part in the latest move request for that article. Thank you. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 09:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church proposal[edit]

Please see this and let us know what you think. Thank you.UberCryxic (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring[edit]

I've reported you for edit-warring. I promised I'd let you know next time. You're the only one who resorted to reverting rather than discussing. WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Karanacs (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Xandar (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I have been blocked for a week by User Yellowmonkey, without discussion on the Admin page, and without even time to present my whole position on that page. This is for TWO reverts to a HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS and major change to the Catholic Church page, made against consensus and all Wikipedia rules by Ubercryxic and Karanacs - who then complained against me. The change was made in compliance with BOLD REVERT DISCUSS. The onus was on the changers to discuss their proposed changes not revert back. Karanacs and Ubercryxic have so far not been blocked for their serious disruption of the article, making huge and controversial changes against consensus. Yellowmonkey has blocked me for an excessive period on an earlier occasion, again following a Karanacs complaint, and this time he has acted with undue haste and one-sidedness

Decline reason:

First, there is no need for "discussion on the Admin page": admins act based on activity and there's no need for discussion among admins first. Second, based on this, the WP:NOTTHEM is key. There are ways to avoid edit-wars, and edit-warring is not one of them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Neither Uber nor I reverted your changes - that was done by another editor. Karanacs (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not true that YellowMonkey previously blocked you in response to a complaint by Karanacs. The previous complaint was made by me. Hesperian 03:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Karanacs has made complaints against me in the past, maybe I mixed them up, but Yellowmonkey indeed blocked me hastily before for an excessive period (should have been 24 hours). That issue was again where I was protecting an existing longstanding statement on a policy page - which was later proved to have been wrongfully removed after an RfC.
As far as who reverted my reversion, that is immaterial. The fact is that the reversion of my revert was improper, and made by someone supporting Karanacs illegitimately-made changes. I haven't seen Karanacs reverting her changes back, or reporting her ally for edit-warring. The people who started this trouble were Ubercrycix and Karanacs, by deliberately breaking Wikipedia rules and massively altering a major Wikipedia article, knowingly and without consensus, and supporting a campaign of edit-warring to keep these controversial and unagreed changes and deletions in place. Xandar 04:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no intention of edit-warring, which is why I did not - and do not intend to - revert your reversions. Mike, who was uninvolved in the dispute, made a single revert - it was your second that caused me to file the complaint. If Mike had reverted a second time, he'd deserve the same consequence. You are much too quick to revert, especially when discussion is already in progress. That too often leads you to edit-warring. Karanacs (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
A quick look at Xandar's contributions suggests that Xandar has made at least 24 reverts of good faith edits to Catholic Church since the start of February. I doubt whether anyone else has a quarter as many in the same time frame. Hesperian 04:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTTHEM?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
As far as hesperians comments on my editing on the Catholic Church page go, I made 12 edits to the page in early February. Two minor. These were to restore significant and referenced sections on the Jesuits and Enlightenment and Liberation Theology that had been removed without consensus, because someone didn't think they were important. My other dozen or so edits in the past month have been again mostly restoring material that people cut out (unagreed) on AIDS in Africa, to and fro on the Spanish Civil War, where attempts were made to put the killings of priests in the wrong historic order or eliminate it altogether, the removal of material on the eucharist, and a contretemps with an anonymous editor pushing fringe conspiracy theories. The CC page is very active and my goal has been to see that significant substantive changes have discussion or consensus. In the period I have made about ten times as many edits to the talk page. Xandar 11:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Further to Karanacs, could I add that Mike, who reverted my revert after a matter of three minutes, was one of the editors, substantively changing and removing sourced material without consensus. I reverted the huge changes being made, because they were making the article critically unstable, they had gone beyond any ability to follow and track them, and more such drastic edits (including halving the content of the article) were being promised by Ubercrycix. This was a quite intolerable and improper level of editing without consensus of a major article on which changes should be made by consensus. Uber had stated on the talk page that his opinion outweighed everyone else's and that he was going to break all the rules and completely revamp the article single-handed. Karanacs seemed to be following his lead. Other long-term editors had objected to this and suggested reversion. In such circumstances a reversion to stabilise matters was, in my belief, justified. Xandar 11:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Granted he has several entries in his block log for edit-warring, it's not clear to me what this block is intended to prevent. The page protection is set to expire on 24 March, and he didn't seem to be edit-warring anywhere else. Right now there is a straw poll in progress about these versions where Xandar's input would be useful, and he could be contributing to other pages. Maybe he would agree not to revert anywhere in exchange for a reduced block. Tom Harrison Talk 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS[edit]

This edit is canvassing; I have removed it. Please don't continue such behavior once your block ends. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit is NOT canvassing, and I would thank you not to remove or censor talk page posts made by others. I'm not sure what your interest in the matter is, but it is quite peoper to post matters of interest for the project on the Project talk page. Xandar 00:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
If you don't think it's canvassing, perhaps you're not ready to have your block lifted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Pretty sure those aren't connected. Tom Harrison Talk 00:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope if he again canvasses once his block is lifted, they will become connected, because they are the symptom of the same disruptive behavior that has caused the article to be a battleground :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Sandy, but the project talk pages are for just this sort of thing. It seems all right for people like Ubercryxic to be encouraged to the page by Haldraper, or for Karanacs to encourage people to intervene on the page, but not for the Project catholicism page to discuss a major debate on the subject it is set up for. If a major alteration is proposed for the Catholic page, then Project Catholicism needs to know about it and express an opinion - just like any other project. I'm a bit concerned that you are leaping in to the article debate on the side of Karanacs - whose involvement prejudices her FAC role. If you are becoming an interested party in these matters, are you resiling your FAC role with respect to this article? Xandar 00:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
How many times do you need to be told that Karanacs is not serving in a FAC role on the Catholic Church? And Project talk pages are for neutral messages; yours canvassed for a certain position. Also, for your reference, please read 1e, stability, and recognize that as long as you continue to edit war, the article will never even approach being eligible for FAC, so you can stop worrying about who may or may not be FAC delegate decades from now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
My message stated truthfully that people who wanted an article less favourable to the church (Truth or not truth?) have proposed major changes to the article. The current plan you are involved in seems to be to hold a quick "vote" on UberCryxics changes with me conveniently blocked, and other interested parties prevented from being informed of what is going on. This is not proper, and your activities in this, and your one-sided intervention in a content dispute in my view put your position at FAc into question. Xandar 02:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about the featured article process. Is it relevant to this somehow? Tom Harrison Talk 00:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple points of relevance, Tom; and they all involve Nancy's and Xandar's repeated attacks on Karanacs and her integrity. She is WP:FAC delegate; she is recused from acting in that capacity (or as an admin) on the CC article, yet Xandar and Nancy have repeatedly and persistently refused to understand that and impugned her character. Second, the Church had the four (five, because one had to be archived and restarted) most acrimonious FACs in the history of FAC (and quite significantly so), because of Nancy and Xandar's combative attitude and failure to grok Wiki policies or AGF, and turning them into battlegrounds of "us vs. them". Third, they persistently and consistently claim consensus for "their version" of the article, in spite of four failed FACs that rejected their version of the article. I, for one, am tired of seeing attacks on Karanacs character, knowing that she has been patient as at least a dozen experienced FA writers were chased off of the article. And finally, neither of them has ever understood WP:CONSENSUS or WP:CANVASS; they persist in thinking Wiki is a "vote" (or FAC is a "vote"), and calling for "votes", with non-neutral wording. In other words, canvassing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see - FAC delegate since last year. I'll think about what you've told me about it's relation to Xandar's block. Maybe Xandar will agree not to revert, and the blocking admin will agree to lift it soon. Tom Harrison Talk 01:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Sandy's is a very one-sided review of the FACs. The majority of editors on all FACs supported the article for FA. Therefore the FAC did not "reject" what Sandy calls "our" version of the article. And the article passed Good Article, and Good Article Review, many years running. Most of the acrimony at FAC occurred when certain editors made forceful and swingeing attacks against the article and its editors, impugning them for POV pushing in blatant disregard of assuming good faith. I can highlight some of these attacks if necessary. It must be recognised that the Catholic Church article is one which gives rise to considerable controversy and emotion, and people are always going to come in making swingeing attacks. However I have never impugned Karanacs character, although she has consistently accused me and other editors of POV-pushing and slanting the article. Karanacs has also raised charges against Nancy twice now, at RfC and ARBCOM, after which independent editors have always come forward to say that Nancy is more sinned against by being attacked and abused, as sinning, by sometomes responding. It was Karanacs own decision to involve herself in the article. No one has been "chased" off the article, although a couple of individuals, stalked off after it became clear that other editors weren't just going to accept their POV take on the article's subject without debate, discussion and good and balanced referencing. Finally, I have not asked people to "vote" on the article changes. I asked people to look at the proposed changes and contribute their views. Xandar 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
You can wear down even a saint. When will you understand that FAC IS NOT A VOTE!! The article did not, and does not today, meet WP:WIAFA, and CC holds the record on number of valid opposes on each and every FAC-- the only reasons the FACs had to go on so long was because canvassing brought in some of the support "votes". Drop the sin stuff; Nancy and you both violate all of Wiki's behavioral guidelines routinely. That's what counts here. Please don't tempt me to post the list of experienced, respected FA writers that you and Nancy chased off the article; if not for your WP:OWN, the article would have been featured years ago. Your recounting of the FACs above is simply wrong, and your failure to understand How Wiki Works is why the article is mired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, my friend, let me refresh your memory. I arrived at the Catholic Church on my own. Haldraper and myself were actually very bitter enemies in a dispute over another article (Liberal Democrats - take a look at the first sentence and you'll know what the dispute was about), but we just happen to have some common points of agreement regarding this article. As for canvassing: you should do it sparingly and wisely. The problem with your suggestion to Wikiproject Catholicism was its obviously biased nature: you were telling them your opinion of what was happening in advance, without allowing them to examine the proposed changes and to come to their own conclusions. You were clearly trying to influence their perspectives before they were given a legitimate chance to form one on their own. That kind of canvassing is strongly forbidden.UberCryxic (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

UberCryxic, Haldraper encouraged you to remain on the article, and to increase your activity there, plying you with his opinions on how dastardly myself and other long-term editors are. You have since attempted to take over the article, impose huge changes without consensus, and expressed your desire to destroy the current article. Suggesting that Wikiproject Catholicism is "obviously biased" merely exposes your own extreme bias on this topic. Xandar 02:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Xandar (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I am again requesting unblock for the following reasons. 1) My initial reversion of the major changes to the Catholic Church article, made without consensus by Ubercryxic, Karanacs and others, was quite proper under WP rules, since the changes were not agreed by at least four long-term editors - who suggested speedy reversion. The large-scale changes were disruptive to the article, being piecemeal, covering many different topics, completely reordering the article, removing significant material, and making it impossible to determine which subsequent edits were consensus. A reversion was therefore proper under WP:BOLD,REVERT,DISCUSS. Three minutes after my revert however, an editor re-reverted without attempting to discuss. I reverted ONCE more, since that reversal was against practice and policy, and I was acting to reduce disruption. 2) My action did not breach the 3 revert rule, since I reverted twice, and in fact the immediate reversal of my initial revert was itself improper. 3) Therefore I believe the block applied by Yellowmonkey, was excessive. 4) I admit that what I did could strictly be defined as edit-warring, however in view of the one surplus revert, and the mitigating circumstances above, I believe the block should be significantly reduced, and I am prepared to commit to no more revert war actions. 5) I am engaged in an ongoing process of trying to negotiate ordered agreement to resolve remaining disagreements regarding article content, and the block prevents my participation in this process. My main concern is that we build an article by negotiation that the majority of editors are happy to sign off on. Xandar 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is the fourth time you have blocked for edit warring. You got off easy. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

I suggest the reviewing admins peruse the threads above: Xandar is a committed edit warrior, and is likely to go right back to canvassing and edit warring. At no point in the discussions above does he acknowledge the behavioral issues that have caused the Catholic Church article to be mired for years-- it's always someone else's fault. He's likely to go right back to the same disruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The page is currently protected (and was at the time of the block) so it's not clear how the block is preventing edit-warring. A straw poll is in progress where Xandar's input would be useful, and he could be contributing to other pages. I recommend the block be lifted. Tom Harrison Talk 01:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The straw poll will still be there once Nancy and Xandar have learned what CANVASSing is :) It won't be settled in a hurry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and so my opinion doesn't count as much as that of Tom or Sandy. However, I have studied the user's past history while I've been at the Catholic Church article over the last week and a half and it seems that the user edit wars habitually. It wouldn't be a bad idea to send a message and leave the full block.UberCryxic (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm no an admin either: just an editor who has observed the behavior for about three years now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
UberCryxic is the last person to talk about edit-warring - since he started the whole recent disruption, after just a few days on the page, when he decided that he was going to Ignore All Rules, ignore the attempt to come to consensus and try to impose massive, non-consensus alterations to the article. Sandy has completely blown her pretention to neutrality by her one-sided support of those setting out to disrupt the article. Iam really surprised and disappointed by her. I particularly decry her lie that I edit-war habitually. I do revert vandalism and controversial non-consensus changes made without discussion. The last time I was sanctioned by LoveMonkey, it was after an intervention by her allies Karanacs and Haldraper, when her other ally PMAnderson edit-warred a controversial change on to the Naming Policy page without agreement. An RfC proved that the change made by PMA was indeed non-consensus, and my defense of the existing policy wording against multiple reverts by PMA was correct. These accusations have been raised by before and been found not to have foundation. Xandar 02:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been involved with the article for a grand total of one week. You've been there for years, and look at the monstrosity you produced. Your edit warring, POV pushing, and battleground mentality will almost certainly contribute to the article's demotion from GA, and good riddance.UberCryxic (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
And after one week you decide you know better than dozens of editors who put the article together over five year? You are the one who got fed up with actually discussing changes and arguing for them, and decided to try to impose your own unreferenced and totally ridiculous view of the subject by hacking the existing article to pieces and replacing it with a mish-mash of rubbish. And you have the gall to accuse others of POV-pushing and edit-warring! Talk about being blind to your own faults. You should really be the one blocked for that little exercise in ignoring all rules - and everyone else who does not share your opinions. I just wonder why so many of your group are suddenly finding my talk page an irresistable location to repeat the same personal abuse. Only people who belong to the group supporting your hatchet job on the article are here making accusations. Xandar 03:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The article has suffered five failed FAC nominations—one per each of your five years! Experienced editors with extensive histories in writing FAs (including myself) have come to tell you that the article needs the same kind of massive and radical revisions that you refuse to implement. And what's your response? Foot-dragging, filibustering on the talk page, and edit warring with the article itself.UberCryxic (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is, Uber, that you come to the page determined that you are right and the other long-term editors are wrong. Not only that, but you do not try to work with them collegially and in a spirit of give and take to deal with your problems with the article, but insist on establishing a battleground mentality. It is clear even from the above, that your agenda is not to co-operate and negotiate, but to impose unstated "Massive and radical" revisions on the existing article while impugning the motives and good faith of those who disagree with you. Just because you, or a group of people, disagree with an article doesn't mean you have a right to take this sort of non-Wikipedian attitude. We have tried on the article to deal with every disagreement properly brought up - on the basis of scolarship. I'm sorry if this is too slow for you, and that after just over a week on the article, you consider attempts to deal with issues rationally on their merits, and comparing and weighting sources, as "foot-dragging" and "filibustering", but this is what we have to do to build an encyclopedic article. Your opinions on the article have not been borne out by the majority of other independent reviewers. So maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong on some things. Xandar 12:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
A good argument does not depend on a majority, but as it so happens you're wrong anyway because most people currently seem to be on my side regarding the changes I've outlined. Sometimes in Wikipedia, a fresh set of eyes is exactly what's needed to improve an article, and it's become clear that your "long-term" involvement in the article has become an albatross, not an asset.UberCryxic (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

@Tom Harrison: This block is preventative, since many years of evidence strongly suggest that Xandar would be edit warring right now if he were not blocked. If some other remedy for this predilection is put in place, such as a long-term 0RR restriction, then the block can be lifted. In the absence of any other remedy, the block must remain. Hesperian 02:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the article is protected, and was at the time of the block, I don't see how he would do that. Tom Harrison Talk 02:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Um, because Catholic Church is not the only article on Wikipedia. Xandar's edit warring has been just as constantly excessive on many other pages, including several policy pages. If you had a broader perspective on Xandar's long-term editing patterns and behaviour, you would understand that this is much bigger than Catholic Church. Xandar's edit warring problems need to be remedied, and remedies need to be addressed at him, not at his editing interests. Hesperian 02:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian. This is falsity. Where have I "costantly excessively edit warred"? You supported the edit-warring of changes to the policy page "Naming Conventions". The change was to remove the wording "except where specific naming conventions state otherwise" from the "Use common names " section of that policy page. The removal was made without gaining proper consensus, and PMAnderson edit-warred the change in place despite opposition from me and one other editor. You accused only me of edit-warring, and I was blocked by Yellowmonkey. In that you conspired in PMAs edit warring, which was only reversed when I held an RFC on the issue, which you lost. Xandar 03:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"Where have I "constantly excessively edit warred"?" Well, at Catholic Church and Wikipedia:Naming conventions, for a start. It is not true that I supported your edit-warring. At one time, I supported a rephrasing that you inserted. That does not oblige me to support you edit-warring it in. I did not support you edit-warring it in; on the contrary, I reported you for edit-warring it in, even though I supported the content. Please do not again falsely accuse me of supporting or conspiring in edit-warring. I agree that PMAnderson sometimes also edit-wars, but the fact that he does, doesn't mean you do not. Hesperian 03:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yet PMAnderson reverted that passage more times than me, revrting changes by both me and ArthurRubin - and you only reported me. You may have backed that compromise attempt, but on the principle of removing the "exceptions" passage, you were with PMA. Xandar 12:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"on the principle of removing the "exceptions" passage, you were with PMA." Indeed I was. And against you. Sorry, I should not have tried to give the impression that I had supported you. No, wait, it was you who tried to give that impression. I merely played along with it until you learned that this claim doesn't suit your narrative after all, and decided to about-face and refute yourself. Hesperian 23:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian. You were involved in the incident above on the Naming Conventions page - and I can point to the post you made, encouraging me to make a certain change to try to get round PMAs edit-warring, just before you complained about me doing just that! The simple fact is that you were wrong in backing PMA in his attempt to alter Naming Policy by stealytth and through edit-warring. And it took an RfC organised by me to put things straight. Xandar 02:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
This is utter rubbish from start to finish. More importantly it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is about your ongoing predilection for edit warring. I am not interested in going down this cul-de-sac, so your myriad misrepresentations must be allowed to stand uncorrected for now. Hesperian 02:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not utter rubbish - it is truth. I have no "ongoing predilection for edit warring" and you were quite happy to support PMAs edit-warring when it furthered your agenda of changing WP policy without the necessary consensus. Xandar 03:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It is utter rubbish. I do not support edit-warring. I proved that when I reported you for edit-warring in favour of a version that I supported. You seem to think that just because I proposed the wording that you were trying to insert, I must also endorse your decision to edit-war over it. That is not the case. I reported you because I had had a gutful of your constant, habitual edit-warring, and something had to be done about it. The fact that you were trying to insert something I agreed with at the time I reported you was, and is, irrelevant. Your edit-warring was way out of hand long before then. Hesperian 03:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Way to go Xandar; you're asking to be unblocked, while you lodge a personal attack on me, calling me a liar? Way to win admins and infuence enemies :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
On the subject of winning admins, the unblock request is currently in the hands of YellowMonkey, whom Xandar has taken the liberty of calling "LoveMonkey". Way to go, Xandar! Hesperian 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There you go again, impugning my motives without a shred of evidence. The mistake with Yellowmonkey's Wikiname was not deliberate, and not intended to be offensive. Just an error that happens when responding quickly to a dozen posts. I don't carry everyone's names perfectly in my head, especially when I don't deal with them often. I also find it very difficult to spell "UberCryxic" in a hurry. Make something out of that too. Xandar 12:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, my, Xandar writes so much that I missed that. " The last time I was sanctioned by LoveMonkey, it was after an intervention by her allies Karanacs and Haldraper, when her other ally PMAnderson edit-warred a controversial change on to the Naming Policy page without agreement. " OK, now we're into serious personal attack Xander; let's say I hope your block is extended a month for that. Why don't you ask PMA if he and I are friends: I'd love to hear the answer to that one :) "LoveMonkey"? And when did Haldraper become my "ally"? I've never heard of him. You, on the other hand ... I've been observing for years, and I know your behavior. Serious personal attack here, impugning my credibility and reputation, based on absolutely no facts. Way to bid for an unblock. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
An amusing instance of tunnel vision. I disagree very seriously with Sandy on other issues, which have not come up at this article. But I believe we have usually dealt civilly with one another. Allies? Certainly not. Enemies? On the whole, not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I imagine it would be rather hard for a FAC director to swallow PMAnderson's stated contempt for FAC. Hesperian 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
She could fix most of its problems if she wanted to - those not arising from straightforward reviewer incompetence; she has fixed those she cared to address. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Who launched the personal attack? Calling me a habitual edit-warrer. I say that is not true, and therefore a personal attack. It's okay for you to call me a habitual edit-warrer, but not for me to say that is a falsehood? I think you are getting too emotionally involved in this, Sandy, and making just the sort of wild attacks you accuse others of. Karanacs is certainly your ally - and so, on this issue, are Haldraper and UberCryxic, and others. You have made common cause with them on the article talk page, and gone about removing other people's posts on various talk pages - or so you have claimed. That makes you an ally with them on this issue. No "personal attack" just a fact. I would have to ask why you are here trying so hard to prevent my block being lifted. I have had almost no contact with you at all over the past year and a half! Perhaps you should be blocked for a month. Xandar 02:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
See here and here. I don't edit war: you do. And drop the claims of women becoming "emotional"; they're unbecoming. Your behavior is just one of what I deal with all day long ... by the way, would you mind pointing out where I allegedly called you a "habitual edit warrior"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There are three separate incidents on that log of blocks in my five years of editing, including this one. All three involved Karanacs. This one was brought on by UberCryxic's and karanac's massive non-consensus hatcheting of the article. The first, I have referred to above, was when PMAnderson edit-warred an important unagreed change to a policy page - and I was vindicated in defending the wording at the subsequent RFC. The other one was when PMA again reverted disruptive banner tags on the article without entering into meaningful discussion on their purpose.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where I called you a "habitual edit warrier". By the way, Xandar, one way to speed up your unblock is go back and remove all of the personal attacks and false statements from your page, own up to edit warring, swear off on it, stop making excuses, and appeal to admins that you understand why it's wrong. G'night ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The post in which you made this allegation is here Quote: "Xandar is a committed edit warrior, and is likely to go right back to canvassing and edit warring." Xandar 12:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
You might want to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks; you're only arguing your way into a longer block with the continued attacks and denials. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
My appeal on the block is in the box above. The comments beneath are in response to the extensive and personal attacks made against me - all by people supporting the hatchet-job on the article that Cryxic wants to force through. Xandar 03:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyway I have to go to bed. So any further attacks on myself from the group will go unanswered for today. Xandar 03:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It is good that Xandar does not think any of my comments above were personal attacks (since he says that all of the attacks that he perceives are from supporters of Cryxic's version, which I am not).

Just to make my own position clear, the only reason I am here is to make the case that Xandar has long-term edit-warring issues, and that this block should not be lifted without some other remedy being put in place. I cannot make that case without making unflattering observations about Xandar's behavioural patterns. Hesperian 03:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, I've asked YM if he would consider lifting the block if you would agree to a 0RR rule. I think that would healthy for you and for progress on the page, since it would encourage you to seek an editor's rationale and logic before reverting. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

0RR would mean that I can't revert ANYBODY's changes anywhere on the Catholic Church page? I'm not opposed in principle. As you say, it might even be a good discipline for me. Checking the link, I take it that that 0RR means I can't revert an edit but that adding additional material to an amended paragraph would not be considered a revert? I do need to be clear on this. As someone who does quite a bit of editing and tidying up on the page, I don't want to be accused of breaching such an agreement. Xandar 11:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I think there's some wiggle room built in. For example, you can obviously revert vandalism. But for a regular content contribution, you wouldn't want to blanket revert. You could revise the added (or subtracted) material, or discuss with the editor. It's clearly a two-way street and the agreement wouldn't work if the contributors refused to discuss their contributions. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I'm prepared to make this commitment to 0RR. So how does this play out following Beeblebrox's denial of my block-lift? Do I have to put in another block-review request? Xandar 20:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Xandar (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

My block review request was rejected by Beeblebrox, stating I had had four blocks for edit-warring. This is incorrect. This is my third block in five years of editing, and is on a technical offense ie 2 reverts. Those two reverts were done under the provocation of a massive non-consensus edit to the article, and were committed in the heat of the moment. Further to the suggestion of Andy Walsh on my talk page, I am willing to agree to a 0RR presence on the Catholic Church page if unblocked soon. (offer not taken up after nearly four days) With these major changes currently being discussed, and Nancy heisse now also blocked, I think it is necessary that major editors of the current article be represented in those significant discussions. Xandar 20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC) ADDITION as at 15.3.10: Serious questions need to be asked about what is beginning to seem like the improper political use of one-sided blocking of key contributors by certain admins in order to try to alter content issues on the Catholic Church page. Xandar 03:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"The cabal is out to get me" is not a valid unblocking rationale. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

For the record and in the interests of fairness: there is / was an editor by the name of "LoveMonkey" who was making frequent comments on the Catholic Church article's discussion page about six months if my memory serves me correctly. He or she was principally concerned with making comments from the perspective of the Orthodox Church - on which article and discussion page you should find a number of his / her edits. Under these circumstances it is perfectly understandable that Xandar confused this editor's name with YellowMonkey's. Afterwriting (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. My apologies to Xandar for reading the error as mocking. Hesperian 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI Regarding the current unblock request, in which you state this is only your third block: Your block log [2] directly contradicts that statement, showing four including this one, five if you count being re-blocked for block evasion last September. This may seem a bit nitpicky, but since Xandar is making an issue of it it is important that we be accurate. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear. Forgot the three hour block in 2006. Actually I can't even remember it now. But its on the list. Since I usually only come on WP once a day. I probably didn't even notice it at the time. Xandar 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My offer (of 11th March) to 0RR on the Catholic Church page if my block was swiftly lifted has clearly not been agreed to. Therefore the offer falls. I will abide by the same 1RR rule as other editors have been asked to. Xandar 19:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Poll on Ubercryxic's Catholic Church Changes[edit]

I must also say that I oppose any poll on Ubercryxics drastic changes to the Catholic Church article before there has been an opportunity to discuss and debate the reasoning behind, and the deficits of the proposed changes.

As far as I can see, the changes are typical of those done in haste by someone who knows very little about the subject. Having the History section first is insupportable, since it stops the article fulfilling its primary purpose for most readers i.e. telling people what the Church is, does and believes and practices NOW.

The changes to the beliefs section are catastrophic, since they completely mangle and destroy the sections on belief in so many ways it is impossible to list them all. Huge and importanmt sections of the belief section have been hacked away to make an incoherent mess. I know this is of zero importance to most of the people who oppose the present text - but it is of importance to the accuracy of the article and to Wikipedia.

Removal of sections like origin amd Mission and Cultural Influence are also unjustified and not acceptable in an article purporting to provide full and comprehensive coverage of the subject. In all this is a joke of an attempt to re-write the article.

Any attempt to implement anything like this without the proper full discussion, justification, consensus and debate is completely out of line with the central principles of Wikipedia, and would be strongly opposed. I would urge people to step back from this appalling proposal and return to trying to achieve source and reference-based consensus forming. Xandar 02:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but a poll is at least an attempt to obtain WP:CONSENSUS before editing ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The big problem is that the massive range of changes proposed need to be properly discussed before "voting" in ordere to attain any sort of real consensus. yet I see people coming on to the page and just saying, "yes great". This cannot possibly represent any form of ordered consideration or thought with respect to the proposed alterations, which include 1. reversal of the order of the article, 2. Numerous significant and damaging changes to the beliefs and Origins sections, each of which would require proper and full examination. I see no evidence that many of the people voting have any interest in or knowledge of the topics and changes proposed. 3. The removal of certain important sections of the article entirely. There could therefore be no valid consensus on all those changes from such a vote. Consensus-building is based on discussing the substantive changes proposed and coming to an sgreement on the best wording and formatting based on the sources. It isn't a gang vote on a package deal of (botched) changes. Xandar 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Xandar, you violate your own guidelines and recommendations with what seems like near-impunity. Nearly everyone on that talk page has complained about your behavior over the last two years, but you still have not changed, and I doubt you ever will as long as you think that article is somehow "yours."UberCryxic (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
What absolute rubbish, UBERCRYXIC. Noone has complained about my "behaviour" apart from others in your gang - who have made no secret of their desire - not to negotiate and discuss - but to take over the article by fair means or foul, and "own" it. Your own behaviour in this matter has been appalling. As someone with no knowledge of the subject and zero experiance of the article, you beleieve that you should be the new dictator declaring what is and isn't, and canvassing to have those of opposing opinions blocked. Xandar 20:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Frankly I think it's beneath me to continue this pointless conversation with you. Have a good day.UberCryxic (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"New dictator?" Who's the old one? And who are "others in your gang"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Well I notice that admins are VERY divided on the policy of blocking Nancy for informing people on the Wikiproject neutrally about what is going on. This whole procedure is beginning to produce bad odours. And I don't think that major changes brought in in this way are likely to prove acceptable. The whole current farrago has been occasioned by those you support not being prepared to respect and work constructiuvely with the other editors. Xandar 21:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (ec)Xandar, I can understand your frustration, but I think you may have misunderstood a bit the point of the straw poll. You had proposed, and Nancy had alluded to, that the current article should be considered a base point for making changes. Uber is instead proposing a different version as the base. The key is that Uber is not proposing that his version is perfect, and it is highly likely that we will need to dissect it in detail and I am sure that lots of changes will need to be made. It is a failure of good faith to assume that those who have commented in the poll in a manner you disagree with have not given "any form of ordered consideration or thought with respect to the proposed alterations". I'm also not sure what evidence you are looking for "that many of the people voting have any interest in or knowledge of the topics and changes proposed." The vast majority of those who have commented have been active on the article talk page at one time or another, or have followed the article through FAC. If they arrived from one of the notifications left at the wikiproject talk pages, then they have obviously shown an interest in the article. Do you think that participation in the discussion should be restricted? If so, to whom? What would editors need to say tto convince you that they have considered the arguments yet still reached a conclusion that is different from yours? Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that there is no precedent or policy to change the "base version" in this way. Wikipedia procedure is to discuss changes and come to a clear overwhelming consensus on making changes to points at issue. This "change" removes whole sections and massacres others. The changes have not been debated on their merits and are just being pushed in a battleground manner. I have so far seen no justification being made for proposed significant changes such as the removal of the Origins and Cultural Influence sections, and the massacring of the Beliefs section. Such significant changes cannot be prpoperly made in such a manner. Xandar 21:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, and I'm glad to see you weren't implying that only certain people could participate. Justifications for the structural changes have been made on the talk page, albeit in different sections. Talk:Catholic_Church#Origins_and_Missions_changes and Talk:Catholic_Church#Cultural_influences_changes. Before the straw poll, quite a few editors had posted and directly addressed these (Origins & Cultural Influence) changes - the majority of those editors were in favor of these structural changes. A (larger) majority of those who had commented were also in favor of moving the history section. The straw poll resulted from your assertions that there was no consensus for the change, despite those postings. With a change this large, we won't get unanimity, but the trend right now is a clear majority that is in favor of them (over 60%, so far). As for the text changes, there is nothing in WP policy or guideline (including WP:CONSENSUS) that says we can't make a broad change to the article and then work from that version instead of the current one - as long as editors agree that we should make that change. Editors are being asked to determine which version they think is easier to work with, not which version will be the final "can't be changed" version. 21:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Karanacs (talk)
Well your brief chat with Nancy provides no consensus for removing the Cultural influences section. And I also see no consensus even among the four people discussing the removal of the Origin and Mission section - which i would consider even more essential to the article. Such proposals for change are in my opinion ill-judged. On reducing article size, I have other suggestions to make. Xandar 01:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

PS If you have an opinion on Geometry's Guy's question at Talk:Catholic_Church#GAR_Advice, I'll proxy it for you on the talk page. Karanacs (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well. as far as Good Article Review is concerned, this is precisely the WRONG time to be looking at it. Which form of the article, or intermediate stage, is being reviewed? That makes a huge difference. i say postpone until we have a stable version. Xandar 01:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The new version is live[edit]

The article has been unprotected, the straw poll has been declared dead, and I have gone ahead and implemented the new version of the article, per majority consensus. The final vote when the straw poll was declared dead was 11-7 (61% in favor of the new version). I look forward to working with you when your block expires. Please see the talk page for more details. Try to work through consensus and do not revert to the previous version. Thank you in advance for your cooperation through these difficult times.UberCryxic (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately 11-7 on a limited poll, over 2 days, with some of the main objectors prevented from participating or discussing the proposed changes properly, is no form of Wikipedia consensus, even for a minor matter, let alone for such swingeing changes. Such MAJOR changes, including removing whole sections and much referenced information, need proper discussion and consensus on the substantive issues. This has not happened. Nor was the "poll" in position long enough to gain even a cursory initial "vote" that is the preliminary to a discussion. Xandar 00:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not wish to discuss this any further on your talk page. I am just telling you what the current consensus is. How you interpret and what you do with that information is entirely up to you.UberCryxic (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
On consensus. I have a feeling you are misunderstanding what it is and how this is formed. This is done by discussing the substantive issues on their merits and coming to a clear and if not unanimous, at least a very clear supermajority conclusion. A two day 11-7 straw poll without these issues being discussed, and with restricted participation doesn't cut it for trying to blanket-change a tranche of major issues on a major article. It might just about pass muster for changing an inconsequential sentence, but even then people excluded from the argument might raise issues and demand a proper discussion to validate the change. Removing whole sections of long-term referenced information from the article would require a lot more than a brief poll not many people know about. A straw poll is the beginning of discussion, not the end. Xandar 11:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC Proposal[edit]

I notice that Nancy is suggesting an RFC. My view is that any proper RFC must be a part of and follow discussion on the SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT ISSUES raised by the changes, (or rather slash and burn,) initiated by UnerCryxic. In other words it must be based on the article content changes and removals. As such the first stage needs to be a full summation and criticism by myself, nancy and other editors, of the changes carried out on the article since March 10th, and a discussion of these points. If agreement cannot be reached, then an RFC question would be formulated and the positions and alternatives clearly set out. Anything less would not be in accordance with WIkipedia principles and policies on consensus decision making. I would oppose any RFC without full discussion of the substantive issues in question, and without both alternative visions of the page being available to participants, to be studied BEFORE "voting"> Xandar 01:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that it's comments like this - that show you have no desire to work within consensus, and continue to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:OWN mentality that are keeping you blocked, right? There is no greater sign that you are not able to edit in a collegial manner than statements like your last few. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
He's simply asking for an RfC, for goodness' sake. The entire CC article was replaced with virtually no opportunity for community input. It wasn't a battleground, it was Hiroshima. --MoreThings (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Any battleground was created by UberCryxic's and karanacs massive changes made without any attempt to gain a proper consensus on them. And continuing changes while the main longstanding contributors to the article have been blocked. I am supposedly blocked for edit-warring, which ocurred when trying to revert UberCryxic's (so far unsanctioned) decision to Ignore All Rules - and unilaterally make enormous undiscussed changes, basically gutting the article. BWilkins seems to indicate by his words (As does SlimVirgin on Nancy's page) that the blocks are an attempt to stop me (and Nancy) being involved in discussions on the page, or presenting and arguing for our opinions. If so, then the blocks have been completely improper. As far as claims of a battleground or OWN mentality are concerned, they were brough up by Karanacs and Co before ARBCOM, and such allegations were found wanting.
Two thirds of the non-history section of the article have been removed, totally eviscerating the article in contravention of Wikipedia process. This has to be discussed, properly examined on the substantive issues - and a real consensus reached through proper processes. Xandar 19:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Xandar, I've suggested to Nancy that she open up a user subpage and post there the version of the article she'd like to see, and a list of the differences between that one and the current one, so perhaps you could work on that with her. Then at some point an RfC can be held to ask uninvolved editors to judge between the two. But there's no point in doing that prematurely. There is currently cooperation on the article, with people making compromises on both sides, and nothing should be done to disrupt that, so please allow that process to continue to see where it leads: you never know, you might end up not minding what they produce. But if you do, then you and Nancy can organize an RfC, perhaps on its own page rather than on the talk page, which might bring more eyes to it. I think the key thing here is patience—patience to allow the new version to develop, and patience to show that you're willing to work collaboratively. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, how "co-operative" this process has been is a very moot point. Unfortunately I think UBER and co are operating on the wrong basic premise, which means that the article isn't actually doing the job it is meant to do, and the farther they go in the wrong direction (and I'm not particularly talking about POV here), the worse it gets. The point is that they are operating without input from longstanding editors of the article who can see the mistakes they are making. For one, there has not even been an account of the aims and rationale behind what seem to be random, hasty and swingeing cuts and rearrangements made on the fly by UBER and Karanacs. Anyway it looks to me as if the main changes were made in the first few days, and since then it has been largely a matter of lesser changes. I intend to produce a full critique of the changes on the talk page, and a suggestion of the alternative, and see if there is a way to forge a real consensus compromise between article editors, which gives us the clear, comprehensive and stable article needed. When I post this, I will present a sandbox of the shape of the article that I think presents the best way forward. (It's hard to co-operate with Nancy on this atm.) Only if consensus fails to be achieved may we have to go down the road of RfCs and other dispute resolution. Xandar 20:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to get into the content issues, because if I'm adminning at the article, it's best that I don't even look at them. But if you look at the last version you restored on March 10 here, you can see it has structural problems. The word length isn't too bad at 11,865, but it's 193 kbs with 431 references, all citation templates, which makes the page and diffs slow to load, meaning we lose readers and it's hard for editors to monitor it. There are 33 refs in the lead alone. Several sentences have multiple footnotes after them, some up to five, which is never necessary—it makes the page look untidy and defensive, as though a case is being built rather than an article written. It's a sea of blue with everything linked that possibly could be, and editors on the talk page were saying material was being added simply so that it could be linked i.e. it had become a list of names and facts rather than a narrative. When I downloaded it as a PDF it was 36 pages, which isn't too bad, but only just over 19 of those pages were text. And then for some reason the history section is at the very end, which I've never seen done before.
I can see that posting a critique of the changes could be a constructive thing to do, but I think you should consider opening a user subpage for it, or a subpage of article talk (e.g. Talk:Catholic Church/recent changes) so as not to interrupt editing. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 06:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The structural problems you refer to can all be dealt with without eviscerating the article. The multiple references and long notes were all built up because of criticism of the article and its sources from many of the people still present on the article. Therefore duplicate references were often added, and long notes to show where the source text supported its use in the article. Both measures could be removed once the content issues and appropriate referencing are settled. The issue of linking topics came up because of the need to shorten coverage of issues and refer on. If something is significant, readers should, within reason, have a chance to immediately link to an article with more detail. That helps in the duty to consider readers before editors. I would be annoyed reading an article which mentioned Saint Jerome, but didn't provide a link. The citation templates can easily be changed if shorter versions are available. As far as shortening the article is concerned, there are consensus ways to do this.
However these are not the major issues, which concern the rearrangement of the article, and the massive, seemingly random cuts of important material built up by many editors over several years. As far as the History section being last goes. This is the norm for major religious articles, including Budhism, Islam, Orthodoxy and Hinduism. The changes are very important issues to do with the format and direction of the article, and its suitability to represent Wikipedia's coverage of the subject. These need to be properly and prominently discussed and dealt with before going further. So far this discussion has not occurred. Xandar 19:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
PS I don't like the (veiled) threats that seem to be being made against Nancy on her talk page. has UBER received similar threats? Xandar 19:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It's wrong-headed to prioritize the reader over the editor because both matter: if the article isn't well-written, the reader is poorly served. In this case, there were problems even getting the article to load, so both readers and editors were inconvenienced. I understand what you're saying about multiple references but it's almost always a sign of poor editing. One side adds X, the other side objects, so the first side bolsters the claim with multiple references, and the second side does the same, until we end up with, "The Foo Freedom Fighters killed five nurses in an attack on an ambulance in 2010,[1][2][3][4][5] in retaliation[6][7][8][9] for a 2009 assault on a hospital by the Bar Liberation Group which killed eight patients, [10][11][12][13][14] and which was prompted by ..." all the way back to the Stone Age. What should be happening instead is the absorption of both positions into one coherent text.
The bottom line is that the article can't be an apologia for the Catholic Church, or an attack on it. It has to be disinterested, policy compliant, well-written, appropriately sourced, and of a length that allows readers to open it, which with this article is likely to mean lots of summary-style sections. Nancy is talking about waiting for a bit to allow the current version to develop, then holding an RfC to ask for fresh eyes to compare the two. That sounds like a pretty good plan to me. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 08:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
While I agree with 80% of your post, I would state that an article that has been a Good Article for many years, and which received 23 to 9 vote FOR promotion to FAC, has therefore not been considered by most people an apologia for the Catholic Church. I don't think the WIkipedia Main Space is the right place for experimenting with the complete dismemberment of a major article with what seems to be no idea of what should replace it! (What has been described above as "Hiroshima".) As for the timing of an RfC, that would depend on many factors, including what Nancy and other people think, and the openness to discussion and rethinking of the people who have tried these changes. Xandar 10:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
FAC is not a vote. 9 actionable opposes (and these were all actionable) is a record for an FAC nomination and indicates that there are serious problems with the article. Karanacs (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Hi Xandar. I'm not sure how much you've been following Talk:Catholic Church in the last week. Just in case you havne't been following closely, I wanted to let you know that I've archived a lot of the discussions to Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 46 and Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 45 because the talk page has been very busy and slow to load. Feel free to reinstate any of those discussions on the article talk page if you think it necessary. Karanacs (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Xandar 19:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re, inevitably, Catholic church[edit]

Xandar, I agree with much of what you say, but frankly you & Nancy, perhaps especially you in some ways, have brought it on yourselves. The rows will now clearly stretch on until the crack of doom, & I will be absenting myself for a long sabbatical. Uber & Karanacs have for now installed themselves as the Junta, just as Nancy & you did. Let's see what comes of it. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Military_history_of_France, where the differences between my ideas as to what an FA on a large subject should be like and Uber's are raised in a different context. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That was a different UBEr to the one we have seen on Catholic Church. However we need to focus less on personalities than on content. And the content at present is dire. Xandar 14:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for canvassing for support of your position on Catholic Church. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, I asked Sarek if he'd agree to shortening your block if you'd acknowledge your error and leave the same note with all others who commented on the straw poll. He agreed, so the ball's in your court. Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am quite prepared to leave the same note on everyone's talk page. There is no vote or RfC currently in progress, so inviting people very recently involved in this debate to look at my post should really present no problem. I haven't called anyone who wasn't already recently involved. I notice that Sandy, for example, has invited people not recently involved, to enter the discussion. Therefore I hope that this block is lifted soon. Xandar 19:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've unblocked per the above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Great. I shall "ping" other recent contributors with the same message. Xandar 19:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Cath Church Article[edit]

Hi, yes, I did comment on the article several days ago when I just took a quick look. But I did not read the talk page discussion where you recently commented on the changes for more than 3 seconds today. I just glanced and stopped. It was more of the same. It will probably be more talk, then some more talk and then some more talk. After that everyone will do some more talking. There are too many people there with deep feelings for/against each other. Participating in that discussion is a waste of life in my view. Wikipedia policies are inadequate here, as I had said before. While everone was hating each other on that talk page, I took some time off from religion to write History of randomness. It was more fun than that talk page. I hope you will like it.

I did take a quick look at the article and it looks like it was run over by a bus. But please do not sweat it. The Church has always out-lived its critics, and it will out-live all of us too, for or against these changes.

There may be a "Hail Mary" path (pun intended) to fix this article in the long run. But it can not be done by talking on that talk page for ever. My suggestion is to let this cool off and then think of a better, more constructive way much later, maybe in a few months. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I support History's comments. The article currently being run by a small group of editors with a specific agenda. It is not worth talking with them because they do not listen or hear. Their answers all sound the same, "You don't understand policy", "you are advocating", "you are wrong", "We know better than you", "You just don't understand consensus", "We voted for five minutes and no one disagreed so we have to be right", etc. I just don't feel like it is worth my time or effort to right the wrong. However, I am willing to return after this select group has their way, left the article after they finish their "collaborative" efforts and then through a consensus process assist other editors in producing a more balanced, informational article. To emphasize and make this crystal clear, I have no intent to edit war, but to use a consensus process to produce an informative article.
Frankly, I would also strongly recommend never going for FA status. That process is broken for controversial topics; most, if not all, religious topics are too controversial for balanced reviews. Ignore the FA process permanently and push for an informational article that readers will appreciate. You will then evade the attention of all the current problems we have seen of late. As an aside, this is the bloody Internet and who really cares about article length? I suspect we could not even count the number of articles on Wikipedia that are longer than this silly goal of limiting this specific article to 6500 words. It continues to marvel that all of this rancorous dispute has hung its hat on the article's length. It's a joke. --StormRider 16:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Article length is not an excuse for just massacring major areas of content. What I want is a GOOD, fair and comprehensive article. However some people insist that anything showing the Church in a good light or explaining its beliefs is "POV" or "advocacy". I was never a big fan of FA. It gets you on the front page for a day, and is nice to have. It was more Nancy's desire to make this an FA article. Xandar 19:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Sarcastic wisdom sugests that the length needs to be determined by encyclopedic value. So how does the length compare to encyclopedic gems like the article on Britney Spears? Well, there is logic, then there is logic driven by consensus. Conclusion? Britney wins. History2007 (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

I actually like what you have proposed with regard to scaling back "History" to a summary and refering users to a "History of the Catholic Church" article. It would eliminate the POV wars, etc. I do remember at one point my objection to the article was 0 mention of Therese of Avilla, Francis of Assissi, the Rosary, etc; yet paragraphs on Luther, Hitler, etc. I do think that the enormous amount of work that you and Nancy put into this article should be introduced into the sub articles on history, and the sub articles on those. This could have the potential to be a great source of knowledge about the Church. The other upside is rather than the bickering, erdit-warring, namecalling, etc one could simply point an objector to the appropriate article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The History section produces ten times more acrimony on the page than any other. Xandar 20:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebuilding[edit]

Xander, I was going to provide suggestions later, but since you seem intent on continuing on this article, here are my suggestions for you, (and of course the other 3,000 people who in the best of Wikipedia tradition have their binoculars focused on here). I provide my suggestions to you, because in the end you are probably one of the best people to fix that page, if you change strategy and loyalties, as below.

1. Please accept the facts. You are outnumbered on the Cath Church page now and Wikipedia is as much about numbers as logic. There is no point in discussing page length there, as I hinted above. And then it gets worse. So do not bother to talk and talk over there. You are persona nongrata there, and they will just threaten to have you ceremoniously flogged until you admit the errors of your ways. Just stop bickering over there.

2. Stop having faith in Wikipedia policies. Wiki justice is often random since "consensus" depends on who happens to be present on a page at a given time. If 36 students on springbreak decide to walk over right now to vote on changes as a prank to rewrite it backwards, they can get consensus to do pretty much whatever they want. So give up on the belief in the Wiki-process. It works once in a while, but not always.

3. Accept that your previous strategy did not work. In my view, your errors were two fold, and related:

  • A. Your blind loyalty to any position that Nancy took was a mistake. Stop that.

I did not walk off that page because of the opposition, for I could handle them. I walked off because of Nancy. It was clear to me that her zeal was limitless and resulted in really exaggerated claims. There was no end to them and they infuriated some of the opposition into making similarly exaggerated statements. I thought: with friends like that who needs opposition? The claim that Catholic schools are most respected in the world was just an example. How can anyone with a sense of logic not over-ridden by emotion try to insert that into an encyclopedia? As I said, it would take $100 million in opinion research just to estimate the validity of that statement. And what does it teach a reader? It was not educational, it was a press release sound bite. But the e-straw that broke the e-camel's back was the sudden introduction of the Harvard Crimson insanity just as we were having a careful discussion on the reduction of the History section. I found that just an insult to the intelligence of Catholics and atheists alike. Contrary to popular belief, being a Catholic does not require a lobotomy at the moment of baptism. Some Catholics do think once in a while and many of them, like me find extreme positions such as the distasteful Harvard Crimson debate just meaningless.

  • B. You did not accept enough advice, as Mike said above.

Accept advice, and do not wear rose colored glasses when you view the Church. I think long ago Taam said that the article's tone was that the Church can do no wrong. I think he was right, and that tone existed throughout. You do not have to defend the inquisition, or all the actions of every pope. I felt that if Nancy had her way, many of the claims in the article would be so exaggerated and extreme that they would have even been too embarassing for a press release by Agenzia Fides. For any exaggerated statement, one can find some reference, but that is not the way to be constructive. Some of the opposition such as Haldraper and Karanacs had many valid points. Do listen to the opposition as well as friends.

What to do next? As they say the Chinese character for trouble also includes the character for opportunity. I think the suggestion that Mike Searson made makes a lot of sense. This is an opportunity to build a nice set of articles that work in harmony to present information about the Church, free of exaggerations.

My suggestions:

1. Build on value. The article, if it had been rid of the exaggerated claims and the extra baggage in the History section was actually very good in most cases. Your advantage over the current version is that you actually know the topic. Among all the disagreements, there was just one item that everyone agreed upon: that the History section was the weakest, most overweight and in my view also the only unreadable section. I actually used to think of the History section as a heavy garbage truck being towed by a nice car. Now the garbage truck leads the article and the car has been traded in for a much smaller more spartan model. In time people will figure that out. But do not sweat that yet. Let it be for now. The Church has been there for 2,000 years and a few weeks or months makes no difference.

2. Use their tactic, but do better. Set up a subpage of your own and cooperate with a few selected people to build a proposal. Do not do it alone, so you get multiple perspectives. I suggest inviting just Mike and Richard to help you as a start and asking Haldraper to act as a critical voice if he agrees. Do not invite Nancy for the reasons above and do not invite me because I am lazy. If you can convince Johnbod into commenting that will be great, but he seems to have had enough of this now. As the article group grows, asks comments from 5 to 7 other editors to give it balance.

3. Set up the sub-article structure first. You need 7-8 sub-articles with a top article that ties them together. Many of the articles exist, but some such as Catholic Theology are in need of help. As Mike said, an article that mentioned no saints and no rosary was missing a lot. And for Heaven's sake do some type of sub-article on Catholic spirituality, and refer to that instead of just debating the number of priests.

Then the project will take on a life of its own, and it will lead you. Remember: many churches were burned down, most were rebuilt as even better churches. This article is in a mess now, and you have had a temporary set back. You can rebuild, but not on that talk page. After the new article is ready in your user-space, then it will probably outrank the current attempt so much that you can go through multiple routes to improve the situation. I am really going to stop reading this talk page and the article for a while now. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all that input. But I don't know if I have the energy to go through that lengthy process of articles and sub-articles you advise. What we need is an acceptable article now. Which we do not have. My proposal on the talk page would get that. So we'll see what comes out of it, and how genuine people are in wanting the best article. If there is to be a big change, then it has to be one that has genuine consensus backing. I also think you are very harsh on Nancy. She's been the punchbag for everyone with a beef about the article or the Catholic Church. People accusing her on a daily basis of lying and falsifying facts. The work she's gone through to get the article up to scratch is amazing. I several times had hacks at it before Nancy showed up, and although I did some work on the Beliefs and History sections, and within three months they were as bad as before - with so many people just stepping in and adding and hacking away stuff. It is not a normal article. I put up some articles three years ago which are almostt unchanged. The CC article would be entirely shot to pieces if left for a couple of months, even leaving out the vandalism. And the viciousness of some of the people who come to the article is unbelievable. And there are people who just want to take pot shots - or have misapprehensions and blame us for not backing them up. many people have come into the article, not with a collegial attitute, but with a chip on their shoulder, spoiling for a fight. I don't say the Church right or wrong. I'm quite prepared to put the inquisition or the abuse scandal or AIDS on the page - but tell both sides of the story. If WP is to maintain any status it must not be a tabloid newspaper, but a balanced place for serious coverage of issues. Xandar 03:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Xandar, I agree with much of what History2007 has written. The one point where I would part company with him is how hard he came down on Nancy. I agree with much of what he wrote about Nancy and I found her (and you) to be really frustrating at times. However, I also think what you said about her becoming a punching bag is also true so I think we have to consider that she has probably been sinned against more than she has sinned.
One of the problems with Wikipedia is that it is not paper. As a result, editors sometimes treat articles as if they could go on forever. Most successful authors learn not to be so self-indulgent. There were two issues with the old version of the article. One was the pro-Church POV that permeated most of the article. The other was the length. As far as length goes, I think the article should be about half of its previous length. The question is how do we get there? I oppose eliminating the history section but I could imagine cutting it in to be about half to two-thirds of its previous length. That means the rest of the article also has to be cut in about half. If you start by accepting that premise, you could then identify what portions are not absolutely necessary. For example, it's just not necessary to explain all the conditions necessary to be confirmed (in a state of grace, selected a sponsor, etc. etc.) and then to also describe that, for Eastern Catholics, confirmation immediately follows baptism. Those details could fit well into an article on confirmation but not into the top-level article on the Catholic Church. Of course, we need to mention confirmation as a sacrament but mentioning those details is like laying out the requirements for marriage and for holy orders. This is just not the place for that level of detail.
--Richard S (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Richard. I'm all for sensible pruning, but it has to be done carefully. With the History section, and lacking some of the notes, the article could be reduced to around 130k judiciously, by getting rid of the flab that you describe, while losing little of importance. I think that is quite reasonable and satisfactory. On the specific Eastern Catholics point, however. That is one of the trip-ups, because most of it went in because of complaints from ECs. And if people really want a shorter article, the long-suggested removal of History is a good answer. What has been done to the article in the UBER hatchet-attack just turns it into a Stub on most issues. It doesn't do its job. Most of the material removed is the heart of a good article. Pushing History to the front just makes it a clone of the History of the CC article. To keep it at the front it would have to be reduced to little more than what would fit on a single screen. At the back we can have more. As for accusations of POV, these fly around a lot in vague terms, but when pressed for specifics, little of substance is produced. Or no refs are produced to back it up. Some people see anything said about the Church that could be interpreted in a good light as POV, including mention of ending human sacrifice and founding universities. As nancy said just before this episode began, some people produce no evidence to counter what is in the article, but instead just want to cut topics that displease them. Not the way to run an article. Xandar 09:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I don't usually comment on user pages without being invited, but I think History's comments coupled with Richard's (especially those in regard to Nancy) is the best advice I have seen since this entire thing began. I am not sure about the comment linking the fact that if you cut the history section by x you also have to cut the rest of the article by y because certain things are necessary to get an overview of the Church. Whether history is 20%, 40%, etc. of the article shouldn't matter, what gives the best overview of the Church in all its warts and glory is the what is required. Of course that last statement will probably be torn apart by the "binoculars" but you know what I mean. Marauder40 (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Xandar, this Elizabeth II RFC represents the form of RFC I would like to use for the Catholic Church article. What do you think? NancyHeise talk 08:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems okay, although it has got complicated with time. I would find it an acceptable format, although advice from User:Sunray would be welcome. Xandar 12:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Xandar, are you going to propose a trimmed version of the correct version? NancyHeise talk 15:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I have created a short version of the correct version here User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church short version. (Im almost done) Do we want to put this up for consideration at the RFC as well? Truthkeeper asked me why I did not just do a trim of the correct version and I want to see how much I can trim if length is the main issue here. NancyHeise talk 18:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I created a short version of the correct version, it is 10,500 words and 65KB (using the page size tool). The long version is 75KB and 12000 words. Uber's version is 46KB and 7500 words. There are several comments on the Catholic Church page asking about more information and stating that the cuts were too deep. I think we should offer a "medium" sized article as well as the short and long in our RFC. NancyHeise talk 18:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Snap. I also produced a short version, available here. User:Xandar/CatholicChurchTrial Duplicated effort, I guess. Xandar 19:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is a duplicated effort. I had to get something going to put up on the RFC which SlimVirgin has been after me to open. Your trim can be compared to mine if that version gets picked by the RFC. Whatever version is chosen we are going to make further improvements to it anyway. Keep your version on your userpage somewhere and by the way, you need to clean up your userpage. There is some article text posted there by an anon. NancyHeise talk 20:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RfC[edit]

Just letting you know that I've created the structure for an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church, in case you or NancyHeise want to use it. If you do, you could collaborate on the "statement of the dispute" section. Or you could each write one, or one of you could write "statement of dispute," and another could write a different section lower down. It's up to you entirely, and there's no absolutely set format, so you can mix and match. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. Thank you. Wel have to sort something out if agreement on a compromise version can't be reached. Xandar 19:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Please don't canvass. [3] [4] SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me. How is this canvassing? It is not biased in any way. It is to let people know it is a significant RFC. Your message is almost too small to be noticed. It is quite peoper to post in these threads. Xandar 10:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The Wikiproject pages are there to allow for discussion of exactly these types of things SlimVirgin. Xandar can discuss issues affecting Catholic articles on the Wikiproject Catholicism page. I think it is an abuse of power to bully anyone who says anything about an important RFC on that page and if that happens again, as it happened with SandyGeorgia, I will not hesitate to take the matter to arbcom. Enough already. NancyHeise talk 13:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Please comment on this suggested compromise—on that page, please. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A new approach[edit]

From past discussions, I know that you have been very unhappy with the state of relations on the CC article. I have called for a more collaborative approach. It seems to be a case of "well I would but the other side won't stop." It seems to me that there is a desire on the part of some editors to try to work more collaboratively if others did.

If you want to move in that direction, now might be a good time to give a sign of good faith. One thing I do not think we should do though is get into any postmortems. The current discussion has turned toward what we could do to establish a new approach. My question for you is: would you be ready to work collaboratively with others on the CC article? Please don't feel compelled to reply if you are not ready to. Sunray (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly be prepared to work collaboratively with any other editors willing to proceed in good faith. I think there has been a failure to discuss issues dispassionately instead of emotionally and in a highly personalised way. If we had a forum where just the issues were discussed with reference to the sources, I think a lot more progress could be made. Xandar 20:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Xandar. I will wait a bit for Nancy's response and then post this (and hers, if any) to the RfC talk page. Sunray (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification question FYI[edit]

Hi Xandar. You stated somewhere that you weren't sure where SlimVirgin had posted a question to you. I think Richard just reiterated it here, if you want to answer. Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did Pius XII keep quiet about Hitler?[edit]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/06/why_did_the_pope_keep_quiet_about_hitler?page=0,0

Read the intro in italics and tell me what you think the average reader is expected to think at the end of it.

Then read the article and tell me what conclusion the article author actually reaches.

Amazing... you know that I am no blind defender of the Church or Pius XII but this sort of manipulation is truly atrocious.

--Richard S (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. They've got the whole actual research content of the article wrong - to leap to a condemnatory conclusion! Xandar 21:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

rewrite of persecution paragraph at Catholic Church#Early Christianity[edit]

Hi Xandar. I hope everything is okay with you - it looks like you haven't been editing in a little while. When you return, I hope you will take a look at Talk:Catholic_Church#Early_Christianity_last_paragraph_-_persecutions; your perspective is welcome. Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been a bit off-colour recently, and with all the political shenanigans here as well, I've had a week or two off from Wikipedia. Xandar 21:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you are back, and hopefully feeling better. We need your perspective to be represented in the discussions. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Christmas[edit]

Hi, Xandar, hope you're doing well. Discussion has been reignited at the Christmas talk page regarding use of "religious holiday" and the celebratory dates of January 6 and January 7 in the lead paragraph. Since you've participated in related discussion at that talk page before, I invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Christmas#Lead. Thanks. — CIS (talk | stalk) 10:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Xandar. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao/archive3.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If you could strike things that have been addressed to your satisfaction, that would be spiffy. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've read all the links, so I understand this new system a bit better now. Xandar 23:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage[edit]

....is messy! I was wasting time wandering around Wikipedia tonight and wandered over here to see what you are up to. You have discussions going on your userpage instead of here. Since I have been on a super cleaning binge this summer it was difficult for me to resist fixing it myself. Hope you are having a nice summer in Merry (and sunny) England! (and find time to fix your userpage) NancyHeise talk 01:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. I never look at my user page. I missed some messages there. I've been sort of semi-active on Wikipedia recently, but not spending hours a day as at some points in the past. The summer here has been quite pleasant. Not many days over 70 degrees so far. I'm hoping to get a few days away. I would have thought you had been out with the grizzlies by now! Xandar 01:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Hi. Your input on the length of the Catholic Church article would be welcome at Talk:Catholic Church#Long_version.   — Jeff G.  ツ 21:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Strasbourg.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Strasbourg.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Closing of Catholic schools and parish churches[edit]

On Talk:Catholic Church, you asserted that the dioceses of Boston and L.A. had specifically denied that such closures were linked to the sexual abuse scandal. This runs counter to the impression given by quite a number of press coverage. There are at least a few articles in Wikipedia which assert this linkage. I would like to look at the original sources and then revisit our articles on the topic to adjust the assertion that there is a linkage as appropriate. Can you point me in the direction of sources which back up your assertion? --Richard S (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure Xandar will have other sources but just in a quick web search I found the following article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/23/national/main569807.shtml it contains the following two quotes "He said the reduction was needed because of declining Mass attendance, a shortage of priests and the inability of the archdiocese to support struggling parishes — many in older buildings in desperate need of repairs — in the midst of a financial crisis some say was caused in part by the abuse crisis." "The decision to close parishes is in no way connected with the need to finance the legal settlement with the victims of the clergy abuse scandal," he said. As with typical mainline news sources it says "some say" but it doesn't give who the some is. The quote from the primary source denies it is due to the legal settlements. Marauder40 (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Marauder. That seems about standard for diocesan reasoning behind closures. See also: Washington Post and cnn report. Xandar 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

'fringe mary Vincent'[edit]

Mray Vincent's book 'catholicism in the Second Spanish Republic' (Oxford University press ) ,sorry its not the Ctaholic Herald or whatever you think is mainstream, is not fringe. In it she argues that the descent into war occurred because of the closing down of the moderate political options represented by men like Unamuno and Villalobos. She is clearly not an extremist then. " The tragedy of the Second Republic was that it abetted its own destruction; the tragedy of the Church was that it became so closely allied with its self-styled defenders that its own sphere of action was severely compromised." Its self styled defenders, the CEDA, and Carlists like Lamamie de Clairac, openly contemptuous of democracy. There was much talk in catholic publications of Masonic plots and Vincent writes this fear of plots " was also linked to the rampant anti-semitism which was a familiar feature of much Catholic culture." i know you think the Church was attacked totally unprovoked and is 100% innocent but reality is the master, as larry durrell once said. NPOV Sayerslle (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My quarrel is with your selection from sources to make a fringe point. Your synthesis indicated that the Church was destabilising the republic. However that is a rather one-sided view, even of the quote above, which insists, as does much mainstream opinion, that the 2nd Republic alienated the Church and many/most Christians in Spain from the start with its policies of virulent anti-clericalism. You also tar the Church with responsibility for what the Carlists and CEDA did, on the grounds that these were "defenders" of the Church. Most would agree that it was unwise (Stalin-inspired?) anti-clerical hostility, disguised as "separation of church from state" that alienated many middle-of-the-road Spaniards from the 2nd Republic. Xandar 21:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not making any point. mary Vincent s book is about the polarising politics of the years before the civil war. You seem to think it absurd that the Church had any part in this polarisation, but that is not right - (Stalin is not mentioned at all and is not i would gather from this book ,a relevant figue in these pre civil war years - the Spanish Communist party tiny - Vincent p.136 the preference for authoritarian rule remained deep-seated within the Spanish Church she writes about the anti-semitic propaganda of the Jesuits and the rampant anti-semitism which was a familiar feature of much Catholic culture - she writes, the Church could have countenanced the religious neutrality of the state (yes, why bloody well not, jesus was about the pursuit of love not power remember, - I guess it was dominated by hard line fanatics like you - and so instead of moderation, , the 'no we can't have religious neutrality of the state - reactionary clericalism must win out' its same as 'totally unprovoked', one eyed) . i don't think the republic was right to curtail the ceremonial life of Catholic spain - but Vincents book does not allow me to come away with the idea that the Church did not contribute to the destabilisation of the Republic. i am not tarring the Church with what the CEDA did , what the Carlists did , I am quoting Mary Vincent the tragedy of the Church was that it became so closely allied with its self styled defenders ..etc p.258 Sayerslle (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that you are still only taking ONE SIDE of what even your own sources say - and I don't know where Mary Vincent is coming from on this. You are then portraying one side, the alleged anti-republicanism of the Church, WITHOUT the balance saying that the 2nd Republic is acknowledged to have been VERY anti-clerical, to the extent of persecuting the Church. The church's alleged attitude to anti-semitism is not relevant here, or proven. What is needed is a balanced picture. The Church had strong reasons for any anti-republicanism, and this needs to be said. Xandar 00:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
'I don't know where Mary Vincent is coming from on this ' either. she might be a knightess of st columba, or opus dei, or maybe just an academic published by OUP so you know...The Church's side is always laid out in great detail by its propagandists already, the task is always to bring balance. To say the anti-semitism, the propaganda creating an image of a threatened church with jewish bolsheviks about to destroy religion whatever is relevant in creating the arena for battle, (imagine if the Church had made concerted efforts to sek middle ground, silenced anti semitic poison, at root - Vincent does say there was nothing quite like the Nazi racial obsession in spain but it didnt stop the anti-Jewish spirit , even though there were hardly any any jews in spain after theyd ben expelled), the 'strong reasons for any anti-republicanism' are written about already - I guess the speeches of archbishops rejoicing in war, the anti semitism, the massed ranks in CEDA, Carlists, JAPs, falangists,all good catholics like you no doubt - read matthew 5, christians aren't supposed to be comme ça i keep on about it, you argue about politics like a cadre, but Jesus was not about this. Anyway I'm convinced we are dialogueing of the deaf here, so I go away , the wide reading on this subject begins, i am as you can gather from the single book i've been leaning on, not widely read in this area and my opinions may change.(I know editors opinions don't matter, or shouldn't , I mean I may think my contributions are un balancing the articles in this area, etc..having read more widely) I do believe you should show some respect for the project though and not just shove your religious views on articles - this is not a prep school where the mentally unformed can just be lectured with fantasies. Sayerslle (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You've not really responded to my criticism that even with Mary Vincent, you are cherry-picking and exaggerating - as in some of the "piece" above. You seem to have a blinkered view of the Church as this evil right-wing, anti-democratic body; and you haven't looked at WHY the 2nd Republic alienated not only the heirarchy, but the majority of middle-of-the-road Catholics with its doctrinaire anti-clericalism. This is something which even Vincent seems to admit. So yes, read a RANGE of books, not just ones by republican apologists. Xandar 21:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The Church was right wing and anti-democratic in spain in the 30s pretty much. - 'the authoritarian preferences so common among the contemporary Catholic right' p.138 and throughout Vincents book. Its clear the anti clericalism was a too clumsy attempt to undo the influence of the institutional Church, its not clear the anti-democratic, anti-semitic, anti-agrarian reform, -but talked up conspiracy hatred - La estrella del mar,a bi-monthly magazine edited by the Jesuits for young members of the Marian Congregations gave obsessive coverage to uncovering the work of secret societies' in spain and serialized the protocols of the elders of Sion - pro carlist,, pro-repression, pro fanatic archbishops - was the only response, the most Christian response. So yes, read matthew chapter 5, not just the daily express or whatever you read. Sayerslle (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Its a waste of time debating with Sayerslle. He personally was a member of the anti-Catholic, anti-Western group of middle-class cranks the SWP, founded by Yigael Gluckstein and influenced by Leon Trotsky and Karl Marx. I don't think I need to point out what all three of these people have in common (just a small sample from the UK) to show that, contrary to far-left PC censorship, the rhetoric of some of the clergy in Spain was not some sort of fabricated "lunatic" fringe, but empirical observation. If Jews didn't want to be associated with communism, they should have thought about that before Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Yritsky, Kamenev, Krestinsky, etc usurped the Russian government, butchered the Tsars family (Sverdlov, Yurovsky) and started exterminating millions. Perhaps the truth is anti-semitic? This naive kid will probably grow up by the time he hits 40, until then he will spread his disinfo and lies. 90.215.164.30 (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church[edit]

Hello Xandar, I'm working out an outline for Practices and Beliefs and saw your post over on the talk page. When you've the time, and if you're willing, it'd be helpful for me if you'd post some examples from other versions that might be used as starting point here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malke_2010/Catholic_Church. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Xandar. That's quite a bit compared to my meager notes and outline.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Vote[edit]

Please Vote[edit]

Help us come to a proper consensus and vote Talk:Jessica_(entertainer)#Move.3F. Thank you. 200.21.15.109 (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: This needs to be retained[edit]

Your edit of October 22, 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&diff=392123792&oldid=3773480

states "this needs to be retained".

Why?

One of your edits states : "Its leader is the pope." To shed some light on your insight, the Roman Catholic Church has Jesus Christ as its leader, not the "pope".

Is it too much to ask of you to correct an error which you wrote several years ago?

If not, change "Its leader is the pope." to "Its leader is Jesus Christ."

Then you and your followers won't be in the wrong. Prophet of the Most High (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Various formulations have been used, including "leader on earth" and "earthly leader". The point that needs to be made is that, sophistry aside, the visible leader of the Church on earth is undeniably the Pope. Xandar 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Its visible leader, a follower of Jesus Christ, is called the Vicar of Christ. The word "pope" is a bastardization forbidden by Jesus Christ. Prophet of the Most High (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Merciline Jayakody[edit]

Dear friend , could you please assists me to solve Problem of this Article Talk:Merciline Jayakody/Temp--Wipeouting (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

BVM[edit]

Sorry. I was not consciously trying to rain on anyone's parade, just giving my two cents. You've been a valuable and consistent contributor to religious articles and I would hope to remain "on your good side!"

Nor am I trying to "win an argument." I am in a number of secular organizations. The use of secular names is very useful to get people interested in a topic. They are put off by religious adjectives. They would not read "Mohamed (Blessed Be His Name)" any more than they would read "Blessed Virgin Mary." Readers need to be pampered carefully IMO. It takes time for them to work their way up to the state of mind a believer might have. But that is just MO. Student7 (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't casting any blame. It's just that I had to mention that the POV argument doesn't tend to apply as respects WP Naming Policies. Issues of POV shouldn't deny the use of a common or proper name, unless there are issues of ambiguity involved. In any event I would hold that "Virgin Mary" is fairly neutral and well-accepted - more so than "Blessed Virgin Mary" which does have more religiose overtones. Anyway the discussion is closed now. Xandar 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and violence[edit]

Hi... I have done a lot of work recently on Christianity and violence. I have tried to make it an NPOV treatment of the topic. However, I suspect there may be areas where the pro-Christianity POV is inadequately presented. I wonder if you could take a look at the article and express your opinion on the article's talk page. Thanx. --Richard S (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Xandar[edit]

Gerard van Honthorst 002.jpg
Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing a Nigerian Christmas Carol - too wonderful not to share!

Please click on the link for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir - this is the best Christmas Carol performace. It made me think of how God's message really goes out to everyone in the world and we are all united with each other in whatever country or Christian religious branch we happen to belong to if we are believers and practicers. PS. You need to clean up your user and talk pages! You still have a message from last Christmas on here - geesh! NancyHeise talk 16:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

History of the Roman Catholic church[edit]

I have access to a variety of excellent books thanks to my new job. I'd like your commentary on my proposed revision, as I work through the existing text. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas (Col 1:16) History2007 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

January 2012

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Request for consensus for editing Template:Catholicism[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Catholicism#Edit_request_on_7_December_2012 to edit the list of Doctors of the Church to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen and do this by embedding Template:Churchdoctor. I am messaging you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism --Jayarathina (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)