|Welcome to Zfish118/Mkow88's Talk Page!|
- The issue has been handled, so I won't resend the message, but thank you for checking. :) --Zfish118 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it might perhaps be usefu to review the history of the above article and related pages. I believe you will find that one editor on the article has dealt with to a truly unusual extent information regarding the recent sex abuse cases, almost so far as I can remember to the exclusion of anything else, that the same editor sometimes introduces comments about the church which honestly have little if any relation to the article but generally say something abou the sex scandal, and even in other comments says things which one could very easily take as indicating that he somehow takes the matter of the scandal, well, personally. I've even seen comments which seem to indicate that he thinks other editors can or cannot be trusted based perhaps solely on whether that other editor characterises their comments on the scandal as being what he calls “denial” of the subject.
It would of course be jumping to conclusions that perhaps everything related to this particular individual's position might be directly influenced to at least some degree by some possible degree of involvement in such a scandal in some way. But such is far from unheard of. In the 80's I knew a woman who had very strong opinions on certain major theological points, which struck me at the time because they were almost purely clearly anti-Catholic and showed a very confused grasp of the concepts and terminology. I later found out her mom was expelled from a convent when she was found pregnant with her by one of her convent's confessor-priests. He in quick order left the priesthood. They were all stridently anti-Catholic.
I'm not saying that I necessarily believe this editor was directly involved either personally or through family or friends in sme way in clergy misconduct. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was though. And I do think that for the CC article the sex scandal has seemingly been his primary if not sole interest for whatever reason. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- You make a good point that the frustrating behavior of some posters may be related to private emotional baggage, and that some leeway should be given. I will take this into consideration in the future. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Template:Report vandalism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)