User talk:James Bogle

Welcome[edit]

Hello, James Bogle, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -Patstuart 14:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to 'History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality'[edit]

James Bogle, your recent series of edits to History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality were problematic, as the editor who removed them pointed out (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality&curid=54602493&diff=932907287&oldid=932882746). It appears that you do not have much editing experience yet. At your convenience, you may want to review WP:V (use reliable sources), WP:OR (no original research), and WP:NPOV (neutrality). Regards, SunCrow (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Two questions, please:

1. What have you done with my changes;

2. Why do you say they are "problematic"? James Bogle (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues with the edits you made to that article. The first is that all articles must be written with a neutral point of view. That's actually one of the five fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Every statement made must be verifiable with all material attributable to reliable, published sources, usually to an inline citation to a reliable source. Without them, added material may be considered original research, which is prohibited. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to help, as would SunCrow it seems. You may also want to check out the WP:teahouse which is friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to answer my questions. You also say there are "several issues" but produce only one and one that is inadequate.

Insofar as you have attempted to answer my question #2, you have failed so to do. I have located and read each of the sources said to support the original article and none of them provide original sources and none of them support the outrageous claims of the author. The original article is a million miles away from "neutral". It was deeply biased, inaccurate, bigoted and anti-Catholic. I challenge either you, or the original author, to find any examples of the Church's authoritative Magisterium (i.e. a pope or a Council of the Church ratified by a pope) approving the execution of anyone admitting to, or convicted of, sodomy by the secular courts of any Catholic country and, in particular, of any approval of incinerating them by fire. Your original author asserts numerous times that such occurred but produces not EVEN ONE SINGLE AUTHENTIC ORIGINAL SOURCE - not a one.

But you call upon me to prove a negative i.e. the LACK of evidence.

You call that "neutral"?

I think not.

It is for your original author to prove his claims, not for me to prove a negative. He who asserts must prove. And he fails to do so. Yet he still asserts.

I repeat: you call that "neutral"? I think not.

James Bogle, your edits were undone because they were not accompanied by reliable sources, they were not written from a neutral point of view, and they violated WP:OR. Clearly, you believe that much of the information in this article does not accurately reflect its sources, that much of the information is incorrect, and that that the sources contained in the article are unreliable. I have no idea whether your assertions are correct. What I do know is that even if you are correct, you are going about the editing process wrong and will likely keep getting the same response you've been getting unless you change course. For more information on what types of sources are appropriate on Wikipedia, please see WP:RS. For information on who has the burden of proof on Wikipedia, please see WP:BURDEN ("the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material").

In this instance, you have added a good deal of material to the article without citing any sources. That's unacceptable, as is the loaded, heavily biased language you used. The appropriate action for you to take here is to visit the article's talk page to (a) lay out which information in the article you believe is not supported by the cited sources; (b) explain--with proof from reliable sources--which information is factually incorrect; and (c) explain which sources used in the article are unreliable.

Hope that helps. SunCrow (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will second SunCrow's comments. I have not read many of the sources in that article. However, if you wish to engage in a discussion on the article's talk page about what you think is in error or misleading, then I and am sure several others would be willing to work with you on them. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Suncrow and Slugger,

You are both missing the point.

You say that "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Well, then, where is the evidence supporting the author-editor's claims? He has NONE.

Next you say:

"The appropriate action for you to take here is to visit the article's talk page to (a) lay out which information in the article you believe is not supported by the cited sources; (b) explain--with proof from reliable sources--which information is factually incorrect; and (c) explain which sources used in the article are unreliable."

How can I "explain which sources used in the article are unreliable" when he produces ZERO sources for his claims. How can I criticise NON-EXISTENT sources?

I said this (which you ignored):

"I challenge either you, or the original author, to find any examples of the Church's authoritative Magisterium (i.e. a pope or a Council of the Church ratified by a pope) approving the execution of anyone admitting to, or convicted of, sodomy by the secular courts of any Catholic country and, in particular, of any approval of incinerating them by fire. Your original author asserts numerous times that such occurred but produces not EVEN ONE SINGLE AUTHENTIC ORIGINAL SOURCE - not a one."

How, then, does a Wikipedia reader call to account a Wiki-author who makes assertions with NO EVIDENCE, NO SOURCES and NO PROOF?

Please explain. Your help would be appreciated.

JB

Suncrow and Slugger,

You fail to respond proving only that you are both liars.

JB James Bogle (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Penal Laws article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement: "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike".

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the Help Desk. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Crow^Caw 15:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent incivility / personal attacks extending into the article namespace, such as in Special:Diff/947964553, Special:Diff/947963888 and Special:Diff/1113286068.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]