User talk:LCP/archive

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar

For being a shining example of principled action by seeking, finding, and posting documentation contrary to a position you had been espousing, I award you this Resilient Barnstar *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

SMILED award

Slakr's "You SMILED" Award Because you Stayed Impossibly Mellow and Lucid in Edits and Discussions without resorting to personal attacks or edit wars on a controversial topic, I hereby award you this cheerful smile in recognition for your outstanding effort in helping to keep potentially explosive discussions civil and productive. Keep up the great work, and cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 08:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

APA and the WHO

We are having a discussion on whether or not to include the WHO classification of ego-dystonic sexual orientation on the reparative therapy page, or simply use APA. Could you add your thoughts?Joshuajohanson 03:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am still confused. Can you explain to me what is going on at my talk page? Joshuajohanson 05:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your words of encouragement. It is really hard when there is an article written about me saying how horrible I am. Sometimes I feel like the whole world is against me. It is hard not to take it personally, but I am trying. It is nice to know someone at least sympathizes. Joshuajohanson 02:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I probably do take this too seriously. I just get frustrated when you try to find honest information out there, and it can't be found anywhere. I still have a lot of questions about what the best way to go about this is. I look at this as a learning experience. When I first read Reparative therapy, I thought, oh, they don't allow it, and only had an issue with the way it represented Christian groups. But as I read more and more, I found that the article completely misrepresented, basically everything. There are some things that I have put up there, only to be shown that my interpretation was flawed. I am fine with that. I just had a problem when everything I put was taken down regardless. Anyway, although science can be a helpful resource, you are right that only God can heal me. I need to remember that, and be satisfied that I know within myself what is God's will. By the way, I have never actually lived a gay lifestyle, I am only looking to diminish my same-sex attractions. I really don't care whether it is called a mental illness or not, I just want help, and if that is the only way I can be helped then so be it. (Not that Wikipedia will change that.) You said I could email you, but you don't have a link. (I do.) Most of what I want to put up is in the talk page anyhow. Can you read my arguments? Am I way off base? The biggest thing I want in there is the quote from APA president that "The APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction," and then have things the APA does have conflict with explained.[1] Anyway, email me so I can email you, and thanks. Joshuajohanson 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Idolatry

Septegram, I wanted to make a correction and some changes, along the lines of our discusion, and I found the page locked. Do you have any idea of what's going on?LCP 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No idea. I've posted something on the article's talk page, so an administrator should be by shortly.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check out my latest comment in our discussion. It turns out your scepticism was well placed!LCP 16:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

re:Pedantic Presumption?

I'm sorry that I have hit a nerve with you, it was not my intention at all. I can only assume that you believe my "lecturing" is in reference to this comment: If you were being sarcastic, please don't make unserious suggestions to make a WP:POINT. I honestly could not tell if your suggestion was an honest suggestion or not. If your actual point is difficult for other users to figure out, perhaps you should adjust your talk page tactics. There is nothing wrong with saying something in plain words. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, by not making a decision on whether or not I thought you were being sarcastic. I said if you weren't x, and if you were y. I still believe that making suggestions on a talk page that you honestly don't support is a form of disruption. It's better to just explain why you don't support something (and I'm not saying that is definitely what you did). And at the risk of being accused of lecturing you again, I'd ask you to review Wikipedia:Administrators. Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. I do not believe I overstepped my bounds as a wikipedia editor in my last exchange with you at Talk:Death and resurrection of Jesus, but I appreciate you bringing your concerns up with me. I will try to be more sensitive to your needs in our future exchanges. I hope that this experience for you will cause you to examine your manner on talk pages, to perhaps allow users (such as myself) to understand your intentions better. I hope we can move on together, because I thought that we had worked well together in the past, and it saddens me to have come into conflict with you over a small matter of difference.-Andrew c 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First, please let me apologize. I apparently came across far too sharply. I do not feel in conflict with you. And regarding recent edits, I think the changes you made were warranted and judicious. I agree that we have worked well together in the past. I think we both respect the dialectical process and are pretty good at sticking to points and giving credit where credit is due.

However, in case you didn't notice, you just lectured me again. Your advice is unsolicited, and although I too have been guilty of giving unsolicited advice (“once or twice”), I don't know anyone who appreciates unsolicited advice. Apart from that, I do not think you overstep you licit bounds. Nevertheless, if admins are not suppose to be a special subgroup, I don’t imagine that being an admin includes giving unsolicited advice. Not even doctors and lawyers, who are culturally a “special subgroup,” give unsolicited advice. So, while “Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator,” I don’t see why that exhortation would include giving unsolicited advice--unless a user needs to be told that he has broken a guideline. Your habit of engaging in debate and simultaneously provide advice feels patronizing and, thereby, makes it hard for me hear your argument. In contrast, your direct statements about your state of mind, such as the ones you make in the post above, are helpful.

LCP 18:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Hi LCP. I just wanted to thank you once again for your attempt to resolve my controversy with Bishonen. As mentioned to you via email, I have now begun a "Request for Comments" here. The rules for Requests for Comments (RfC) require at least one other user (who has tried to mediate the controversy) to "certify" the RfC, or else the Request for Comments will be deleted within 48 hours from when it was started. Therefore, I would be very appreciative if you would please click on this link and sign directly below my name. Thanks again.

Ferrylodge75.21.26.219 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Commendable

Your apology to Bishonen is very commendable. Not everyone has the personal strength to acknowledge when they have erred. It seems that you do, and that is admirable.

My comments related to my perception of your 'lawyer speak' and 'possible sock issue', were merely my observations. It seemed to me that there was a notable similarity in your writing and phrasing. The two possibilities that came to mind were a) sock or b) he suggested wording. Neither of those two were particularly Good Faith on my part, and for that I apologize to you.

It seems you were guilty of poor judgment and nothing more, and I am properly chastened.

Best regards,
Peace in God.

Lsi john 21:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lsi john. The apology was not easy. I still think the text appears to support FL regarding his take on the warning, and (poor judgement or not) I did not want to contradict that. But I was apparently wrong in several ways apart from that. I am a sucker for the underdog, and the RfC thing does seem to be over my head. BTW, I was just having fun with the slang. Pax et bonum.LCP 21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have followed up on your last comment (for closure, not to beat up on you). An RfC is supposed to be a rather serious situation. As I believe you now realize, it is not something to be done simply to support the underdog. ;) The slang, though an attempt at humor, did not win you any points. I gave you AGF on it and didn't address it.

I'm afraid you simply got sucked into his plea for a sympathetic ear. Its done, and no real harm will come of it. Bishonen (aka Biszilla) is actually an incredibly fair admin. Whether or not the warning seemed 'harsh' or 'abrupt' is not for us to second guess. It wasn't the warning that Ferrylodge is complaining about (well its not just the warning) and the warning isn't really part of his 'permanent record'. The fact is, he ignored the warning, three times, in an attempt to get a retraction, and tried to force KC to accept his final edit. That is what constituted the harassment and qualified for the block. And it was his ego, which refused to accept a harassment 'warning', that got him into trouble. I tried to explain this to you on Bishonen's page, but I suspect that I was not very gentle in my explanation and you were not interested in hearing it. (no offense intended as you have acknowledged that you were out to support the underdog).

Ferrylodge would do well to take a lesson from your apology to Bishonen.

Lsi john 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:John Crichton-Stuart

I assessed the article through the WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive - • The Giant Puffin • 08:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cynical/vs/Realistic

Interesting userpage. The only thing I can add to it is: Welcome to wikipedia! Lsi john 16:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Writing it was very cathartic. Reading it makes me feel better. Cheers. ;-)LCP 17:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I think the bullies (my word> you describe are here to stay, and it is very trying at times to deal with them, learning the rules of wiki-world helps even the field a bit. Keep editing! Peace in God. Lsi john 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wages of Modernism

As for the Devil discussion we were having, I am of the opinion that any credence given to the Devil as an actual being is to enter into dualism and traffic in supernaturalism. You see it with charismatics all the time, they can become so obsessed with this "Devil" creature that God is made into a weak and ineffective non-presence in their lives. It's well and good to talk about theodicy and try and figure out how much we're responsible for it and how responsible God is for it, but I think plopping all blame on a sacrificial lamb called Lucifer is a cop-out. MerricMaker 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And according to Karen Armstrong, the charismatic movement, which is born of the Pentecostal movement, is an anti-intellectual reaction to modernity--and the flip side of the Pentecostal movement is fundamentalism (in all denominations). And similar to almost all of the other "Johnny come lately" religious ideas, it is just a re-invention and repackaging of long ago refuted and defunct attempts to reinvent the faith. For example, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Science are essentially variations of a repackaged hybrid of Arianism and Gnosticism. In contrast to what you suggest, the Catholic Church teaches that man's biggest impediment to "knowing, loving, and serving God, and enjoying his friendship in eternity forever" is man himself, not Satan. Man freely chooses sin. But this is not what I am writing to discuss. What I am suggesting in pointing you to the Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Modernism is that, if you are really interested in truth (and I assume you are), you catch up with the conversation about faith that has been going on for the past two-thousand years. If you are going to argue, argue against the best minds, not against strawmen. You may be having fun, but what good does it do for you to shoot down third-rate theories (e.g., “Satan is the Bogeyman”) with your own “novel” speculations when the Church has--almost a hundred years ago--already written volumes taking your novel assertions to their logical conclusion and refuting those conclusions? I would bet anything I own that any “new” theory you can think of has already been thoroughly understood and either refuted or accepted at some point in the history of the Church.LCP 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you assume that the Church arrived at the correct decision when engaged in dialectics. The decision against Liberation theology and base communities resulted in a significant loss in its ability to speak for and with the people in Latin America. Pentecostalism was quite happy to fill in. Despite their rather pedantic theology, they were able to actually address the needs of the people. Protestantism has recognized the value of Liberation theology. Roman catholicism saw it as a threat to their power base in the region, as well as political relations with Regan's administration. This was at least in part due to John Paul II's tendency to distance himself from anything with Marxist characteristics. Also, as a side note, Athanasius won on the doctrinal front, but most Christians today are Arian in their Christology. Saying that the Church has discussed an issue does not mean they made the right decision or that the right decision is the one the laity (and clergy, for that matter) actually follow. MerricMaker 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, did you read "INSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE 'THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION'"[2] before arriving at your above conclusions (about Liberation Theology)? LCP 22:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been some time, but yes. I always find it odd that what is deemed "acceptable according to correct doctrine" is predicated on whether or not one falls within certain accepted interpretations of Christology. And who happens to be sitting on the evaluating board, of course. MerricMaker 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. "Acceptable according to correct doctrine" doesn't appear in the text. Also, I don't understand why you think authority is odd or why you think your presumptive authority is more solid than the authority of those who have a very strong claim to be heirs to the promise Christ gave to Peter.

I haven’t assumed that the Church has reached the right decision. When I have been in doubt, I have read arguments and been persuaded. You stated, “Saying that the Church has discussed an issue does not mean ... that the ... decision is the one the laity (and clergy, for that matter) actually follow.” First, I didn’t say that the Church “discussed” Modernism. I said that they have written volumes about it; it has been exhastively debated and refuted. However, I would not say that this alone gurantees correctness. What gurantees correctness--in doctrinal matters--is Christ’s promise to Peter. But that is a rather large can of worms that I really don’t want to get into. On the second issue, about the layity and clergy being unwilling to follow, I think you are right, the claim is true in too many cases. I am sadly reminded of what Padre Pio responded on an occasion when a person told him that they didn’t belive in hell. He said, “That’s ok. You will when you get there.” I also wonder at such people. What pleasure (or guilt) do they cling to so tightly that they would rather reject the Church and imperil their souls rather than surrender, submit, and be reconciled?

At every Mass, Catholics pray the Nicene Creed, which states, “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” This doesn’t look much like Aryanism. And since Roman Catholicism is by far the most populous denomination, your claim that most Christians are Arians seems odd.

Perhaps you can give the document on Liberation Theology another look. You might notice that there were good reasons why JPII rejected Marxism and, therefore, so-called “Liberation Theology.” The theological basis for the rejection is thorough and sound. It has nothing to do with Reagan or realpolitik. For example, the document states that it is “illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites [ideology and action], and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the ideology, or to enter into the practice of class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads." And, “the fact that atheism and the denial of the human person, his liberty and rights, are at the core of the Marxist theory. This theory, then, contains errors which directly threaten the truths of the faith regarding the eternal destiny of individual persons.” The text then goes on the give a thorough analysis of why Marxism is rejected and the disastrous effects embracing Marxist ideology would have on theology. If the Protestants accept Marxist based Liberation Theology, it can be only because they don’t understand the implications illustrated by the CFDF. As you yourself said, Pentecostalism is pedantic (i.e., not penetrating or sophisticated?).

Finally, you have convinced me that you know what you are about. I am sorry that I have been patronizing. Nevertheless, between us there is a great ideological divide, and I do not see any point in further discussion. Of course, you are welcome to respond, but, if I can manage to restrain my self, I probably will not respond. Pax et Bonum!

LCP 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion, which has renewed my trust in the ability of Wikipedia editors to think and discuss in a cogent manner, thank you.

As a final, clarifying point, the theological divide to which you refer is one that exists between us. I am more or less an Episcopalian of the constructive dissent variety and a liberal. I do not particularly care if I'm reconciled with my tradition because I do not equate it with God or think of it as indispensable to my faith journey, I equate religious traditions with temporal social structures only. For a Catholic (and forgive me for speaking for you) there is the assumption of a direct connection to God that must be nurtured through involvement with the Church.

While it would be grossly inaccurate to say that Catholic understanding of church is based on "assumption," nevertheless, your understanding of the Catholic view here is more or less correct. God calls humanity to salvation through his Church, which exists only because of the constant succor of the Paraclete. I find your comparison and contrast very useful.LCP 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

However, this divide does not exist in a negative sense, as something we must bridge, but in that it does exist, and it is formative to our discussion and provides an important forum for that discussion. It amounts to what Jacques Dupuis called "the acceptance of the Other in their very otherness." We are different and can engage in dialog that informs and challenges one another, but we are each justified in our assertions. Again, thank you. MerricMaker 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You share a beautiful idea: "the acceptance of the Other in their very otherness." Thank you for reminding me of this! (BTW, I am not familiar with Dupuis. Is his idea of Other related to Buber's?)LCP 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That quote of Dupuis' is in Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. In that context, Other refers to persons of non-Christian religious traditions, but I think you'll agree it can be applied between Christian denominations as well. While it does have some shared ground with Buber (with whom I'm not particularly familiar), it's not precisely aligned with his particular take on the notion. Küng and Knitter write about "the Other" as in: the religious other. That is, those with ideas and culture foreign to our own. I think they probably take the idea most directly from Alan Race. MerricMaker 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Implicit vs. Explicit Support (in ref to Homosexuality in Christianity Entry)

Actually, most clergy that I know (and I'm in the biz) tend to follow church policy because they like getting paid and don't want to get defrocked. But they personally feel that to exclude anyone based on criteria like sexual orientation is a violation of the oath they took for ordination. They feel that in order to minister, one cannot judge, at least not the extent that you say to some parishioner, "you don't get to be treated as a human being in God's house, and it starts right here with me." There is no compelling reason to stand in the way of God's work like that, regardless of how one views the morality of homosexuality. So they'll say something like, "it's a sin, no greater than any other." An Episcopal acquaintance lost a third of his congregation, and when they walked out half the money went with them. They were so incensed by the decision to install bishop Robinson that they just left. This priest then went door-to-door and got all of them back simply by pointing out that the church is still the church, and the work of the church still needs doing. I think that's pretty emblematic of this issue. It's a difficult balancing act, and it is becoming safer for the clergy to resist playing. In a few years, God willing, none of us will be expected to play at all. MerricMaker 06:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I agree that it is not for the laity (i.e., for me) to judge the sins of others, and I feel sympathy for the priest in the confessional. Also, (as you know) while some sins are objectively worse than others, sins of the flesh are not understood to be the most dangerous. I find it saddening that our society is so obsessed (for and against) homosexuality. It is bad for the homophobic and homosexuals. Apart from that, I do respect the rules regarding public scandal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm). But those apply to all types of public sin, and personally, I find the guy at Mass with his second or third wife and a shiny gold Rolex much more scandalous than a homosexual who keeps his sex life personal and who, not unlike myself, just does the best he can to live a life that is pleasing to God. I don't understand the whole thing with Gene Robinson. It seems to me that he has caused a great scandal and might have taken St. Paul's words more to heart: "take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak."LCP 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But people still apply the term, "sin" to it. What I'm saying is that it is not sinful, and the church just hasn't caught on yet. What is sinful is, as you suggested, casual relationships in which one party takes advantage of the other. Such relationships are destructive, regardless of gender. The question is, is it a loving and mutual relationship? If the answer is yes, then the relationship and by extension the orientation of the people in it, is not sinful, but pleasing to God, who wants the best life for us. MerricMaker 21:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue the point, and I agree with and fully submit to the teaching of the Magisterium. I am fortunate that I have never been called to act in the matter. However, if my son came to me and said he was gay, I would read through the documents of the Magisterium with him (“On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” and “The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality”, etc.) and offer him all of my love and support. If he were to choose to be sexually active, I would try to be like St. Monica. AND, gay or straight, I have tried very hard to give him the tools necessary to understand himself (and others) in terms much broader than merely sexual orientation. Sexuality is a great gift, but a person is far more than merely “gay” or “straight”. I find it deeply offensive when people limit personhood to mere sexual orientation. A straight man doesn’t need to be macho and fond of sport and a gay man doesn’t need to be effeminate and fond of leather. I think the only true abomination is how many people, straight and homosexual, define the human person only in terms of sexuality and understand sexuality only as stereotype.LCP 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi LCP, I hope you're doing well. I see you've met PhotoUploaded.  :-)Ferrylodge 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've been missing you on the thread! I've tried to engage him and SheffieldSteel as constructively as possible, but they seem to be getting annoyed. I have a hard time understanding what they are getting at. It looks mostly non-sequitur to me. Perhaps you can take a look at their comments and my resonses.LCP 04:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wedging my comment in this section, as very distantly related : lame attempt at humor regarding your recent comment can be found (temporarily) here (if it makes you laugh, feel free to have fun with it - if it can help relieve tension its done its job. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I did enjoy it. Thanks for the giggle. What a horrible precedent that would set! Can you imagine? McDonald’s: McDonald’s POV; McDonald’s: BurgerKing’s POV; McDonald’s PETA’s POV; McDonald’s: Cow’s POV; McDonald’s: Pig’s POV....

Christianity and Homosexuality and Spong ref

Agree re Spong not being the best, but didn't want to add it without at least something, and I had the book right here. The whole thing has always seemed like a form of whig history, where we apply present understandings to things past. I also had a wee go at The Bible and homosexuality for largely the same reason. Both need more "adjustment" IMHO. thanks for you comment. Kind regards, Fremte Fremte 01:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Abortion talk page

Hi LCP, I'd like your opinion on the topic of mental health at the bottom of the Abortion Talk page. Regards, IronAngelAlice 17:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I have been sick lately, and I think my meds did something to my brain. My comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Can Change were inappropriate. After getting a good night sleep and rereading my comments and your response I realized that the way I use hook up and the way people outside of Utah use it are two different things. Within my circle of friends, when we say someone hooked up, we don't mean they stopped practicing chastity. We just mean they started dating. I like to joke a lot, so I use it even more lightly, like when elementary school kids "hook up". Sometimes I get too comfortable and too open online, but I need to remember Wikipedia is slightly (and only slightly) more serious than chat spaces and I need to be more guarded in what I say. Thanks for your concern, but I didn't mean to confess any current or past loss of chastity. Joshuajohanson 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I did take "hook up" to mean "sexual liaison." Sorry if I embarrassed you. That was not my intent. While I was concerned about what you said, my comment was actually more directed toward WebHamster (which is why I didn't just go to your talk page). My intent was to share a view of chastity that most people on that thread are probably not familiar with. BTW, I have no objection to you removing that part of the thread. Again, sorry that I too presumptuous.LCP 17:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Prolifevan.jpg

There are a number of issues with this image you uploaded. First of all, the image should be uploaded at the commons. At the commons, there is an easy tool available for uploading images from flickr (see this page, and the Flinfo tool is quite helpful as well). Also, the image doesn't have a license tag. It looks like you choose the "The copyright holder only allows this work to be used for non-commercial and/or educational purposes" option from the drop down menu. Because wikipedia is distributed freely, this sort of stipulation is not appropriate and images like that qualify for deletion. The image should have been tagged {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} because that is the license used on the flickr page. Yeah, this is all pretty stupid and confusing, but it's important to respect the way other's license their work if we are going to use it. Because this image qualifies for use on the commons, it will eventually be deleted and moved there anyway, so I think the best bet is to use the flickr upload tool at the commons and re-upload the image. I'd be glad to do this later tonight, because I have a color corrected version on another computer, or you can give it a shot. If you have any questions about image use or uploading, I'd be glad to try and help.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could find the time tonight to correct my blunders. I uploaded the image using the only means of which I was aware.LCP 23:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was about to come here to say the same thing. ;) Commons has a process for handling flickr images - we don't have that process here and if the flickr user changes their license, we don't have any recourse, but if the image has been reviewed at Commons, it's all good. There is a tool on Commons - Commons:User:Flickr upload bot - that you can use to upload images from flickr and everything is done for you - all you have to do is add categories and a name for the image. I highly recommend making a Commons account if you don't already have one. --B 12:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Richard Dawkins

The addition of a controversy section is currently being discussed on the talk page, please don't add it back in until consensus is reached. Thanks! Gscshoyru 21:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I did see the discussion, but lack of consensus in this case is immaterial as Criticism sections are standard across Wikipedia. The criticism I included is from a major publication and cited. If you can cite Wikipedia guidelines that support the omission, I’ll desist. I am also willing to discuss what criticism is included. As far as not including criticism goes, it is a non-starter.LCP 22:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What you fail to realise is that consensus has long been and still is, that criticism should be integrated into the article. This has been done, it has been discussed to death, and edit warring against consensus as you are doing, is not going to change that.  – ornis⚙ 22:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What you fail to realize is that only lack of consensus is evidenced in the Talk pages--in which almost every current topic protests the lack of a criticism section.LCP 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm looking for policy, but as for the specific section you added, using an opinion piece is not a reliable source -- see WP:V and WP:RS. And when I revet things with twinkle, it calls them minor edits. And the current consensus on the talk page seems to be not adding the section -- whether there is policy on it or not. Gscshoyru 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate a reference to Wikipedia guidelines. Regarding the admissibility of the source, I would agree with you if we were looking for a commentary on Dawkins scientific work. However, the criticism pertains to Dawkins non-scientific writings, which are all essentially op-ed. Also, unless the specific criticism that I presented is listed in the article (and I didn’t see that it was), it warrants inclusion. I'll do so in-line. Having said all of that, I do take your point about edit warring. Thanks. I wasn’t fully aware of the full extent of the stupidity of the situation.LCP 00:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I also don't understand how there can be any talk of consensus granted almost every topic in Talk protests the lack of a criticism section.LCP 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see that we have reached an understanding! Apologies if I come across at times as no more than rabidly pro-Dawkins and anti-criticism-of-Dawkins. That's no more than a reaction to the fact that the page is subject to so many assaults from people who seem to think that by dumping "well-referenced" facts, factoids, or truthiness into the article they can use it as a platform for pushing their Dawkins-bashing agenda in flagrant disregard of policies like WP:BLP and WP:RS (not to mention plain human decency and common-sense). I would react similarly (and indeed, have done so) to a pro-Dawkins truthiness-dump. My main concern is to maintain an article which is readable and interesting and helps the reader come closer to understanding the subject. Snalwibma 15:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it worked out quite well, and I appreciate your input. Thanks again.LCP 21:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

re:User:IronAngelAlice?

Sock puppetry (or abusing multiple accounts) is only problematic when the accounts edit the same articles and attempt to game debates or votes or reverts. It appears that the anon is working solo, so even if the user is IronAngelAlice, I don't see this as a case of abuse. IronAngelAlice is not currently blocked, so this isn't a case of someone using IP editing to avoid a block. While I personally wouldn't have re-inserted controversial material, the user IS using the talk page, so at this point the user is editing in good faith (although the anon is 1 revert away from 3RR). Similarly, you have violated 3RR (keep in mind that you don't have to make the same revert. it's simply undoing the changes of another editor more than 3 times). Consider this a warning, and I'll likewise warn the anon against edit warring as well. If a new user shows up and starts making edits which support the anon, then please tell me because that is a stronger case for sock puppetry. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew c. Thanks also for the heads up on the 3RR!LCP (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I just looked at IronAngelAlice's contributions [3], and it does appear that she and the new IP share very similar interests.LCP (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your problems with Anonymous have also shown up in the article on David Reardon. Many of his/her hostile edits are downright ludicrous. I see she's also engaged in banishing all of Reardon's peer reviewed studies from the post-abortion syndrome page -- apparantly believing his/her judgement should be allowed to override that of the publishers, editors, and peer reviewers at top medical journals. See my comments to her on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:131.216.41.16 I doubt you weighing in will have much effect, but if you or some other editor could help him or her understand simple distinctions, it would be appreciated.

Strider12 (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

LCP, as there is talk page discussion going on at Talk:David Reardon, it would be best for you to participate in that rather than merely reverting. There is something of an edit war going on at the Reardon page, and it would be best to slow down and use the talk page as much as possible. I told the other editors to be aware of WP:3RR and to know that they can be blocked for edit warring even if they don't break the letter of 3RR. I don't see you approaching that limit and I think you're cool-headed and aware of policy, but I'm letting you know of it as well just so that things don't escalate. Cheers, ··coelacan 15:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)