Jump to content

User talk:NancyHeise/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Duffy

My main concern with the Duffy book is that section in the review that says "While not necessarily uncovering anything strikingly new and more akin to a handbook than a treatise, this work merits applause for providing a people's papal retrospective. Those wishing for heavier intellectual discourse.." which strikes me as saying the book is more a coffee table type book than a scholarly history of the papacy. The other review from Amazon.com says ".. is a wonder of comprehensive compression--a sumptuously illustrated, one-volume history..." which also doesn't lend credence to it being terribly scholarly. (Scholars never lavishly illustrate something, it's too expensive (grins)). I don't necessarily have terrible issues with the book, but I think you could do better. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, please reread what I wrote. I said "you could do better". I won't oppose based on the National Geographic book or the Duffy book, but I DO think you could do with better sources. Frankly, I'd rather not see the Oxford Illustrated History book either, but it is better than nothing. I'm not holding you to any higher standard than I do with other sources, you can see that I look at the FACs and take websites over the coals, and I have taken the Richard Mentor Johnson FAC to task for using an older source. I'm not the only person to express concerns about the Duffy book, it's on the talk page as a concern from others. I'll be frank, I really hesitated before even going back to the RCC article to look at things. I did not like the tone of some of the comments on the talk page, where a number comments seem to imply that if you have concerns about the article, you must be anti-Catholic. And frankly, dealing with that sort of thing isn't something I wanna deal with. But, I do think you want the article to be the best it could be, so I felt that I should respond to your request. Yes, the article has improved. But it could be better still. That's the general goal, isn't it? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The person who questioned the Duffy book is a Catholic who wanted to remove Duffy's opposing viewpoint regarding the origins of the church. The person is a relatively new editor and didnt know that Duffy was a well known and very respected historian or that Wikipedia policies for NPOV require us to show all viewpoints. Since the issue of church origins was a topic of much discussion and much misunderstanding with two admins on the page before I got to it, we needed the Duffy book's observations to satisfy NPOV. The Duffy book is exclusively a history of the Roman Catholic Church, that makes it even more valuable and pertinent a source for our page, like the Norman book. Honestly, I have searched far and wide and I dont think there are any better sources for the article than these two top sources that are Roman Catholic Church specific. NancyHeise (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I must have missed something about the National Geographic book, it's RCC specific? That's one of my concerns with it, that it doesn't appear (at least from it's Google Books listing to be specific to the RCC. Or are you referring to another book? And isn't the Duffy book a history of the popes, and only in passing about the history of the church? I'll repeat, I won't oppose based on the usage of those two books. However, I do believe I'm allowed to bring up my opinion on them, when you asked for it. Please don't fasten upon just one or two parts of my concerns, there were other issues too. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The Duffy book is a very scholarly history of the Roman Catholic Church from the perspective of the popes through the ages. It is RCC specific. The Woods book is RCC specific. The scholarly Norman book is RCC specific as well as some of my other new scholarly sources. The National Geographic book is not RCC specific and neither is the Oxford History but they both discuss the Roman church and major events like council of Jerusalem, Inquistions, crusades, reformation, etc that are undisputed parts of Roman Catholic Church history. The Edward Norman book is the one I was referring to as being one of my best sources in conjuction with Eamon Duffy's book.NancyHeise (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Afd on Alonso R. del Portillo

Hi could you give your imput on this article. Thanks. Callelinea (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

bibliography

I would go for linking all the ones who have a Wikipedia page. However, I'm not sure this is what the MOS recommends. Randomblue (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Celibacy

Nancy. I have found the law of celibacy is in the Western Code of Canon Law in the following canons:

Canon 277 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PY.HTM

Canon 1037 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3R.HTM

Canon 1042 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3S.HTM

The Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Catholic Churches, The Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, Is available in Latin at http://www.intratext.com/X/LAT0758.HTM

An English translation (unofficial) has canons on married priesthood linked below:

Canons 285, 373, 374, 758 http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html You can reference to the English or the Latin....

On married priests from other denominations, there is this pretty authoritative article from the Vatican website. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

The final paragraph says that it is an exception set by papal precedent. Xandar (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi Nancy, at your request I've archived your talk page through March 31st. If you were still having conversations under any of the previous posts, you can go to the archive page (linked in the table above) and copy and paste that information back to this page.

As for your questions about italics, I think that Catholic News Network is probably like the Associated Press. It wouldn't be italicized, but any publications that they offer would be. Karanacs (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! NancyHeise (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Late comments

Great work on the Roman Catholic Church page. I made a couple comments and then noticed you were sending to the copy editors. My points were all minor so I'll just copypasta here. None are close to deal breakers but just wanted to keep you informed.

  • Do you live in the Midwest of United States? To my knowledge that is the only place suffering that kind of situation - I think Latin America has an overload of Catholic persons to priests ratio but not sure about no coverage in some areas. I am not sure that is reportable but I'll do some research and put it in there if its notable. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
West Coast here, and we are very short on Priests.
  • Should "college of bishops" be capitalized?
Its not even capitalized in Canon Law so I think we are safe with it lower case.--DizFreak talk Contributions 18:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will redo ref 240. Priest shortage comment was already addressed by adding more info and ref to Demographics section. Thanks for info on "college of bishops". I did not know the answer to that one. NancyHeise (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Inquisition changes

Further to your comments. I've posted a response on the RCC talk page. But I do not think that just saying that the Inquisition was State run and that it was terrible, but not the Church's responsibility solves the problem. As most people know, it may have been state run but it was staffed by Catholic, largely Dominican, prelates. They may have been hand-picked by the government and reported directly back to them, but most people will still see it as at least partially a catholic body. That's why even the Spanish Inquisition's actions need to be set in context with their time, and what percentage of people were actually killed. If you read books like Kamen, you will see that apart from the period when it was being used to prosecute the moors under Ferdinand and Isabella, and when the first protestants appeared in Spain and the Netherlands, you actually had to work pretty hard to get yourself executed. I think, from memory, Kamen says that according to the records, through most of its history the Spanish Inquisition was responsible for 2 to 3 executions a year across the Empire, from the Phillipines to Peru. Now we can't put all this and other relevant facts in the RCC article, so it's best to put a ercentage or something else that sets things in context quickly. Xandar (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

You can now use rollback to reverse obvious vandalism. It's faster than undo. Gimmetrow 02:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! NancyHeise (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Priest formation

There isn't the formal demand for a university degree in the UK, or in Ireland, but seminary study is longer. More like six years. There's some official information on the following webpages

http://www.ukpriest.org/becomingapriest.htm

http://www.ukpriest.org/help.htm#6

http://www.vocations.ie/Diocesan_Priesthood/Commonly_asked_questions#How%20long%20do%20you%20have%20to%20study?#How%20long%20do%20you%20have%20to%20study?#How%20long%20do%20you%20have%20to%20study? Xandar (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting statistics on total numbers of ordained priests worldwide are on this page. http://www.ukpriest.org/resources.htm Xandar (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I am going to try to find out if there is some book that is used by our local seminary that will help us with this section. The FA people like books so give me a little time on this one to dig up a really good source. Thanks for the websites, if we cant find any books, I guess we will resort to web sites. Thanks for your hard work! NancyHeise (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Hello Nancy, I hope you realize that I am not trying to cause an issue to achieving FA status on the Catholic Church article. However, this current topic was one that I had discussed pretty thoroughly on other articles. Unfortunately, the position now being taken was the losing position back then. Time is important and I think an answer should be forced as soon as possible. You have done outstanding work and you are to be commended.

I did find it surprising that Karanacs did not even know where the MOS article was; strange. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider. I thought that Ling.Nut addressed this during the last FAC, and that you yourself said you took the lowercase side on the Miami Diocese article. So you can imagine my shock and surprise to see that all that had changed. Again, I want to re-iterate what Storm Rider has said, that this should not be an attack on the stability of the article. As for the "official title", I could be missing something, but it isn't exactly clear to me how the citation you added can be used to verify the "official title" claim. But I'm glad to hear that you are ok with my changes. I think the citation can clearly be used to show that the term "Catholic Church" without Roman is often used. Good luck with the FAC.-Andrew c [talk] 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there, I looked at your user page and I am just curious - what was your religious experience that motivated you to convert? I am a member of the Eastern rite of the Chaldean Catholic Church, an autonomous church in full communion with Rome. Nice to meet you too. Tourskin (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I responded to this inquiry and saved it for you to see. I deleted it because I would like to remain professional on my talk page. Anyone who wants to know the answer to that question may go into the history of this page and pull it up on just before this entry. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what an awesome story. I guess some people see it and some don't. I'm sorry that I had to ask for something so personal. Well, Jesus asked us to be fountains, so others can drink from us.:

John 4:14 - But whosoever drinketh of the water that I (Jesus) shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I (Jesus) shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Thank you for sharing and letting me drink those springs.Tourskin (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I am glad you asked. When I stand in church and remember how I got my faith, I am always so grateful for those graces. St. Thomas Aquinas, when he was writing about Divine Revelation said "There are some truths that some people will not accept unless they hear it straight from God." I guess I was one of those people who needed to hear it that way. NancyHeise (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
And very fortunate for that too. Tourskin (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I just want to tell you what an amazing job I think you are doing on the RCC/CC article. I'm sure you don't spend all that time working on it because you have "nothing else" to do! God bless you! Polycarp7 (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, actually, I think Wikipedia is important and fun. It is a nice hobby for me to have. NancyHeise (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ouch!

Good catch on "Gabriel". I really need to go through these style guidelines more carefully; I missed that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Bible ref

Please see Template:bibleverse. Have you tried clicking on the old links? When you do not include the full verse number, it breaks the template so that none of the links work. I understand you were trying to consistently use a style. But in this case, it is much better for users to be able to click a link and then see the verse in question, instead of clicking a link and getting an error page.-Andrew c [talk] 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Nancy - I've not been able to contribute to the article, but since you're probably one of the most major contributors, I thought I'd ask you. Has anyone done a section on the origin of the name "Roman Catholic Church"? I was thinking that, since there has been so much debate and contention about RCC vs CC, what do you think of the idea of having a small section explaining, or fleshing out more, the title that has been chosen. I would be willing to do the research on when the term "Roman Catholic" was first used, historically, and why it is used, but is not the "official" name of the Church. I believe this would be very educational - what do you think? Polycarp7 (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This could be incorporated into the history section I think but it should be maybe two sentences at most. Go ahead and do some research, I would be interested to see what you come up with. I think the term Roman Catholic was used informally prior to the Reformation to make a distinction between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Church. NancyHeise (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can come up with. I'm aware that the term "Roman Church" was used occassionally, prior to the English Reformation, but I've not seen "Roman Catholic Church." I'll look at some Orthodox sources. Polycarp7 (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicene Creed incorporation

Hi Nancy, I'm not sure whether you were the one to do all the work, but I really, really like the new method of incorporating pieces of the Nicene Creed into the sections where that piece is discussed. I think this will make a lot more sense to non-Catholics. Great job! Karanacs (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, if you are happy, then I am happy. Yes, I was the person to incorporate the Creed into the various areas where it was discussed in detail. Thanks for the compliment! NancyHeise (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Henry and other matters

Nancy. I'm sorry I can't support you on the Henry and Six Articles issue. The statement that Henry reversed reformation legislation is factually wrong and needed changing. On some of the research issues being thrown at you by Karanacs and others, if you need any help with these, leave me a message, and I'll see what I can do. Xandar (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Xandar, I disagree with you on the Henry issue. Two of my sources actually say the word "reverse" in regard to that legislation. However, I saw your changes to the contested section and I do not disagree with those. I think they are a good compromise. I will not be OK with removal of the Vidmar book in any area. I would rather fail FA. He is a good source that meets Wikipedia standards and I do not think it is right for anyone to bully us into removing him. He is not considered some kind of radical, he is a respected scholar and expert in Church history. I am going to be making a Wikipedia page for him as soon as I get the sources I have ordered to provide references. NancyHeise (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad we could get an acceptable wording. By all means keep Vidmar. The only thing is we can't rely on him as sole source on a highly contested issue like the above, because people are always going to say "He's a staunch catholic, therefore biased." People here who consider themselves experts in their field are going to be very tenacious on points like the above. PS Who's going to do the article on Namcy Heise? Xandar (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of John Vidmar

A tag has been placed on John Vidmar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Rnb (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't assume that every article that consists of nothing but three links is going to become an actual article. There's no harm in waiting to hit the "save" button until you have a basic article made, no need to get it in 5 minutes earlier than it would have been otherwise. Please remake it, with actual prose in it, and I'm sure it will survive. --Golbez (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no harm in giving someone more than an hour to put their kids to bed and come back to finish it either. Gosh, lets have a little patience here. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Or you could have waited an hour before hitting "save". In the end, no harm is done; you lost no prose, and you're free to make an actual article. You ask me to be patient; I ask you the same. I much prefer to trim the bad articles quickly, rather than waiting for them to overwhelm the very limited number of people who monitor these things. That is a lesser crime than waiting until an article contains actual words before submitting it. --Golbez (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm sorry for hitting "save" too soon. Won't happen again. NancyHeise (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A little encouragement (Roman Catholic Church)

I've stated my view at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church that because an article might be considered by some to be controversial, that does not alter the FA criteria that it is judged against. I really do admire your persistence with this article; I fully believe that it deserves to be promoted. Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your support vote. I fully believe it deserves to be promoted too. Thanks for your encouragement here too. NancyHeise (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you agreed to take on Karanacs' burdensome and pointless task re. this article. It is QUITE obvious that Karanacs "example" is not plagiarism in any form since it is amply (even, over-)referenced. If karanacs has any passages that she thinks might be "plagiarism" she should identify them. For the reasons set out on the FAC page, I think the reference-checking task is a total waste of time in practical terms, and is just delay and make-work. I see no reason why the RCC article writers should be asked to do this and no others. Xandar (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I just came along to say the same thing, but Xander beat me to it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks you guys for your support but I dont mind doing a re-check if it helps make everyone happy, including Karanacs. I already have almost all the sources, there are some I need to go check out of the library tomorrow. I dont know how long it will take me but I have some time tomorrow and Wednesday. If it helps give others a level of comfort, I dont see why we shouldn't do it, especially if we have the sources. Thanks for your concern. NancyHeise (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC moves

Please do not remove reviewer comments to the talk page; it is going to take me quite some time to sort this out and restore the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't know if there are FAC directions but please know that I was trying to follow what you had done in the last FAC. I was wondering where you were. I thought I was helping you. Sorry if I messed things up instead. NancyHeise (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand; no problem. It should be fixed now, but please doublecheck my work to make sure I didn't drop anything. In the previous FACs, I moved long, off-topic diatribes that weren't related to WIAFA, or were of a personal nature, to the talk page. You moved reviewer comments which are relevant to the discussion and do relate to WP:WIAFA. This fragments the actionable issues and makes it hard for me to know where things stand. The length on these FACs could be better managed by keeping comment on-topic and focused on the criteria and the instructions at WP:FAC:

Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. ... For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

I'm sorry for any confusion caused by my delay in putting the page back together. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Nancy, thank you for verifying the text in the article. I know that must have been a very tedious job, and I appreciate your taking the time to do that to ensure that the article meets the standards as precisely as possible. Karanacs (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Objections

Nancy, I have spent a LOT of time, discussing refero's objections in depth. However it looks as though he won't be satisfied with anything but his own view being the dominant one in the aticle. Can you take a look at the arguments, and ee if you agree with how I've tried to handle it? If relato doesn't agree, as looks likely, we should probably add a sentence to reflect the viewpoint he advocates anyway.

  • On Vidmar. This is very annoying, since Vidmar was only added in response to previous FAC objections that our sources were not specififc enough. But now everyone who opposes the article is jumping in and using Vidmar as ammunition. I think objections can be answered by doubling up on Vidmar though. Xandar (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Xandar, all Vidmar cites are doubled already except a few that are to non-contentious points.NancyHeise (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, we cant put people's opinions in the article just because they have opinions, we have to have some sort of documentary evidence to back up especially extraordinary claims like Relato's. NancyHeise (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Checks

I've checked the references in Kamen as well as Casey and Black. They check out okay with the text. I wasn't able to get hold of Norman though. Xandar (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have Norman and I already checked his cites. Thanks for checking. Karanacs already struck her comment after I finished with my check. NancyHeise (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Picture

Just took a look at your Userpage since you updated. The picture is great, Nice Catch! Magnetawan (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Those Halibut were all we caught last summer (caught all in one day). We vacuum packed them and have been eating fish all year long. We also go for Salmon (ocean fishing not fly). NancyHeise (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to explain the heading "Liaty" on my user page re: Roman Catholic Church. :) --KGBarnett (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the article! NancyHeise (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I remain in awe of the patience and persistence that you continue to demonstrate with this article, so you're very welcome for the MoS check. The biggest issue I found was in not always using logical quotation for quotes; not exactly a show-stopper in my book, but obviously worth fixing. I do have a couple of other minor issues that I'll bring up here rather than on the already far too large FAC talk page. I understand that it was decided to use "Church" instead of "church", which I think was probably the wrong decision, but never mind. Analagously though, I see that "pope" isn't capitalised, so should "Papal primacy" in the lead not be "papal primacy" for consistency? The other thing is the sentence "According to canon law, one becomes a member of the Catholic Church by being baptized in the Church." I feel that might be better rewritten to avoid the use of the personal pronoun. Something like "... membership of the Catholic Church is gained through Baptism ...", for instance.

Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: RCC

Sorry I haven't responded. I've been away for a while. So, I think everything's better now, I can't quite find my comment, so strike it and change it to support, if you would. Thanks, Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[[1]]

You're most welcome! Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the note. I can only imagine what you've gone through with this FAC and its predecessors so thank you, first and foremost. In response to your comments to me: It is incorrect that my opposition is invalid if I don't provide a laundry list of problems. If a lot of work is needed, it is acceptable for reviewers to provide representative comments to help copy-editors know what to look for. We have too few reviewers at FAC as it is; if I spent all my time constructing long lists of issues I would never get anywhere. I don't think you have too far to go, but the text has been pulled every which way and it shows. It needs some fit and finish from a pair of fresh eyes. --Laser brain (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that Laser brain does have a point. In the unavoidable effort to address as many reviewer's comments as is humanly possible the prose has inevitably suffered a little. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Which should be taken into account. As I have noted on the FAC page, Laser Brain recommended at least one article at FAC with glaringly poor prose. Xandar (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
However, as we have reminded you multiple times, Xandar, the RCC FAC is about the RCC article, not about any other article or any other FAC. By continuing to attack reviewers, you are succeeding in getting people thoroughly disgusted with this article. If you truly want the article to be one of the best on WP, it is usually better to work with those who are trying to offer constructive criticism instead of against them. Karanacs (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
So long as the criticism is constructive. Some isn't. criticisms designed so vaguely that they are impossible to address are not constructive. And it is quite legitimate to refer to double-standards where they are being applied. What disgusts me are people who make false accusations of plagiarism, and then don't have the decency to apologise. Xandar (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that it's already one of the best, whether it gets that bronze star or not, but if a little bit of prose massaging will persuade one or two additional supporters on-side, then it's clearly worth doing at this stage. I do think that your use of the word "disgusted" was ill-judged though; I think you also have to recognise the frustration felt by the nominators in trying to deal with often conflicting criticisms and recommendations. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I just spent two hours going back over the article doing some more "massaging". I hope that the two prose opposers will take the time to go back and take another look and give us some comments. NancyHeise (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
On the Inquisition, the problem is that the sources do date the foundation to 1231, so while we can say that the basis of the inquisition was started by Innocent, we are going to run afoul of the refs by saying that an inquisition was started by him. Xandar (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Xandar, the sentence that we have now agreed upon is this: "Abuses committed during the crusade caused Innocent III to informally institute the first papal inquisition to prevent future abuses and to root out the remaining Cathars.[211][212] Formalized under Gregory IX, this Medieval inquisition executed an average of three people per year for heresy at its height." This is technically correct and matches our references. NancyHeise (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Some light relief

You've been put through the wringer with the Roman Catholic Church article, but can you even begin to imagine the problems in getting Muhammad up to FA. I mention that because I noticed earlier that it's been nominated for GA. It'll be a brave reviewer who takes that on I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It will be interesting to watch that process. Thanks for letting me know about it. NancyHeise (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. Roman Catholic Church

(copied over from my talk page:) Nancy, there was nothing wrong with my comments in the slightest, which were both particular and general, and which I continue to stand by fully. I do think that the way in which the article's editors responded to them was simply extraordinary, culminating in this patronizing comment on my talk page. If this is how you regularly treat your reviewers, I'm not surprised that your article has had such a long and tortuous passage through FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I offered my comments to you to help you, I wrote it because I was shocked to learn that you were a FAC reviewer after what you wrote on the RCC page. Please consider your own need to improve your reviewing skills. NancyHeise (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, there was nothing wrong with jbmurray's comments on the FAC page. The bit about Catholics not editing Catholic articles was facetious. FAC reviewers are not required nor expected to leave a detailed list of every single issue with an article. Instead, they should leave representative comments. This is hard for a lot of nominators to understand, but it might be wise for you and Xandar to look at other FAC nominations to see how they go. Karanacs (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, if I am not allowed to offer constructive criticism of reviewers poor reviewing skills, I dont see how we can expect to improve a process like FAC that really could use some improvement. If someone is going to oppose an article, they should be able to give a list of reasons why and what FAC criteria they feel has not been met in addition to providing any Wikipedia policies violated. I offered my comments in an effort to help him be a better reviewer for other articles in the future. FAC reviewers should not be allowed to insist on removal of sources that meet WP:RS as top level sources like the Norman book he proposed, they should also not bring up issues unrelated to the FAC process like his comment about Catholics creating Catholic articles. His comments were poorly offered, poorly organized and off-topic and he ended up provoking an argument among other editors of the page - completely unprofessional. If he was just a teenager learning from Wikipedia I would never have said anything but he is on the FAC team, a seasoned FAC reviewer who is expected to help lead a page to FA, not prevent it. NancyHeise (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent and edit conflict:) Here's what I actually said. Again, I don't enjoy repeating myself, but was fairly surprised at how comments were treated, especially as I myself went out of my way to praise the article's editors:

  • I honestly salute the efforts that have been made by this article's editors, both in writing the article and in bringing it through these extended FAC processes. They have obviously bent over backwards in an effort to ensure that the article is brought up to scratch, and theirs has clearly been a labour of love. But unfortunately, that's precisely the problem.
  • I do idly wonder what would happen were a group of committed Catholics to attempt to bring (say) Baptist or Judaism up to FA standard, and ask the Baptists and the Jews to get to work on Roman Catholic Church. It could be a disaster, but who knows, the results could be excellent. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Questioned about my "idl[e] wonder," I further explained, as follows:

  • This is, of course, how Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedias, in that its contributors are self-selecting, and so its content is generally written by fans and/or adherents. (Sometimes by detractors, but that's no better.) NB this does not necessarily mean that fans or adherents (or even detractors) cannot write good articles; but they face certain rather particular obstacles. Again, I'm not necessarily suggesting that history should be put before doctrine; but it is symptomatic that in fact the order is the other way around, in this article as in other similar ones on Wikipedia. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

At no point did I suggest that the article should be written by non-Catholics; I merely observed that there are certain obstacles facing Catholic adherents who set out to write an encyclopedic article about their own faith. I noted that the editors had "bent over backwards" to clear those obstacles. However, in my judgement, problems still remained. There was nothing "poorly made" or "ill thought out" about these comments. I completely stand by them. I'd also mention that even if I had been "some 18 year old who was just surfing the net looking for something to do," then I would expect my comments to be taken seriously, rather than disparaged as "silly" (per Johnbod), without substance and "irrelevant" (per Xandar), or reason to be upbraided on my talk page (per yourself, NancyHeise). The people who are not thinking in this instance, and who are showing a shocking refusal to read, as well as extraordinary rudeness and incivility, are yourselves, not I. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your posting does not list all of your comments. Your comments were silly and you need to improve your reviewing skills. No one would have called your comments silly if you were not listed as a FAC reviewer - more is expected of you. NancyHeise (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This is getting tiring. But now the onus is on you: name one comment, just one, which was "silly." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Still waiting. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
NH, JBM's comments were just comments, and mostly not "actionable". About the comment on non-Catholics, the concept of "writing for the enemy" is part of NPOV. Perhaps JBM doesn't quite realize the hurt caused by the way he phrased it after you've worked 100+ hours trying to make it neutral, but best to let it be. Gimmetrow 01:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, let me point out that I went out of my way to (as I put it) "salute" the article's editors for the efforts in improving the article and bringing it to FAC. I have seen no such generosity extended towards me as a reviewer; quite the reverse. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I agree, but since I introduced the word "silly", in fact without knowing JBM was "listed as a FAC reviewer" - where is this list? - in respect of his calling Edward Norman a "part-time" academic & too Tory to be taken seriously, I will just say I still don't find this characterisation of that comment inappropriate. Some of his other comments were, shall we say, very naive as to what other people might actually believe. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I was just involved as nominator in a quite contentious FAC, in which there was plenty of disagreement on some quite fundamental issues, and I managed to avoid calling anybody's comments "silly," or indeed to start harassing reviewers on their talk pages. What's more, it didn't even require massive amounts of self-abnegation to do that. I try to thank reviewers for the time put in, not to upbraid them. I remain shocked that three people in the RCC discussin (yourself, NancyHeise, and Xandar) thought that they were for some reason better advised to disdain my comments. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Jb, I didn't want your feelings to get hurt but if no one is allowed to tell you that you could use improvement, then you wont improve. I spent the better part of two hours going over the entire conversation to pick out what exactly you were saying so I could positively respond to your comments - not a good way to present your comments if you want to help a page get to FA (the stated purpose of the FAC team). After picking out your points from all the back and forth, I then had to put it in bullet point format myself and then answer them so I could be able to fulfill what I am supposed to be doing as a nominator. I felt it was poorly offered and that the comments were very weak points to very bad points like eliminating Norman. NancyHeise (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I remain shocked both at your misreading of my comments, and your subsequent, rather histrionic, reactions to them. NB you don't have to agree with them. I offer them simply as my view as a reviewer. (I was castigated even for doing that, of course.) However, I think it's behooven of an FAC nominator to take other people's comments with good grace and seriousness. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
JBM questioned that Norman was a representative view. You can answer JBM's comment about Norman by saying that he is representative of a significant POV. I realize everyone is getting tired, but this doesn't need more drama. Gimmetrow 01:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That was a later comment. He also called him a "poor source". Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Uff. Do you want us to go through all of my comments line by line? We could do so if you wanted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Gimmetrow's advice is very sound; exhaustion is setting in and tempers are becoming frayed. But if I may just be allowed to clarify one small point. There is no "FAC team". I guess what Nancy's thinking of is the WP:FA Team, a group of editors that helped Jbmurray's class project. That group has no association with the FAC process other than the fact that several of its members have written one or more FAs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And I think that reviewers should be treated with respect whoever they are. (Nominators, too, of course.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Jbmurray continues to be provacative and unhelpful to the FAC process in his comments and continued harassment of the RCC editors as shown here [2]. While I wish to leave the matter alone, he continues to be unprofessional in his conduct and demeaning in his speech. We have now been accused of surviving only because we wear down the reviewers. This is another attack and not a comment that represents good faith by a reviewer who is trying to help an article become FA.NancyHeise (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Please give one example of where I have been "demeaning in [my] speech." Meanwhile, I offer you Matthew 7:3. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, several reviewers (including me, Jbmurray, Eagldyth, and others) have stated (sometimes repeatedly) that we feel attacked when we offer comments. While I am gratified that we are now seeing fewer comments accusing the reviewers of being anti-Catholic, the essays that you or Xandar write after every comment and the allegations of bad faith and personal attacks make reviewers not want to participate in this FAC anymore. I strongly encourage you to look at other recently promoted and archived FACs and see what types of comments reviewers make and what types of responses nominators make. I believe that some of the conflict occurs because you and Xandar (and I'm sorry to pick on you two, but you are the most vocal of the article editors) have inaccurate expectations of what FAC should be like. I really think that taking a step back and looking through other FACs will help you to keep the comments made at your FAC in perspective; even if this restarted FAC passes (and I think it will because a lot of the opposing reviewers have stopped watching the FAC), I fully anticipate (hope) that you will be back with another important article, and I'd hate for your next FAC attempt to go this badly. Karanacs (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Karanacs for your comments. I hope it passes this time too, not because anyone has stopped watching the FAC but because they come to realize that there are no more issues with the article. I am amazed that after all the literally hundreds of comments you have given us on this article through three FACs and two peer reviews that I have answered to your satisfaction, you insist on opposing it for something that you know I tried in good faith to gain consensus on the talk page for and for which no consensus presently exists. I would like to know where I have attacked you or Ealdgyth or "others", I have searched for any kind of comment from myself that would be considered an attack and I think it is unprofessional of you to state such a thing without offering a diff as evidence here. NancyHeise (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC process misunderstanding?

Hi Nancy. From your recent comments at the RCC FAC, I suspect that there is a misunderstanding about the way the FAC process works. It is not an up-and-down vote on whether people like a particular version of an article. Instead, it is a place for reviewers to evaluate an article based on the featured article criteria and mark their assessment. Reviewers are expected to name the particular piece of the criteria they feel is not met and may provide specific examples of the issues (but are not required to identify every single issue). Nominators are then expected to try to address the issues. Most nominators are happy when reviwers try to help address the issues. Is someone supports an FAC, that does not mean that they believe the article is "perfect" as is; it means that this particular reviewer found no violations of the featured article criteria. If someone else comes along and does identify a potential violation of the criteria, fixing the article will not automatically negate the support. It is a supporter's responsibility to watch the FAC page and if a suggestion is made that the supporter feels will revoke his support, the supporter must then speak up. I've seen this happen on a few FACs before, and from the comments the community determines consensus on that issue. From the FAC process perspective, it is not a valid argument to refuse to make changes simply because people have already supported the article. I know that you were worried about this in the first FAC and I thought that SandyGeorgia had left comments to alleviate those concerns, but I thought it might help to have a reminder. Karanacs (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

good luck

Hi. I won't be participating much the next few days... I try if possible not to edit during the week, except in exceptional circumstances. (Sadly there have been quite a few exceptional circumstances the past couple of weeks.) But I did want to repeat what I said at the outset: this is a huge topic, as well as a fascinating one, and I fully recognize the amount of effort that has gone into it. I do think that it would be easier both on you and on everyone else if you and your fellow editors were to try to work with the reviewers, not against them. When things get confrontational, that takes the gloss off for everyone. Nobody's a "professional" here; we're all volunteers, and we're all doing this because we believe in the project in some way. Anyhow, I can see you very much want to get this article to FA status, which is a worthy goal, and if you achieve it you should definitely feel very proud of yourself. I'm afraid I still can't switch my !vote to support, but it's not a half bad article, and I do wish you all the best. Moreover, Wikipedia should have a featured article on Catholicism. Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Direct request

Nancy, please keep your comments on the RCC FAC focused on WP:WIAFA to avoid again filling up the page with off-topic and personal commentary that is wearing down everyone's good faith efforts to help with the article.[3] Your comments about Tony and Jbmurray have veered off track. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is another example; please stop antagonizing other editors. We are all editors; there is no such thing as the artificial division you are creating between reviewers and editors, and your comments veer on ownership and failing to WP:AGF. Please keep your comments on the FAC focused on the FAC and refrain from personal commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you posted a similar comment on the pages of Tony and Jbmurray? My comment that you have pointed out instructs FAC reviewers that the people they are calling editors are not editors, they are other FAC reviewers. That is not personal commentary. NancyHeise (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, it is disappointing that you are splitting hairs about the terms "editor" and "reviewer" (anyone who clicks "Edit" anywhere on Wikipedia is an editor) and not seeing the real problem. Tony, Jbmurrary, and others left comments about the article. In return, you insinuated that Tony has a "poor manner of speaking to people" and a "sniffy attitude" while disparaging his remarks. Earlier, you impugned jbmurray ("I thought you were maybe some 18 year old who was just surfing the net looking for something to do - not a serious FAC reviewer" and "I was shocked to learn that you were a FAC reviewer after what you wrote on the RCC page ..."). If you are feeling abused and that the article is being abused, understand that the reviewers feel they are being abused. It's a lose-lose situation. --Laser brain (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you OK with Tony's comments? I found them shocking and I am even more shocked that no one seems to mind his comments which are very rude but they do mind mine. You are encouraging his behavior by defending it. NancyHeise (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I am, in fact, OK with Tony's comments. Maybe it's because I'm a writer and I'm used to being edited. Tony is an editor by trade. His comments are concise and targeted just like an editor's should be—I receive similar comments every day from my editor at work. Believe me, I understand that it's never easy to have one's own work criticized, but it's all part of the process here. In my experience, it's best to learn from criticism and carry on smartly. --Laser brain (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
He basically called all the support votes on the page idiots. I am not upset with his critique of my work, I am upset that he disparaged all of those people who came to the page, spent time reviewing it and decided to support. I know one of them is an editor for an journal and is a Yale graduate student. I think Tony's manner is abusive and discouraging to other editors, he should not be reviewing Wikipedia if he can't act like a gentleman. I think this is one of Wikipedia's own policies that no one seems to be enforcing. NancyHeise (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, no. He is pointing out why some of the Support votes are basically useless. You wouldn't accept someone showing up and writing, "Oppose, this sucks." Why then is it acceptable for people to go, "Support, this is good."? Tony's frustration with those "reviewers" is well-justified. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Because when a reviewer comes to the page to review the page, he states his own comment and reasons, he does not tell everyone on the page that their votes are stupid. NancyHeise (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have just returned home from a week of travel and am starting from here forward, sorting through diffs on that FAC. If I see similar commentary from another editor, personalizing an issue rather than focusing on content or the process, they will get a similar message. Your personal commentary made overnight (my time) stood out in the diffs as I caught up on the FAC this morning; I did not see similar commentary from anyone else, but just keeping the FAC on track, threaded, and signed is a large effort, and I could have missed something. By all means, if you see an inappropriate, personal comment, please bring it to my attention, particularly as I'm still catching up from travel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, NancyHeise, it might help if you participated on other FACs. You're practically an SPA for the sole purpose of getting RCC though to FA. If you reviewed other FACs, you'd have another view of things. And you'd see that there is no other nominator who is so consistently hostile to reviewers. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jb, for yet another demeaning and insulting comment on my talk page. I have participated in another FA. NancyHeise (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing--nothing--demeaning or insulting about my comment. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
calling an editor working hard on a major article subject 'practically a single purpose account' is actually rather demeaning, think about it won't you. your rfa critic wasn't completely wrong. 202.142.220.65 (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, 202.142.220.65. I don't think that's demeaning at all. Nobody's doubting the amount of effort that NancyHeise is putting into the article, and how much she is focussed on it. A number of us have gone out of our ways to encourage and congratulate her about that. (Here, for instance.) But the dangers with that, as ever when an individual is so concentrated on a single purpose, is that you lose sight of the broader picture--in this case, how FAC works as a whole. I really do think it would be helpful for everyone concerned if she got involved reviewing at FAC to have a sense of how the process normally works. Rather than even consider that suggestion, let alone assume good faith, she put the comment down as "demeaning and insulting." Again, not so. And again, perhaps, a sign of the blinkers to which I was trying to draw her attention. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, jbmurray is trying to be helpful. I know this process is stressful for you, but you are making it stressful for the reviewers and that is making the entire problem worse. I've brought up this same issue on your talk page. I realize that RCC is the second article you've brought to FAC, but I still believe that you might have the wrong impression of what is expected of FA reviewers. Even just reading through comments on other open or recently closed FACs may help you to place the comments you are getting in perspective, and will hopefully give you a good example of what is expected of nominators. Karanacs (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This message was written for JB but since Karanacs accused me too, it is also for her, because you provide no link to any evidence of my supposedly consistent "hostile to reviewers". What I have done, is ask you to be a better reviewer who does not provoke arguments - your response was to be even more provacative. I have asked Tony to be more polite, not only in this FAC but in previous. No one accusing me on my own talk page backs up their comments with any kind of link to alleged comment. I do not appreciate this harrassment or your manners or your and any one elses defense of Tony. Whose comments here [4] are clearly out of line. NancyHeise (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want a link, here is a recent example. I could provide many more. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to defend Tony at this point, Nancy. I am trying to get you to look at your own behavior, which is not helping the situation. In my months of reviewing I have never seen SandyGeorgia leave a message on a nominator's talk page warning them to stop personal commentary on the FAC. The fact that she felt it necessary to do so in this case leads me to believe that she thinks that your comments are inappropriate. You've made personal attacks against Tony, have disparaged jbmurray repeatedly and have either stated or implied that various reviewers are incompetent. Under my definition, that is being hostile to reviewers. Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, could you please provide any link to any comment I have made that is inappropriate? Sandy left a message on my page because I left this message on the FAC [5] and also this comment [6] which she subsequently moved to the FAC discussion page here [7] because she felt they were off topic, not because I was being inappropriate. NancyHeise (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nancy, SandyGeorgia specifically asked you to please stop antagonizing other editors (see above). Laser_brain then provided you with examples of comments you made that were not appropriate. If you would like these examples to be reiterated, here is what I found questionable in the two days since the FAC nom was restarted (and does not include comments made in the FAC before its restart). This comment directed at Tony was inappropriate [8] (disparaging his personality and attitude). Accusing some FAC reviewers of disrespect [9]. Removing jbmurray's good faith edits was highly inappropriate [10]. Here is an example of not assuming good faith [11], as were the completely unwarranted comments left on jbmurray's talk page [12]. I'm hopeful that you simply do not realize how your comments are coming across, and that these examples may open your eyes. Taken together, they add up to a feeling of hostility towards reviewers who oppose. I really think that reading through other FACs in which you are not involved may help you to gain a better perspective on the process. Karanacs (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I truly hope that someone looks at the examples you have provided to prove that you are accusing me falsely. NancyHeise (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I would ask you to reread this thread and realize that I am not the only one who has interpreted your comments this way. I deeply respect your work on the Roman Catholic Church; without your efforts the page would be in sad shape. However, your comments on people's talk pages and on the FAC page are being phrased in a way that makes them appear hostile, combative, and at times against the wiki principles of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If that is not the way you intend to come across, it might be worth modifying your approach. That is why I (and jbmurray) have suggested you read through other FACs, so that you can see how other nominators responded to similar situations and perhaps find a different method of phrasing your concerns so that others do not feel attacked. Karanacs (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, I have asked for links to where I have been hostile and you have provided none presenting them as if you have. Now you continue to harrass me, I think it is you who need to read the wikiprinciples and stop leaving these messages for me when you have no proof to offer as evidence. NancyHeise (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
In that case, Nancy, I apologize for disturbing you and will confine my comments to the FAC page and the article talk page. Karanacs (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Tony's attitude is undoubtedly abrasive and gladiatorial, but that doesn't mean it should be responded in the same way. This review would be a lot less stressful if everyone, including Tony, were to focus on the reviews rather than the reviewers. FWIW I think that SandyGeorgia was unwise to issue her request only to you, but that's water under the bridge now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have had to respond to Tony after his latest escapade. Without checking his facts, he goes and falsely accuses Nancy on the page of touting for votes. I don't know what his problem is. I see someone else has complained about his attitude on his talk page - and that was when his comments were a lot more justified than they have been with RCC. He needs to apologise. Some people think they can be as rude and arrogant as they like to other people, and expect to be treated with kid gloves in return. As for karanacs, I still see no sign of an apology from her either. Xandar (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not again....

Hello Nancy. I am happy to know that you are a mother of four children. You are a Catholic. My mother is also religious. I am not a religious person. I am a Humanist. I have arguments with my mom because of our different views on religion. Now, I am arguing with you! I hope we can settle this. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope you still love her even so - I'll bet she prays for you! NancyHeise (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
100% correct! She prays for me. And, I respect her beliefs. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually, the article Roman Catholic Church is quite good. I read the article Inquisition. Gallileo is discussed in that article. I will read the article Roman Catholic Church carefully. I will probably change my decision. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, you have encouraged me. NancyHeise (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, thanks for your comment. I know this guy. His name is Filll and he is an intelligent guy. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:TP

NancyHeise, it is rare for me to have to correct and format and indent and thread a FAC; in the case of the RCC FAC, I've been doing it throughout five FACs (including restarts) for four months, and it doesn't seem to be getting better. I now see I've been referring you to WP:TALK, when formatting/indenting is actually explained on another page, WP:TP. This section may help you understand; generally, please repeat the indenting of the post you are replying to, adding one more colon to your reply for correct threading. Please try to keep in mind that Raul and I have to sort through the FAC to determine if objections have been addressed, so the more readable you can keep the FAC, the better for all. Hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the instruction. I will read it and try to be as helpful as I can. NancyHeise (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be better if you not try to correct other people's threading to conform to your own, as that has now rendered the FAC even harder to read, with incorrect threading. I will need to re-do it all to re-align the responses. It would be helpful if you would just focus on threading your own responses correctly. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I am very sorry, I thought I was being helpful. NancyHeise (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello Nancy. How are you? I supported the FA nomination of the article Roman Catholic Church. And, I am younger than you. I think you are a friendly person. I hope will we meet again in the future. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(hugging my computer with your user screen on it) Thank you! And I absolutely hope that we will see each other again on Wikipedia and maybe work together on an article or two providing different points of view! Thanks again.NancyHeise (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Welcome! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hey NancyHeise.

I hate to do this but I really think you are not approaching the FAC correctly. Perhaps it boils down to the RCC being the sole article you are working on, and that with all the work you have put into it, you haven't had a chance to step out from the article. You are constantly objecting and arguing what other people say. Maybe you are wrong, not others. You should consider this option as well. So please stop the petty warring you are having with the reviewers, this isn't the spirit of Wikipedia. Also, remember that you are dealing with other human beings on the other side of the screen, so consistently protesting their reviews will not incite them to support your article. I hope you'll take advice from me, who has followed your work and the article, but hasn't taken any position in the FAC. Best, Randomblue (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

Thanks Randomblu, perhaps you're right. Should I just abandon RCC? I can't seem to work with the reviewers. I would prefer a decision from the FAC director before I abandon the project though. Thanks for the advice. NancyHeise (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying you should abandon; only change your attitude. That's definitely not easy! So maybe take a break and start working on some other small, nice and easy, and noncontroversial article first. That will certainly be less frustrating, and may give you a chance to think everything through calmly, take some distance. You might discover that although you are very hard working, very knowledgeable on various topics, and have many books, other people (although less hard working, less knowledgeable, and with less books) may have a point to say, simply because you can't possibly know everything fully, and that you may have erroneous preconceptions. So stay open, like the wikipedia! Best of luck, Randomblue (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC).
Randomblue, I have spent the night, getting a good nights sleep, praying a Rosary and going over your advice as well as the FAC comments. I do not see where I have not worked with reviewers on answering comments as you allege. I have not been able to answer every comment because some of them are factually incorrect or if I were to comply, I would violate some Wikipedia rule, precedent or past consensus of editors on a given issue. These are documented under each Reviewers comments. There are no improper responses from me and I ask you to provide a link to one if you persist in telling me that I have had improper responses. The mistakes I seem to have made on this FAC are not that I have had an improper attitude in dealing with reviewers comments, rather, I should not have spoken to either JBmurray or Tony regarding their improper reviewing skills and offensive comments. JBmurray responded to my reprimand by becoming more provocative. My reprimand of Tony should not have had to come from me, his insult to all the support votes should have come from Sandy. I was then amazed at the list of his supporters who flocked to his defense, defending his bad attitude and abrasiveness as something that is OK for him since he is an editor and thats just how those guys are. So it is OK for the top FAC reviewers to treat the nominators and supporters like some four letter word but when anyone makes a peep about their possible need to improve, we get clobbered. That is not the spirit of Wikipedia either. NancyHeise (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about others here, but about you. And there you go again, arguing ... that you haven't been arguing. Do you realize the irony? Stop it! You have a hard time accepting what other think about you, always having a defensive attitude. Constantly questioning others is not constructive; why don't you start questioning yourself first? Best, Randomblue (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am being formed by the Wikipedia community. Maybe I need to get away. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Randomblue. I would respect comments like yours a lot more if they were also directed to people like TONY and karanacs who have demonstrably made repeated FALSE allegations and accusations against the editors of this article, and failed to apologise when exposed. Instead you seem to support members of a clique who consider it their right to make sneering and unsubstantiated comments about an article at FAC, and seem to be trying to back fellow mwmbers of their club up, harrassing the nominator into withdrawing the article. That is against WP priniples. Xandar (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, disagreeing with one of wikipedia's top guns was always going to be difficult. My recommendation to withdraw the nomination wasn't based on any objective assessment of the article's quality, simply my observation that I cannot recall seeing an article opposed by Tony ever passing FAC. Make of that what you will. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's one of the rules of WP, and it shouldn't be a practice either. I'm not including Malleus as one of the "harrassers", but I see no purpose to withdrawal because of any individual's enmity. Xandar (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, I am certainly not one of your "harrassers", just an old cynic. Take my advice as you find it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
onetime editor here, the discussion above mostly has it right. an alternate approach to tony is to further inflame him (no, I'm serious). he gets defensive, and can easily make himself look like the fool in the room. the main reason I am writing is because his claim that he had been 'threatened' (the sheer nerve) by NancyHeise et al was completely illogical yet he has -from what I see- actually succeeded in making you look dishonest Nancy, and I find that not just discourteous, but quite immoral (also the part where he accused you of 'trawling' for support votes, unfounded), so I want to support you from the sideline. he deserves everything he gets, because he has too often inflamed people on Wikipedia and does not check for evidence before making accusations. a shockingly childish editor. let's not get into how tony overlooks the same 'prose issues' he finds in some texts when its a fac of a friend or a person he's learned he should respect. fight the good fight. 202.142.220.65 (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
also I can't blame a newer editor for seeing cliqueishness (sp) in the fac area because its often the same old people getting on their hobby horse. there is some truth that if one of the 'special' editors opposes, you are now at his or her mercy. no consensus in that is there. good luck 202.142.220.65 (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As it happens, I think there's something to 202.142.220.65's comments here. Everyone has some hobby horse or another. As a reviewer, I try to be aware of mine, and not to make them sticking points. As a nominator, I would suggest going along with other people's hobby horses for the most part. However, I don't necessarily think this a bad thing; perhaps there will be a better place to discuss all this. Poor Nancy's user page is becoming FAC central, which no doubt adds to her sense of being overwhelmed and/or besieged. I would have commented on 202.142.220.65's userpage, but strangely that seems to be locked, and announces that the IP is blocked, which I don't quite understand. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
yes its rather strange I agree! anyway you are right and I will not post here again so as not to intrude 202.142.220.65 (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, Tony's getting too big for his britches; now he's even got an IP wikistalker !! Anyway, Nancy, Jb has good advice about archiving your talk page so you can focus on your FAC. (I know you asked for help once before in archiving your talk page, so if you need help, just say the word.) As to these charges about Tony's influence over the FAC process: well, they're simply false, and I'll be glad to discuss that further once your FAC closes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, thanks for the offer. I would like to think about it overnight. My talk page tells a story. I think it should be reviewed by Wikipedia. I think it reveals a lot about the Wikipedia community at the FAC level which is not entirely my mistake or shortcoming. I have been accused of a lot of things that I have not done and I think that should stop first. NancyHeise (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As part of your thinking, you should know that archiving your talk page actually makes review easier, since you've then got an enduring (permanent) link that won't change (what you have now is a talk page that will change once you do archive it). The idea of an archive is to get the bickering to stop, but you don't give up any opportunity for the content to be reviewed. As to review of the content, I'm not concerned, since the misunderstandings and misinformation should be pretty easily sorted once the FAC closes. What's important now is that you cease being distracted by information that isn't helpful, and is actually harmful, to your work on the article and the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Then by all means, let's archive. Could you point me to the directions? I don't know how to archive but maybe its time I should. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hang on, I'll look around for them and get right back to you (unless someone else beats me to it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Nancy, I'm enjoying contributing to the article very much. However, if I change the intended meaning at any stage please feel free to revert. Ceoil (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth I wouldn't read much into the tone of Tony's comments. He's like that with everybody (believe me I know); thats just the way he is. The thing is, he's usually right. Whatever, I'll work away at the prose for a while, though I'll be gone for the next two days (best friend's 30th!). Take care. Ceoil (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your edits, dont get me started on Tony. NancyHeise (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Look, Tony is no saint, and he's right no more often than anyone else is; he just expresses his opinion in a more gladiatorial way than some others. A question for Ceoil: have you looked at any of the articles that Tony has written, or made significant contributions to? Let's keep sanctification as a prerogative of the church. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, to be clear I have the upmost regard and respect for Tony; he has provided invaluable advice to me at FAC on a number of occasions, and has copyedited quite a few article for me directly. And, yes I have read many of his pages. I jwas just trying to diffuse the situation, which I think has become far too personalised as you say. Maybe I phrased it badly, but I certainly meant no offence. I can understand why Tony can be brusk given the job he does around here; I intended only to advise Nancy to just ignore the tone and work on the substance of Tony's comments. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I assume you mean defuse, not diffuse? But I wasn't asking about his pages if you read back, was I? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Two petty nit picky sentences from you there Malleus. Nice. I could care less what you think now. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It is, of course, entirely up to you to decide whether or not to answer my direct question to you. I will leave it to others to draw their own conclusions from the fact that you have chosen to avoid it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I've known tony for over two years now, and would consider him a friend. His pages, articles, whatever, I've seen them. What is the point of this Malleus; why do you want me to justify myself when I have already explained above. What exactly are you looking for, because it could be construed that you are trying to pick a fight. Ceoil (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Malleus and Ceoil, I like you both. Please dont have a fight over the Tony issue. I am trying to forget it and move on. NancyHeise (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, Nancy. If I were you, I'd archive this entire page. (Some unsolicited advice there, which you should feel free to ignore.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
But he started it ;-) Yeah, its a small thing; I dont really have any beef with Malleus, who as always struck me as a fine editor. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tempshill

tempshill has just removed the sentences about the US teachers survey from the RCC section on abuse. Should we revert immediately since he has done this without consensus? Xandar (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted his removal of referenced material without discussion on principle, but left his other minor changes. The sentences can be discussed but not removed unilaterally. Xandar (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

I think... I saw your (tireless) contribution to the Catholic article page and noticed that you had changed your age on your user page. So happy birthday!! Yes I have nothing better to do lol. Tourskin (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

THE FISH ARE ENORMOUS! Tourskin (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes I had a birthday almost a month ago. The fish you see in the picture are halibut - and those are actually small ones (can you believe it?). There are fishing boats up there that have cranes attached to the back so they can actually bring it the really big ones that can get up to 400 lbs. We dont have a crane and are very happy that we have only ever caught the "little ones", they taste better anyway. Thanks for the nice happy birthday message. NancyHeise (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Nancy, your last archive was done by Karanacs, using the cut and paste method, so you should follow the same method. I'm afraid the instructions aren't very easy to read. Let me know ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If it will make it easier for you after you've read the instructions, I can set up your next archive file for you, and then you can just cut and paste into it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, if anything goes dramatically wrong and you completely mess up your archive, Jbmurray is always looking for opportunities to practice using his new admin tools, and anything can be fixed :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NancyHeise/Archive_2&oldid=1089142161"