User talk:NancyHeise/Archive 1

Hi NancyHeise/Archive 1, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are a few helpful links to start you off: Avoiding common mistakes, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, Policies and guidelines, Help, Merging pages.

If you need help or are curious about something, feel free to ask on my talk page or the village pump. You can sign your name and a date stamp on comments using four tildes (~~~~). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, and I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian! Andre (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RCC vs. CC

I am a bit lazy now but the issue is still the same so I just cut and paste for expediency. I believe that the proper name of the article should be Catholic Church. It should not be called Roman Catholic Church. The term RCC is more or less an Anglo-centric carryover from Encyclopedia Britannica. I am of the camp that respects the objections of the agents of the Catholic Church, i.e. its priests, that is to say, that it identifies itself as merely the Catholic Church. I also subscribe to the argument of other WP editors that the naming convention of WP be fairly applied to the CC and hence name it as such. Other editors of WP would object of course and can definitely find sources of instances of the term RCC being used but it is not the same as that being taught by its hierarchy. If you talk to Eastern Catholics, they would definitely object since they refer to themselves as Catholics, definitely, but not Roman Catholics (e.g. Maronite Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, etc.). A few editors in WP seem to monopolize an article and such is the behavior of most articles in WP. The term RCC is unfortunately an Anglican invention with an originally derogatory connotation (anti-papist) during the 18th cent. onwards and has unfortunately been applied by the British to the CC and hence infected wholescale the English language - but that's history for you. In sum, it is unfortunate that the terminology being used is incorrect and misleading although gaining acceptance. This is one of the weaknesses of WP since articles are made as a product more of consensus than objectivity. This is true whenever an article is an article of the humanities. Since no subject under the humanities can ever be objectively presented, everybody would just have to accept, including you, the realization that it will always be subject to change unlike a subject under science.

The humanities will always be subject to opinion and change, science less so. People will always have different opinions about the Mona Lisa but 1+1 will always equal 2. I hope you can appreciate my point of view.

It seems a common mistake even for Catholics to refer to themselves as Roman Catholics, at least in the English speaking world. Totally understandable because practically 98% are Roman. Unfortunate indeed that the most persecuted members of your church in Muslim countries and in the Middle East and India consider themselves fully as Catholics and call their church and your church, The Catholic Church, led by its high priest, His Holiness Benedict XVI. Maybe when the Catholic Christians in the Middle East are finally wiped out of existence off the face of the Earth, by all means, maybe, the term Roman Catholic might rightfully be applied. But I doubt it. It is further unfortunate that even Catholic media are less than clear about this. I just do not have the time to put up the link but I have read before that the English Catholic Church was successful in eliminating the term Roman Catholic Church to refer or become synonymous to the Catholic Church during the First Vatican Council. The term Roman Catholic Church when it appears is properly used as the description of the Holy See, the Roman Church. I will get back more to you on this.

From an objective evaluation of what it calls itself (and that should be the reference point) it calls itself simply, The Catholic Church, (capital T) capital C - centuries before Constantinople, before there was an Ecumenical Patriarch and before the general councils even existed. And it is known unambiguously by that name and its members who follow the Pope are known as Catholics - your obedience to your Pope is a very defining feature. I do not see any disambiguation problems. The disambiguation on the RCC page is quite clear. I'm an equal opportunity offender. I'm politically incorrect and I consider myself objective. I call a spade a spade. So should you. Or more so on this matter of your religion. I still stand by the position that the proper name under Wikipedia should be Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic Church. The naming convention should be applied evenly and should reflect the truth, not a compromise of convention invented by misguided editors in Wikipedia.Dr mindbender (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The situation is in fact much less clear than indicated here: "it" calls itself also, at times, the Roman Catholic Church. See Holy Roman Church. Lima (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Catholic_Church&action=edit&undoafter=202432365&undo=202454115

What's Your Problem?

Nancy: The Miami Archdiocese is not the place to discuss Catholic teaching on homosexuality. It's completely irrelevant to the question at hand; and regardless of what the Lesbian Conference tells you, it is not an organization which adheres to church teaching. Do yourself a favor and peruse their website. DominvsVobiscvm 17:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

DominvsVobiscvm: The Miami Archdiocese definition according to you is only about the sexual abuse allegations. My additions has added useful facts. Your edits remove them so the site is just a big advertisement for your homosexuality issues. Maybe you should create a page on homosexuality in the Catholic Church. That would be a more appropriate avenue for your edits.NancyHeise 23:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

References discussed earlier

Hi Nancy, just dropping a note to let you know I replied on my talk page. Also, I'm going to be forward, and place the following "Cheat Sheet" here for you, if you do not need it, then not a problem, simply erase it, but it has come in extremely handy for me

<ref>{{cite journal | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = | date = | url = | doi = | id = | accessdate = }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news | last = | first = | coauthors = | title = | work = | pages = | language = | publisher = | date = | url = | accessdate = }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | work = | publisher = | date = | url = | format = | doi = | accessdate = }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite book | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | publisher = | date = | location = | pages = | url = | doi = | id = }}</ref>

I hope you find that of help, you can simply copy/paste it, and fill in the blanks! The minimum I'd advise is: publisher, author's last name, title, URL and date of access. ^Ariel♥Gold 07:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. I've moved the mis-placed comment from Dom into this page, as it should be. Feel free to archive your old comments if this page grows too long, into your own personal archive, such as User:NancyHeise/archive.
• P.P.S. I'd also suggest that you remove your email address from your main user page, to avoid getting spam or unwanted email, (or at least disguise it using (at) instead of @ ) or you can simply enable email in your preferences. Just a tip!

References

Okay I took a look, you're not "closing" the argument with a / . When you cite, you must use the above format, in front is the <ref> and at the end, is the closing, </ref> with the /. See the difference? That's why all that text is moved down into ref section, jumbling it up. Be aware someone may revert it, or it may be easier to revert yourself. Also be aware that just putting a URL inside those <ref></ref> tags isn't a proper citation, as you can see above, information must be provided, at the minimum, the title of the article/book/journal, the publisher, the date of access, and the URL. Hope that clears things up! ^Ariel♥Gold 07:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

One other note

Okay, I also notice you're reverting the header changes I made. Let's review those.

For top level headers, you should use two = lines before and after, such as:

==History==

Now, if there are sub-sections, use three = before and after. However, you're going in reverse, using only one for sub-sections, which actually turns it into a bigger header. You'll notice that the external links section, and references section, is now improperly a subsection of "Catholic Charities", which is redundant to the section above it, "Charities". These issues need to be fixed as well. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, let me know and I'll pop in and fix them quickly. ^Ariel♥Gold 07:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

One other note, sections should never be done in all caps. I'm going to quickly pop in and fix the section headers, so that it is easier to edit references for you. ^Ariel♥Gold 07:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed refs, headers

I did review it that prior to adding all the tags, and to fixing it, but the bottom line was that the naked URLs were still in the article, and that's just not really cool, so, I have fixed the article's references, at least to move them to where they belong, and fixed the headers.

Here is my suggestion to you for now: Don't worry at this point, about the references, simply concentrate on editing one section at a time, (don't edit from the tab at the top, edit from the (edit) links next to sections) not the whole page, and worry about the text, not the references at this time, okay? The references are a different issue, none of them are really reliable sources, so the article really needs help, not just in the text, but in the overall big picture view. ^Ariel♥Gold 07:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - Don't forget to sign whenever you comment on talk pages! Also, please be sure you use that edit summary box, to explain your actions, especially when you're dealing with information that seems to be continually reverted, it will help in the future! Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 07:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I'm afraid as I mentioned, I truly can't comment on the issues between you and the other editor(s) regarding the article, I'd suggest taking those issues to the talk page, or further avenues if needed. If you need the name of an Administrator (who is also a mediator) I can give you that. I skimmed through both your history, and Dom's history while deciding whether I should revert the article's activity in the first place tonight, and finally decided on placing tags, rather than reverting all the work, since I could not be a good judge of the validity of the information. While I did that, I noticed the issue had been in mediation before, so I don't know what I can offer, except simple formatting advice. If you look at the references section, basically they're all the same link, from that Catholicchairities site, and that's simply not a reliable source. References should be from newspapers, valid papers, not tabloids, and any "church" connection would not be reliable, as it would be biased towards the church in its views. ^Ariel♥Gold 08:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin name and links for your reference

Nancy, I have a good friend, Chris who has experience with conflict resolution, but is not formally a mediator. However, he's been quite busy this week, so I cannot promise he can assist, but it would not hurt to drop your name and tell him I sent you to review the situation (and I will do that as well). Please link to Dom's full username, using the following code (copy and paste this) [[User:DominvsVobiscvm]] to allow him to review Dom's edits. Also, please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for the various levels of resolution available. A list of active mediators can be found here. Hope that helps with the content issues! ^Ariel♥Gold 08:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference links

If you'd like me to move these to a sub-page for you, I'd be happy to do so. Also, you should create the page User:NancyHeise/sandbox and experiment there, because you must realize that Wikipedia uses different "script" than what you may be used to, (i.e. normal HTML doesn't always work, and links are done differently here). Click on the sandbox link, and just choose "edit this page" to create your sub page.

Don't forget to fill in the edit summary! (I'd suggest that you go into your preferences, at the top of the page, click "my preferences", then click the tab titled "editing", and select the last option, "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". You may also want to be sure that the first option, "Enable section editing via [edit] links" is checked, and any others you'd like. I'd suggest previewing on first edit, and using javascript in editing, but those are up to you.) ^Ariel♥Gold 08:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some pages that will help you to find your way around, understand some of the most relevant policies and guidelines, and develop your editing skills:
Basics Glossary of Wikipedia terminology The five pillars of Wikipedia Contributing to Wikipedia How to edit a page Learn from others Wikipedia Tutorial Q&A Frequently Asked Questions Why was my page deleted? Where to ask a question Department directory Copyright FAQ Editor's Index Village pump	Community Administrators' noticeboard How to use talk pages Resolving disputes Community Portal Maintenance WikiProjects Civility Articles Cite your sources with footnotes How to develop an article Starting a new page Naming conventions Using categories Manual of Style	Policies and Guidelines Notability and Verifiability "Ownership" of articles What Wikipedia is not User page guidelines Neutral Point of View No original research Copyright violations Deletion policy External links Images Uploading images Image use policy Copyright tags Upload wizard
A few other useful tips: Please sign your name when you comment on talk pages (not articles) by using four tildes (~~~~), which will show your name and the date. When you edit a page, even minor edits, you should include a descriptive edit summary. If you need help, Drop by the Help Desk or the New Contributors' Help page. Another option is to join the adopt-a-user project. You can also add {{helpme}} to your talk page, followed by your question, or ask me on my talk page and I can try to help, or point you to someone who can. Happy Editing!- Ariel♥Gold 08:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Annotated article

Wikipedia:Annotated article That is really helpful in not only understanding proper layout of a good article, but also in learning how the various items were done, from image placement, to references. I hope that helps! And let me know if you'd prefer having all those links above on a separate "links" page, I'd be happy to move them for you! Finally, feel free to go to my page, and click on "bookmarks" at any time, I have literally loads of links there from most every area, if you're unable to find something specific, check that, it may be there! ^Ariel♥Gold 08:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

COI

Nancy, I've removed the following section from the article:

Ms. Nancy Heise, a parishioner of a parish in the Archdiocese, CPA and former auditor, conducted her own private investigation into the allegations made by Christifidelis; the results of her investigation contradicted the allegations of a gay subculture. The results of her investigation are contained in a grievance filed against the leader of Christifidelis, Broward Legal Aid Attorney Sharon Bourassa. Her investigation, detailed in letters to various individuals involved in the case have been published by columnist Matt Abbott.

I've done this because you cannot add information about, or pertaining to, yourself, as it is in conflict of interest You are free to put that information on your main user page if you wish, but as you are not (no offense) a reliable source, that information constitutes original research and thus, isn't appropriate. Also, I'd strongly suggest you refrain from adding any information related to your investigation, as it too could be seen as a conflict of interest. If you'd like a third party to review your research, please request it on the article's talk page, and they can place it into the article if appropriate. Thanks for understanding! ^Ariel♥Gold 12:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

References - more help

Nancy, here is what you're currently typing for your references:

<ref>{{Communicator Awards of Distinction=|retrieved on 2007-8-16=|http://www.communicator-awards.com/=}}</ref>

That is close, but it is still incorrect. The { } brackets are "scripts" that lead to templates, and without the proper modifier (in this case, {{citeweb}}, it will become an error. The above should be properly formatted to read:

<ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title =Communicator Awards of Distinction | work = | publisher = | date = | url =http://www.communicator-awards.com | format = | doi = | accessdate =2007-08-16 }}</ref>

All the information must be included, even if it is not used, or the format won't work for you. That's why I gave you the exact format above in small text, for you to copy/paste the entire thing, and fill in each section you could.

Also please note that you must have two digits in access date for month and day, so it should be 2007-08-16.

As far as the information you mentioned, I'll leave that up to you to remove, as I'm unsure what exactly would be removed, but I trust you will do it without any problems, add that info to the talk page if you wish! Hope that helps! ^Ariel♥Gold 12:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget http://

Another tip: Due to the way Wikipedia handles links, when using citations, you have to include the http:// part, or it will show as invalid link. ^Ariel♥Gold 12:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Article

Hi Nancy, I'm back. I glanced over the comparison's of your version with the one Dom is putting in, and it does indeed appear he's removing valid material, but again since I've got no knowledge of the church, or Catholicism, I'm completely unable to truly validate that. However, it truly seems that for whatever reason (I don't really care what his reason is), this editor is determined to remove your information in favor of his, although his is not really written any better, so I'm quite confused. Honestly, my advice is to get ahold of a mediator, point them to his talk page, as he's been in mediation for these issues before, and see what you can get done. In the mean time, avoid revert wars! Your copy of the page is safe, but if you revert him more than twice, stop. There is a three-revert rule here, and if you get into a situation where you're reverting each other, you both can end up blocked.

I would urge you to get valid references for the article. Currently, the only reliable resource there is the NBC one. Catholic Charities, Miami Archdiocese, Bishop-accountability, renew america, all of those are not "news" sources. Yes, they are sources of information, (like how many schools the church runs, etc.) but they aren't reliable as far as neutrality is concerned. Associated Press, New York Times, Miami Herald, etc. Those are the kinds of references this article needs, for you to be able to state without question, that Dom's removal of your information is invalid. I'd urge you to find news references, and not references that are related to, or affiliated with, the church.

I'm not sure there is much more I can do to help the article. Aside from getting some good news references, it looks fine, speaking only as far as layout and format. I'll remove the one references tag, but the other two should remain until someone with knowledge can evaluate the rest of it!. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 21:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Archdiocese

I have protected the page, and we'll work on the mediation as soon as I get back (I'll be away for a few days). Meanwhile, I've left an exercise on the mediation page. Andre (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Threats of prosecution

Hey, it's been brought to the attention of the admin noticeboard that you threatened another editor with legal action, via the Catholic League. Please read WP:NLT before continuing in that direction. All the best. The Rambling Man 15:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, while your statement here may be quite valid, it is compromised by the legal threat which is against Wikipedia policy. Please wither remove the threat or edit it so it is not a threat against Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or an editor. Mr.Z-man 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I've reviewed your edits to Talk:Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. First, I agree that deleting the material was the right thing to do because our Biographies of Living Persons policy has strong requirements for reliable sources for this type of material. I completely agree with you that the source involved doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliabilty requirements. Second, I'd like to let you know that Wikipedia has a number of policies, such as our Biographies of Living Persons policy as well as our WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable source policies, designed to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia and prevent its being used to disseminate gossip or other unreliable information. I would urge you to look at Wikipedia policies and see if you can work within them to remove problematic material on the basis of Wikipedia's own policies. If you do this, all of Wikipedia's internal resources, including its administrators, are here to help you and all you have to do is ask for help and we will help you if we can. Finally, as The Rambling Man has explained, Wikipedia has a No Legal Threats policy that is strictly enforced. If you write something that appears to be a legal threat in an article or talk page, this could be taken very badly and could prevent your actions, even if correct and justified in themselves, from being seen with goodwill. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the threat of prosecution. Please know that I am not the only Archdiocese of Miami parishioner who is offended by this material. Wikipedia is inviting legal action against it by not following its own policies. This article did not have to be locked down in its most offensive version. Many statements here do not only lack a reliable reference, they do not have any reference.NancyHeise 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable and attributable

See Wikipedia:Verifiability & Wikipedia:Notability. Of course the second is a guideline on subject matter in general, see also WP:BLP. Simply put, WP does not make "allegations" or indeed unsupported statements of any kind, but may chose to report allegations made by third parties - examples would be those made against Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton and OJ Simpson. They need not necessarily be true or even plausible, since we are not contending that they are either, simply that they were made by the given person. WP is also not in the business of giving or denying the "oxygen of publicity" to campaigners - we report on material mainly from secondary sources, that reflects the real-world. Whether this campaign, or your counter campaign are notable I do not know, but it seems that your arguments are that it has made a disproportionate impact, which would tend to support inclusion. Rich Farmbrough, 14:50 16 September 2007 (GMT).

I would like to ask you if it is notable that these accusations were never repeated in the local news media, either in South Florida Sun Sentinel, Miami Herald or local television stations? If the local news doesnt carry accusations that are clearly exaggerations, why should Wikkipedia? NancyHeise 18:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it probably is notable if the allegations themselves are notable. Rich Farmbrough, 18:55 16 September 2007 (GMT).

Hi Nancy, I have had a quick scout around, but I do not intend to research this case. Possibly "Matt Abbott, gossip columnist, has carried reports of Sharon B...'s allegations ... these have been syndicated on a number of blogs." Anyway my purpose in chipping in was to try and provide clarity on what can, in principle, be included in WP, not to make a judgement about this particular case. YOu should discuss with those who want to include the information why they think the allegations are notable. Rich Farmbrough, 18:52 16 September 2007 (GMT).

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, NancyHeise/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help
contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! --Thw1309 17:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

DV blocked

Hello. I've blocked DV for 48 hours and left a note for everyone on the article's talk page. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 19:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. DV's block has expired but since this was his first edit, I'm seriously doubting his ability to abide by Wikipedia's policies. Please let me know if he continues with his disruptive edits so that I can take care of it before it turns into another revert war. (oh, and just to be clear, I'm not asking you to stalk him.) Pascal.Tesson 00:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:StacyyW

Regarding User:StacyyW, do you have any affiliation with this person? Andre (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

She is a relative. Is that a problem? I should add that I am not related to nor do I personally know or work with any other editor involved with the Archdiocese of Miami page or Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases. I am the only editor of this site who is using her real name.NancyHeise 23:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on the nature of your relationship? Andre (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she is my teenage daughter who cried for two hours after Sharon Bourassa's group stood outside a church and told her that the priest she has known and loved all her life is a practicing homosexual who steals money from the church. That was two years ago, she is now 17 and not too happy that DominvsVobiscvm wants to put Sharon Bourassa's hate group material on Wikipedia, something many children will use and see. Happily, she is enjoying her editing project. NancyHeise 18:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Her being your daughter is not necessarily a problem, but if the two you of you always "act as a team", supporting the same side of an argument, or tag-team reverting someone so that they violate WP:3RR but neither of you does, it may lead to allegations of meatpuppetry, which is similar to sockpuppetry, but using a real separate person rather than a sockpuppet in the strict sense. It is probably best if both of you acknowledge your real-life relationship on your user pages, so that everything's out in the open. —Angr 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added information to my user page acknowledging that I am related to StacyyW. We have not tag team reverted anyone. Please see that on the pages we have been involved in, we have been on the side of the consensus of editors who, in unison and without knowing each other, agreed that the edits of DominvsVobiscvm were inappropriate. Thanks,NancyHeise 21:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are her mother, why was she leaving you talk page comments calling you Nancy and acting as though you do not know each other? Moreover, why were you using talk pages to communicate if you are editing from the same house? Andre (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Andre, perhaps it was our desire not to reveal our relationship but since you asked, it is now known. I would like to offer that if you would like to consider our contributions as coming from the same person that may be fair. Most of the work was mine although most of the suffering and psychological anguish was hers. After reading the Wikipolicy on Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry I think that the other side to this edit dispute would consider our collusion just that since we live in the same house and both know the case intimately. To be fair to both sides, as a judge, you may have to consider our contributions as one. Honestly, we have three different computers in this house and the six members of my family all use all of them. Sometimes I signed on as StacyyW just because I was in that part of the house and used that computer so I can not say that I never did that. I have not been completely honest with you on that. I would like to ask you a question and would like an honest answer from you: Why did you leave DominvsVobiscvm's material locked on the article for over a month? Even after a clear consensus of editors (the ones who did not know each other) and obvious errors and violations of Wikipolicy in the content you kept locked? What was that all about? Why could you not have locked it in a more conservative form and then added info that was agreed upon by consensus? I think you have been very unfair to the majority of editors to this article and unbelievably and wrongfully patient with DominvsVobiscvm. Please explain.NancyHeise 03:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Andre, are you affiliated with user:DominvsVobiscvm? You volunteered to mediate the dispute on these Archdiocese of Miami and John Favalora columns. DominvsVobiscvm could be you for all we know.StacyyW 11:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, I have no affiliation with DominvsVobiscvm, Catholicism, Christianity for that matter, or even anyone in the state of Florida. I am a volunteer mediator who took a case as is my job. The page was protected not as an endorsement of any given version but as an enforced barrier to revert warring -- you have argued that the protected page was m:The Wrong Version. It really doesn't matter what the page was, we're trying to resolve this dispute in a productive way. Dominvs has been uncommunicative and has revert warred, but you have also been engaged in similar behavior along with legal threats and sockpuppetry. I want to take this issue to arbitration and you'll just have to be patient -- I am a full time college student with homework, classes, clubs, friends, a girlfriend, and so on and so forth. I spend as much time doing work for Wikipedia as my schedule allows, but sometimes big things like ArbCom cases have to wait a little bit longer. Andre (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Andre, please remember it was me who engaged in sockpuppetry. I did so without knowing what sockpuppetry was and not knowing it was against Wikipedia policy until after I answered your questions to me about StayyW. I admitted to you what I did, I could just have easily lied instead but I am trying to be a Christian, which is not always easy. I think it may be in the best interest of StacyyW to open a new account on our third computer under a different name to allow her to be a Wikieditor anonymously - just like 99% of all Wikieditors. I became an editor because I knew the details of this specific case and have seen firsthand the harm done to real people, including children by Sharon Bourassa and her tiny hate group. Legal prosecution by the Catholic League is a real possibility that I have communicated directly to Wikipedia via directions by administrator CBM. I worded it so I would not get blocked from editing Wikipedia. Any parishioner in the Archdiocese of Miami can submit these talk pages as evidence to the Catholic League. We are the ones who are victims of Bourassa's hate group and we may have legal recourse if Wikipedia chooses to make the Archdiocese of Miami page a propaganda page for that hate group which could only occur if Wikipedia chooses to violate its own policies. Am I a bad person for communicating this very real scenario to you? No, I am telling you the truth.NancyHeise 15:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User Boxes

Nancy, I found the page you were looking for to create those little boxes on your user page, it is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/New_Userboxes. If you go into the history and just click on some people's names, you can see what they have for boxes and just copy and paste the code out of the edit page. Happy userboxing!StacyyW 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: WikiProject Catholicism

Thanks for offering, but the edits I made were mainly cleanups of unsourced information inserted by User:DominvsVobiscvm, who put in allegations of sexual scandals, unsourced. Then, as guidelines told me, I reverted the edits, leaving a note on his talk page, but an edit war ensued. I was involved in the article mainly incidentally. Thanks, though!
--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hi, saw you trying to add an image to an article. Wikipedia doesn't allow images from external websites to be shown. All images have to be uploaded locally to Wikipedia, or to Wikimedia Commons. Also, we have a very strict image use policy, especially with regard to images that are not freely licensed. It's probably a good idea to familiarize yourself with both of those policies before trying to upload and image. —Angr 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

StacyyW is better at this than I am so I will let her do the image loading and learning about how to do that. Thanks for the directions to the proper pages. We may have to go out and take our own photos for this project. NancyHeise 21:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Requesting help on image size

Hi Nancy, good to talk to you again! First of all, let me just tell you that it is not recommended you force image sizing in articles, as is being done with the RCAM article. The reasons are given in the manual of style: "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult."

Also, the MOS has guidelines on proper layout, and the article is really in need of some help in this area. I've done some cleanup and standardized the sizes of images, and I'll add an infobox, that will give you the larger image at the top that you were thinking about. Hope that helps, and the article looks much nicer now, btw, good job! I've also fixed the external links to be in the format normally used, (MOS), which is to put the URL and the description inside brackets to the description itself is the link. You can edit it to see how I did it if you want. Another thing, some of the references used are the church's site. This is not a reliable, third party source and should not be used as references (footnotes). I've done some other general cleanup, with improper spacing of refs, (the footnotes are placed immediately after a period at the end of a sentence, no space), and things of that nature. But I'd encourage you to look into replacing the catholiccharities.org references with third-party ones, as that's a self-reference. Finally, and note that I'm not saying you've done any of these things in editing, but just to let you know what I did so you can possibly explain to others if needed, to cite a source more than once, you can't just type [1], as was done in the article, you need to create a ref name for the first ref, and then use it for every subsequent use. More info is here: WP:CITE and WP:FOOT. Hope that helps, at least somewhat, and feel free to ask me any other questions, I can't guarantee I have the answer, but I can sure try! ^Ariel♥Gold 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding references, remember you don't need to put a space between multiple references, between the closing tag of one, and the opening tag of the other. (So instead of </ref> <ref> it would be </ref><ref>.) I've tried to go through and fix most of those, but may have missed some, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 17:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ariel, I started doing it the right way after seeing what you were doing. You have really been a huge help. Thank you for the umpteenth time! NancyHeise 17:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee, good, and really I didn't do much to help, you're doing all the work, lol. I replied more on my talk page, but you should be really proud of the way this article has turned around in the last few weeks. I'm happy to see that the early problems didn't deter you and you're still here! Feel free to holler at me any time you like, and I'll take it off my watchlist now that I know you've got it under control. Have a wonderful day! ^Ariel♥Gold 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bishops of Miami

they are on my to do list.. you are doing a great job.Callelinea 13:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, so are you! NancyHeise 13:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It would be appreciated if you would not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Ridernyc 20:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought I was supposed to delete the tag, I misunderstood what it was saying about leaving the tag for five days. I eventually did go to the right page and leave my comments (I think) in the right place and I did not delete anyone else's commments. I deleted part of my own comment and replaced it with a shorter version of the same thing.NancyHeise 20:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

sex abuse case articles

I mentioned that I didn't like the look of the Catholic list when it was brought to my attention on the school article talk page. listed the Catholic article along with the other school ones when I mentioned them in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa). And, as I have already stated in that same discussion, I intend to nominate them for deletion on Monday. Your own position mystifies me. If you don't agree with the existence of the Catholic lists why haven't you nominated them for deletion your self? And if you do agree with them - why can't you use your understanding of why they should exist to make a case for the school articles? -- SiobhanHansa 02:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Consistency isn't much of an excuse if you are consistently wrong or unthinking. My attention was brought to the Iowa school article today - I was concerned and added to the discussion on the talk page - bringing up issues and trying to actually illicit some wort of discussion that was based in policy - something that could then be consistently brought to other articles. Just like you I did not nominate any of the articles for AfD. I brought up all the other school articles and the Catholic articles at the same time on the AfD when I saw that only one article was nominated. Your accusations of discrimination by me are unjustified, not backed up be the evidence and fail to assume good faith. They're quite hurtful. They also do absolutely nothing to improve our encyclopedia. I would like to see these issues addressed appropriately on all the articles. Have you actually looked at any of the policy and guideline links which have been provided in the discussion? They really do explain my concerns with all these articles, I am particularly concerned about the BLP issue for people who would not otherwise warrant a mention in an encyclopedia. But I'm not prepared to leave one article where the points have been raised and address it on a different one first simply because you cannot assume good faith about other editors' motivations. -- SiobhanHansa 03:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, if all the school and Catholic articles had been nominated, for the reasons given on the Iowa page, where would you stand and why? -- SiobhanHansa 04:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Just Wondering

Shoot! I had to leave right before I was ready to put in another AfD for them. Anyways, thanks for reminding me...assuming they haven't already been deleted. jonathan (talk — contribs) 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I was busy and had to go away from my computer so I could do something; and I could not put in an AfD for those articles. Does that answer your question? jonathan (talk — contribs) 03:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hiya!

I made a few small changes to your userpage (see diff) - I hope you don't mind! By the way, it's generally not a good idea to go publicising your email address like that.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Separate pages on sex abuse in public schools

The reason for the separate pages kind of reflects what we just saw in RC abuse cases - It got too long and it had to be split. Since the info for each state vanishes into archives after two years, the only competent research can be done (in the past) in a local library. For many states (but not all), the potential list of offenders is very large. Quite possibly thousands in the larger states. In California, they would have had to split the article in two early on! Print (preview. I'm not actually printing them!) pages should never exceed 30. 15 is a good time to be thinking about spliting. Just gets too long to manage. At that, the page would have to be separated alphabetically - I'm sure you have seen examples. People only want to work on their page or read about their state. I could categorize each by state.
So that's the long answer - I didn't want to clutter up the main article in sex abuse in education with minor cases - it wouldn't get read. In fact, that was happening with R-C sex abuse before they split it. Can't read anything that long. They realized it and split is without any online discussion. Hmmm. And with no dissent. Amazing!
Having said that, there was NO way to satisfy the critics. I tried talking to my critic on Iowa and he would accept nothing whatever in any category. He never gave an inch on anything. Exactly what a union stooge would do. School boards (together) are the largest employer in the country. With all the teachers mostly organized, they are their largest union. And the teachers are literate. They can literally call on thousands of people to sign online and vote for or against anything! So it was doomed from the outset.
Having said that, this could have it's good side and really the only one I wanted - maybe. Just maybe we can get rid of the List of RC priests. These are lower level mostly and pretty much at the same level as the teachers. The bishops stay in the higher level article. We can try! Student7 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You have new messages

P.S., can I fix your userpage? lol. The banners are causing horizontal scrolling. And actually if you wanted a design I'd be happy to make you a real simple one as well. Ariel♥Gold 14:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Colors

Nancy, what is your color preference for your userpage? Like, favorite colors, etc. Also, are you a member of any WikiProjects? Ariel♥Gold 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I decided to go with blue, and to give you custom userboxes, as the defaults are just ugly colors. Let me know what you think. Ariel♥Gold 19:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations

Inline citations are not just for online sources, and should be used for all citations used by the article (offline & online). If the source is being used for three items in the text, it should be cited directly using the inline source. Some wikipedia articles will have a 'notes' section for the inline citations, and a separate 'references' section, which would contain an alphabetical listing of the book sources (but careful inspection of these types of pages shows that the alphabetical listing is in addition to listing those books as footnotes. In this case, since there's only one book source, the proper way to do it is to have ALL sources as inline citations.

The other way you describe seems to be a misunderstanding in the reading of WP:CITE. Dr. Cash 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I did suggest that you place it into a separate section, but it was because it was not an inline citation, it was just a book placed into references, but not put as a footnote using a citation in the text. That's why I suggested placing it into a "sources" section to separate it from the items that were footnoted. If you can footnote it and place it into the text to source specific passages, then by all means, do so. Simply use the same template and wrap it in ref tags. And if you interpreted that to mean that only online items go in references, I'm sorry I was not more clear, as that's definitely not what I meant. I simply meant it wasn't placed into the article as a footnote, so it was more of a "Further reading" type of material, not cited in the article. Sorry for any confusion. I'd go with what Dr. Cash suggests, as I'm not the one doing the GA review. :) Ariel♥Gold 19:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Nancy, I placed the item in "Sources" into a template, and added instructions to the section in hidden comments. Just add the ref tags in front, and at the end of the citation, and then copy it and place it into the first sentence to cite, and then do the <ref name="paper" /> for any additional areas of citing. Hope that helps! Ariel♥Gold 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Couple other little things I did: The newspaper ref was double-cited, and actually ended up having spacing issues resulting in the ref being at the front of the item, but the item it referenced was itself, so I removed that. Also I wiki-linked "Archbishop" and "Bishop" on their first mentions, and removed the wiki-links from the rest of the mentions per WP:MOS, having the list of bishops and archbiships all wiki-linked was redundant. I went ahead and wiki linked the major degrees offered by the university, and a few other terms as well. Just refining cleanup, but you might want to review it again to see if any terms are redundantly wiki-linked, and remove those. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 01:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ariel, I removed all redundant wikilinks and added some that were not previously linked. Cheers, cheers and more cheers!!!NancyHeise 02:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I'll keep my fingers crossed for the GA review to come through this time! Ariel♥Gold 03:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Awarded for guiding the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami article through the Good Article nominations process, and dealing with all of the issues and concerns that were raised along the way. Great work! Dr. Cash 03:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

65.105.177.162

I saw your request to Melsaran (talk · contribs) about 65.105.177.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). First, Melsaran is not an administrator so cannot block people. Second, Melsaran himself is currently blocked and is therefore unable to do anything but edit his own talk page. Third, 65.105.177.162 has not edited in five days so a block does seem necessary at this time. If someone returns to vandalize using that IP address, your best option is to report it at WP:AIV. You should mention that the last block on that address was for six months. Good luck. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Felipe de Jesus Estevez

Hi. It took me awhile but I did the article you requested. Callelinea 01:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

YOU NEED TO KNOW THIS

Presently, three of my bishop articles up for nominitaion to be DELETED (AFD), because some people feel that Bishops of the Catholic Church are not notable. They are Bishops Estevez, Gracida and Nevins. Callelinea 03:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pope John Paul II High School

You made a minor edit to the article Pope John Paul II High School. I would like to take this article and bring it to Good Article but there is an editor who is deleting all my work and threatening an edit war (see their last revision of my work in the history section). The user will not get a user name or come to the talk page even after several requests by me. I have reported them to WP:AIV. Is there anything else I can do? I don't want to get into an edit war but it seems so unfair that this person has complete control of this article.NancyHeise 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is a content dispute in progress, you can ask for the page to be protected until the situtation can be resolved on the discussion page. If one user is persistently disruptive, they may eventually have to be blocked to prevent further incidents; speak to an administrator. If the edits are merely vandalism, warning them (and reporting them to administrators should they persist) should suffice. My only edit was to fix some broken markup, something I have done to thousands of different pages; I have no opinion on the appropriateness of the current revision or any other, and I don't want to get involved in an edit war. Thanks – Gurch 21:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted several edits made by an unknown user on this article. There appears to be an edit war brewing that needs to be headed off. I left a note on the Talk Page inviting interested parties to state their case to see if some form of a compromise can be reached. I would be happy to try and mediate if that would help. I have also suggested that, for the time being, editing, reverting, etc. be placed on hold until some kind of compromise can be reached. LonelyBeacon 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem ... I am just intereted in helping to make articles better. From what I have seen, it appears that you have made many positive improvements, but at the same time, if there are legitimate arguments to be heard, they should be heard. I jsut want to give others that chance. Ultimately, if they choose to avoid discussion, then an administrator may need to be called in. I am just hoping to handl things here before that has to happen. LonelyBeacon 20:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nancy and Adam,

I am copying this to both of your Talk Pages. I just left a big list of suggestions over on the article Talk Page. Go take a look at them, and make some comments on the Talk Page before you go back to editing. I'm not a wishy-washy type, but you both have some very solid points in your contributions and thoughts. I based my suggestions strictly on the guidance from the Wikischools Project, which oversees most of the school articles here.

Three last things: 1. In terms of how the three of us approach each other, let's hit the reset button. I understand very much that you are both passionate about creating a good article. I have great respect for that passion. I suspect that there is some bad blood from some miscommunication and misinterpretation. Let's forget about that and start again.

2. Wikipedia has a policy on ownership of articles: WP:OWN. I ran afoul of this once when I wrote an original article, and someone came in and tried adding to it with information that I thought was irrelevent. Upon reflection of time, I was wrong. This feeling can be intensified when you feel strongly about a subject, as I suspect that you both do. Don't feel too bad. But remember that just because an editor comes along with a different idea, that doesn't necessarily mean they are being reckless. Always communicate. Also, editors are not required to communicate (at least initially) their changes to articles. However, it is considered politeness to respond if you are asked to communicate about changes.

3. Wikipedia also has a policy on civility: WP:CIV. I know that you may not really mean anything bad, but some of the comments that have ben mad in the edit summarys can come across as being attacks. Be ccareful with the language you use. You may not meaning anything by it, but other people may interpret that differently.

Let me know if I can help out more. LonelyBeacon 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I would stop by ..... looks like things have settled down and the article is looking really good. I would recommend that you consider gettting an assessment on the article from the Wikischool folks (you can access this through the template on the Talk Page in the article). They usually get back after a few weeks and give some tips on how to further improve the article. LonelyBeacon 05:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Some news, because of some disambiguation problems with the now many articles about he many other schools named for Pope John Paul II, the article you have been working on has been renamed Pope John Paul II High School (Boca Raton, Florida). I just wanted to give you a heads up. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Bishops of Miami

Hi! I finally finished making articles on all the bishops of Miami. Callelinea 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

Hi Nancy. I took a look at the Archdiocese of Miami FA and have left comments for you there. When I went back to check it looks like you had not addressed some of my comments at all. Please note that if you do not agree with some of my suggestions you should address it on the talk page so that we can discuss it and try to find a compromise, if possible. Karanacs 14:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Added the star. Apparently a bot used to do it, but now the article's editors should add the star in after it's been promoted. CloudNine (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration

This is a reminder to go vote for the Catholic Collaboration Effort. Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration. Current nominations:

freenaulij 03:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

On the FA! I'm really proud of you. I have edited the images in the article, per the manual of style and Wikipedia:Accessibility, when one forces an image into a specific size, it over-rides every reader's personal preferences, and is discouraged. Also, forcing oversizing causes issues for visually impaired readers with low resolution and large fonts, and some of the images in the article were far, far oversized, when they don't need to be. At 500 pixels, when you are running at 800x600 with a large font, there is literally no room for more than one word of text. Readers can click on the images to see them full sized. If you'd like to see the extended version of the reasoning, and issues, you can check my comments at this FAC, but I'm sure you understand. The last two images are also still forced oversized, but I considered that for those, it was appropriate due to the nature of the photographs. Anyway dear, I am very happy to have been a part of this project, from dealing with a large POV edit war, to moving on past that to attain GA status, and now FA, just really well done. I hope you realize what a great accomplishment that is, and you give yourself a pat on the back! Ariel♥Gold 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ariel, I am going to pat myself on the back when I am through turning cartwheels and jumping for joy:) Thanks for correcting the image sizes. NancyHeise (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! It was worth dealing with all those problems. Squash Racket (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Squash Racket, thanks for you support vote for the page, it was very encouraging. NancyHeise (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the article is comprehensive and well written. Great work, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding job!! Thanks for all your good work! Student7 (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sacred heart

Rather than simply revert your mass deletion, I thought I would first ask you to explain which point of view you think the article was offering? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sherurcij, I am going to propose that this article be deleted because it consists of nothing but your news postings that have little to do with the actual church. I think that maybe this article should have some content about the actual church or be eliminated. I will wait a little while to see if the article developes any encyclopedic content before nominating it for deletion. NancyHeise (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem if you want to nominate it for deletion, but please recognise that you cannot remove 90% of the article then nominate it for deletion - people must see the actual disputed article text - in voting whether or not to delete. Assuming you're okay with leaving the text as-is for the next week, then a nomination for deletion is fine. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sherurcij, I do not call removal of the only two sentences in an article a mass deletion. If the sentences were relevant to the article I would leave them. I will not replace them. If you think this article is worthwhile, why don't you add some relevant information. NancyHeise (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane damage at Boca Airport

I've placed a {{fact}} tag on your recent addition to Boca Raton Airport. As you can see here, similar information has been deleted from the article in the past for lack of citations. Please provide a citation to a reliable published source per Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Donald Albury 16:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I added references per your comment. NancyHeise (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Hiya... how are you doing?

I notice your daughter's not been around in an age... has she left? Or has she started a new account? If the latter, could you email me her current username? I think I ought to keep an eye on you two, make sure you keep to the policies and make sure you don't get too much trouble from users who dislike you or what you stand for, such as Dominvs Vobiscvm... Just try and remember that the best way to deal with abuse is to ignore it.--Vox Humana 8' 00:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My daughter says she has not done any editing on Wikipedia in a long time and does not have a new account. Thanks for your concern. NancyHeise (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please tell her that one of our principal policies here is Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, to which most of us adhere - we don't like to see people driven away purely because of certain others who choose to ignore that policy. Please make her aware that she is free to come back and, if she does so, I would make it my priority to ensure that such newbie-biting as might occur didn't drive her away. I would happily supply any guidance required in terms of learning the numerous policies, keeping her out of potential fights (edit wars etc).--Vox Humana 8' 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you that the reason she has not been on Wikipedia is certainly not because of any bad experience on Wikipedia. She is a very good and very busy student with both a paying job, a volunteer job and a beloved hobby (non computerized). Thanks for your concern but we are both fine. I have enjoyed tinkering with Wikipedia between loads of laundry. This is a very interesting program. NancyHeise (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Heheheh - I can understand her situation! Having been in college myself earlier this academic year (ie last fall/autumn) - although I had to drop out due to illness - I can attest to students having little spare time, especially for Wikipedia! If she has a job too, plus a volunteer job, I understand entirely. I'm just anxious that she should not feel unwelcome here.--Vox Humana 8' 23:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

Thanks for fixing the Pope's image! I added it and tried to get the words on the bottom but I was doing something wrong. Thanks for helping! NancyHeise (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Nice job cleaning up the article, it was long overdue! Kindest regards, AlphaEta 00:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello Fellow Editors, I am requesting feedback from other editors about some changes I recently made to the article Roman Catholic Church. I have been using the FA Islam as a guide to make a page that defines what the Roman Catholic Church is without cluttering the page with too much inflammable content that is already extensively covered in other Wikipages. The page has summaries of important events and Wikilinks to subjects like Catholic social teaching and Spanish Inquisition and the like. The references need work to make them in-line citations but I will get to them when I complete the content portion of the page. Please come take a look at the page and offer your non-POV comments about its content. I would like to work and make the page a FA but I do not have a reviewer who has a NPOV. The page will be stuck without one. Thanks.

See previous page before my changes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Catholic_Church&oldid=184675288

See present page with my changes here: Roman Catholic Church

Many thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good and diligent work! The article is still too long, but the organization, esp. removing the "civilization" part, makes it well on its way to a good article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, I like the structure of the article. No single section comes to mind to remove. But I think that most of it could use a little condensing, perhaps slightly less technical language where feasible. This would be possible, as nearly all sections have a fork article which elaborate even further on that particular topic.

To be honest, in a perfect world I would have most of the Beliefs section in an article on Roman Catholicism. But currently that redirects to the Church's page. But then, the world is not perfect....

I should clarify (if necessary) that my commentary about length was in no way a criticism of your efforts, but rather made in the context of the GAR which you had mentioned. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

After taking in to consideration your comments, I made some changes to the article to shorten it. Specifically, I eliminated the Beatitudes section from the Belief category since it is just one of many of Jesus's teachings and is not more important than the others. NancyHeise (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to you at User_talk:Quadell#Roman_Catholic_Church.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw my reply, so I'll just copy it here: Since you are not an edit warrior, if I remove the disputed material while we are discussing it on the talk page, will you promise not to revert me while the discussion is ongoing (say at least 24 hours, if not more, pending the outcome of the discussion)?-Andrew c [talk] 04:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew c (talk • contribs)

I feel odd having a conversation with you on another's page, so I'm just going to respond here. I have explained myself a number of times on the talk page. Please assume good faith. I am clearly not a vandal. You said you were not an edit warrior, so pretty please respect that the content is under dispute and consideration on the talk page. If you revert my edit, I cannot assume you are acting in good faith, and I don't know how I can proceed dialogging with you. But of course, we won't have to cross that bridge :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 05:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of properly sourced material in favor of POV that is unreferenced and unsourced goes against Wikipedia policy. If the other side of the argument provides reliable references, which they haven't, then you could possibly validly revert my edit. Right now, you can't without being in violation. Sorry I don't support your decision. I will see what others have to say about it after we get some more participation. Cheers! NancyHeise (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Award for work

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Hello, I figured I'd give you this award for your highly dedicated and much appreciated efforts in trying to get the Roman Catholic Church article to GA status, it has improved a lot, good luck with finally getting it passed! Yorkshirian (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roman Catholic Church

The article Roman Catholic Church you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Roman Catholic Church for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. jackturner3 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not oppose the decision, I think the GA to do list is a good one and will help improve the article. I thank the person who took the time to review it so thoroughly and give us a very good NPOV comment list to work on. Thank you! NancyHeise (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to your question on criteria 3a, I did not list anything specific because I felt that it was already covered in the 1a evaluation. It is my opinion that, if significant material is missing from the historical section, it cannot therefore be braod in coverage, though perhaps in retrospect it would have been better to seperate the two critiques. -- jackturner3 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you have further questions, please let me know. Also, let me know before you send it back up for GAR and I will look over the article again and give you an estimation as to what I would do with it. -- jackturner3 (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ! Will do. NancyHeise (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

RCC History Critique, as requested

The first thing I notice right off the bat is that the very first sentence is (or could be considered) POV. You might want to rephrase it to say something to the effect that Church History for Roman Catholics begins at this point, rather than generically for all Christians since a variety of different confessions identify different points of ecclesiological genesis (including the calling of the Apostles, the Resurrection and, the “birthday of the Church,” Pentecost). Especially considering that most theologians and liturgists identify Pentecost as the birthday of the Church, the current introduction seems like it is pushing Petrine supremacy for everybody.

I also don’t like the last sentence of the second paragraph…it just seems funny to me.

This sentence in the third paragraph is also poorly constructed, “The Bible was being translated from Greek into Latin to help in this process.”

Also, you might want to say a sentence or two about the Oriental Orthodox, both using the Nicene Creed and also separating from the Catholic Church at this time (although, this is tricky, and you want to be careful how you word the comment to avoid POV either way). Otherwise, I think the section is in commendable shape. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I made these changes yesterday and I'm back to work on the next section. Thank you and please feel free to jump in with suggestions as you see my work progressing. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In rereading the section on the early church, I noticed that some of the suggestions I recommended were not implemented, particularly with regards to the foundation of the Church. However, I also noticed this statement:

“This resulted in the first schism when Dioscorus, the patriarch of Alexandria, disagreed with this dogma. This schism resulted in the creation of the Oriental Orthodox Church after efforts at reconciliation during the Council of Chalcedon failed.”

That is essentially false. The first “permanent” schism was following Ephesus 331, but that was between the Assyrian Church of the East (commonly called the Nestorian schism) and the other churches. The schism between the Oriental Orthodox and everybody else (commonly called the Monophysite schism) is what you are talking about. Chalcedon was not a reconciliation council (though Constantinople II and III were called to quell controversy over theology developed to heal the schism with the monophysites). That’s an important factual error that needs to be corrected, especially since the correct facts are apparent by simply following the link to the article on the Council of Chalcedon.

Insofar as the new material goes…

• I’m not sure what benefit there is in commenting on the literacy of the tribes that conquered the Western Roman Empire.
• I wouldn’t conflate the work of the church with modern social services. Rather, I would fully state what services you have in mind, without reference to the structure of modern society.
• ”Photias” is really spelled “Photius,” though I would personally stay away from mention about Constantinople 869 to avoid any charge of POV. Also, when referring to councils supsequent to Nicaea II, you might want to only give the name of the council or, if you mention what number it is, to add a statement to the effect of “counted as XXth Ecumenical Council by Roman Catholics.”
• The comment on what Nicaea 787 did is rather poorly worded: consider changing to clarify the prose here.
• ”From 1095…” until when? Consider revising.
• In the fifth paragraph, “St.” should be spelled out at as “Saint” according to WP:MOS; that goes for every other instance in the article, in case there was some that were missed.
• The lead-in to the sixth paragraph is confusing: consider revising.
• I would also move the seventh paragraph to a place ahead of the crusades since that is where it takes place chronologically.

Those are my suggestions at this time for revisions that could or must be made to the section you asked about. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- jackturner3 (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, I have addressed all your comments including the ones I missed in the Roman period. The only one I did not change (other than spelling) was Photius and naming the councils. give me a little more time on that comment. I also added a final paragraph talking about church abuses and leading into the next section on reformation. Please also take a look at that revision. NancyHeise (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read over the article again, and I have some comments for you:

• The correct use of “AD” is before the date (e.g., AD 325) rather than after. A more neutral way would be to use CE for AD. Furthermore, since you don’t use AD at every date, perhaps you want to consider whether or not you need to use it at all.

• As a general note, throughout the article, the title of saint should be spelled out. Sometimes, you have Saint and St. in the same sentence.

• If you really want to discuss Constantinople IV, is should be situated after Nicaea II in the prose.

• Were the Clunic Reforms only associated with education? You should also mention some of the other important effects of this movement. A wikilink in the prose to the article on Cluny would also be helpful.

• The section on the reformation requires more citations, as does the Age of Reason and Modernity.

• Maybe you want to state something more as to the actual conflict between Calvinists, Catholics, and Lutherans taking place during the sixteenth and into the seventeenth centuries.

• I don’t know that the mention of Galileo is necessary. Sure, it’s interesting, but it doesn’t make a huge impact on Church history.

Those are some of my suggestions. Let me know if you would like further comments. -- jackturner3 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all your comments. Can you please let me know if there is anything else? Please let me know when you think I should renominate the article for GA. Thanks, NancyHeise (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A little tip

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --Bwpach (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip - I will use it. I am learning as I go, only with the help of editors like you who point these things out to me. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RCC article

Let's go with what you think looks best. One of the things that is getting lost is the Catholicism portal; the emblem is just so small it loses importance. I moved it to the top for a preview, but just does not work. I wonder if this could be enlarged or something else? I made a further edit to the format to get the TOC over to right. Thoughts now? If this does not work, let just revert. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church -- Reply

Hello, NancyHeise.

What POV info are you saying I am trying to put in? If you look at the edit history (either the article or mine, take your pick), you'll notice that the only edits I have made to said article have been reversions to User:Divius's edits.

I realize that you're fairly new, learning as you go, and given your bazillion or so edits to this article alone in the past few months, I am going to assume you just shot from the hip. Just a friendly reminder, though, that you should make sure that your warnings about POV-pushing and allusions to vandalism are actually going to the correct target.

In this instance, I would be grateful if you remove your comments from my talk page. Thanks. SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 23:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right - I'm wrong - sorry for shooting from the hip. I have removed my comments from your talk page. Peace. NancyHeise (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pax tecum. —SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 03:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roman Catholic Church

The article Roman Catholic Church you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Roman Catholic Church for eventual comments about the article. Well done! jackturner3 (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nancy, glad to see it finally made it. I don't know if you're aware but all users who helped to improve the article, can place a box on their page listing the achievement. Since you were in fact the main person who did lots of work, I thought you might be interested in it, I've posted the box below. Regards. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This user helped promote Roman Catholic Church to good article status.

Thanks Yorkshirian, I think its OK to leave it right here on my talk page. NancyHeise (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hi Nancy! I took a look at the article, and did some changes to the images, first, for a number of reasons, (low vision users, users who prefer to set their own image size preferences, etc.) I removed all forced sizing on the images, as the manual of style suggests not to force sizing unless necessary. I moved images that were placed under second level headings (===) and aligned to the left, because again this is not advised per the manual of style. I also slightly reduced the image in the infobox, again for low vision users, when you force an image to display at over 300 pixels, and someone running a 600x800 resolution screen with large font reads the article, that leaves little room for any text at all, only a few words. The intro image should never be more than half the width of the article, so I reduced it to 300 from 350. I also removed an invalid URL from the external links, that appeared to have been placed as an afterthought, perhaps it was not even related to the article, I cannot tell. And finally, I fixed the headers for the "See also" section, because it was missing a = sign, causing the table of contents to appear oddly. I'm glad to see you were able to get the issues worked out and are on your way to FA status with it! I'm not really able to offer insights as to the content, but as far as the layout and presentation goes, now I think it is quite nice. Let me know how the FA Review goes! Ariel♥Gold 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not that big theology expert, so I could only do some minor changes. I advise you to contact User:Lima who seems to know more about the Catholic Church than me and also seems to be an active editor. I try to keep an eye on the process though. I think the article will be FA one way or another, it would only be better if real experts checked it. It looks nice. Squash Racket (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation formatting suggestion

Hi Nancy. There is nothing wrong with the way you are citing books, but it seems like it might be a little tedious to have to find the initial citation and add page numbers to it. There is another method that is fairly common on FACs that might save you a little work. In this method, you would have two sections, one for Footnotes and one called References. In the references section, you list out the full citation for each book that you use, but don't include the page numbers. Then, in the article you cite it this way:

<ref>AuthorLastName (date of publication), p. pagenumber.</ref> or

<ref>AuthorLastName, NameofBook (date of publication), p. pagenumber.</ref>. You can still used named refs if you have multiple references to a single page, but it allows you to add citations as needed without having the specific page numbers when you create the first citation tag. (For a simple example, see Spanish missions in Texas.) Again, your way is fine, but I thought this might save you some time. Karanacs (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I may refer to this in the future. I am hoping I dont have to put any more citations on Roman Catholic Church for now. NancyHeise (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

Hi Nancy, I want to remind you to please ASSUME GOOD FAITH. This comment [1] is inappropriate. I left an edit summary on the FA page that specifically said I would be going over the article more carefully and would come back, and it is generally polite to give someone more than 12-24 hours to address their comments at FAC. If three or four days have gone by, then you should mention that "I contacted so-and-so to let them know I've addressed their comments" (but without being accusatory). Please understand that I am trying to help you improve this article. Very, very few articles leave FAC in the exact same state that they entered the process, and almost never does the article end up worse. I am not the only person who has opposed this nomination, but I appear to be the only one actively trying to help you improve it. The majority of the changes I made to the history section today were to help with prose, because, quite frankly, the prose in this article does not meet the "compelling" standard of a Featured Article. Please assume good faith and remember that no one owns the article; we are all welcome to work to improve it. If you honestly feel that my suggestions have been detrimental to the article, please list those point by point so that we can work on them. Karanacs (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I will try to be more patient. NancyHeise (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

I am sorry that I have not been able to intervene as requested. Perhaps I am not the best person to ask to polish an article, rather than merely to search out factual information. Besides, I fear that an editor who has taken a dislike to me and my editing might be drawn to intervene in what you and I would consider to be a negative way. Perhaps, too, people with prejudices against what the article is about will in any case make it impossible for you to achieve your aim, no matter how perfect you make the form of the article. Lima (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, the only differences between what you had in that last paragraph of the Middle Ages and what I put is that I a) deleted the specific references to simony and nepotism and b) eliminated the mention of the Reformation, because that is discussed further down in the next section. Would you rather move the copyedited version into the next section and put it with the paragraph on the Reformation? Karanacs (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's move that section into the paragraph about the Reformation, then. It is not usually considered good practice to mention something that happens several paragraphs later like that. It makes more sense to keep all related information together. Let's remove this paragraph from the Middle Ages and change the Reformation paragraph to something like this:

The Renaissance was a period of renewed interest in ancient and classical learning, and a re-examination of accepted beliefs. During the late Middle Ages, respect for the Church and papal authority had declined due to the Church's internal disagreements, clerical corruption and abuses of power, and perceived misuse of finances. Some ordained men were considered hypocrites, as they lived luxurious lifestyles or maintained mistresses and fathered illegitimate children. On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, which protested key points of Catholic doctrine as well as the sale of indulgences.[76] Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, and others further criticised Catholic teaching and worship. These challenges developed into a movement called the Protestant Reformation, which spawned a new age in Christianity that brought these abuses to task. Among the issues the Reformation repudiated were primacy of the pope, clerical celibacy, the seven sacraments, and the Eucharist.

Karanacs (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what you want to remove or have already removed - please remember this passed GA and peer review:

"The late Middle Ages saw a decline in respect for the Church and papal authority because of these internal disagreements, clerical corruption like simony and nepotism, abuses of power, and perceived misuse of finances. The hypocrisy of some ordained men who lived luxurious lifestyles, who had mistresses and illegitimate children spawned a new age in Christianity that brought these abuses to task. This was the beginning of the Reformation.[21]"

This is what you want to replace it with that has not passed GA or peer review and does not help the paragraphs flow into one another:

"The Renaissance was a period of renewed interest in ancient and classical learning, and a re-examination of accepted beliefs. During the late Middle Ages, respect for the Church and papal authority had declined due to the Church's internal disagreements, clerical corruption and abuses of power, and perceived misuse of finances. Some ordained men were considered hypocrites, as they lived luxurious lifestyles or maintained mistresses and fathered illegitimate children."

Your version does not match the reference and removes the link between the corruption and the beginning of the Reformation. Your version has not been peer and GA approved. Your version makes the section longer which is what the other editors were worried about. NancyHeise (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, you are coming very close to violating WP:OWN. On Wikipedia, we are supposed to work together to find a version that makes everyone happy, not the one version that makes you happy. I am trying to offer proposals that will satisfy your concerns and mine, but you don't appear to be reading them. Have you looked at my proposal above? Here it is again. In response to your concerns, THIS is what I am proposing doing:

a) remove the paragraph from the Middle Ages section. b) revamnp the paragraph on the Reformation in the next section to look like this:

The Renaissance was a period of renewed interest in ancient and classical learning, and a re-examination of accepted beliefs. During the late Middle Ages, respect for the Church and papal authority had declined due to the Church's internal disagreements, clerical corruption and abuses of power, and perceived misuse of finances. Some ordained men were considered hypocrites, as they lived luxurious lifestyles or maintained mistresses and fathered illegitimate children. On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, which protested key points of Catholic doctrine as well as the sale of indulgences.[76] Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, and others further criticised Catholic teaching and worship. These challenges developed into a movement called the Protestant Reformation, which spawned a new age in Christianity that brought these abuses to task. Among the issues the Reformation repudiated were primacy of the pope, clerical celibacy, the seven sacraments, and the Eucharist.

Can we discuss THIS version? Karanacs (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You asked for my opinion. I gave you my opinion. I told you that your version does not flow, it does not match the reference, is longer, did not pass peer review or GA review. I am not owning the page. I am giving you honest feedback - you are not listening and I think you are violating WP:OWN. Especially when you are making changes that are not the consensus of editors. Your version remains on the page against my and the history of editors, GA reviewer and peer reviewers. NancyHeise (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked you about this version on the talk page and you said it was covered by your sources. That's when I put it back. The version you cited as not flowing was not the most recent version that I have proposed. Can you please list out what is wrong with this version? It does clearly state that the abuses were brought to task by the Reformation (which is what your version stated). Were you intending this information to instead relate to the Counter-Reformation? If so, I can understand how this doesn't make sense.

It boils down to, I think it sounds really stupid to mention the Reformation at the end of the Middle Ages section and then have a few paragraphs on the expansion of the faith, and THEN get to the two Reformations. The article currently does say that the Counter-Reformation addressed abuses among its members. Would you rather list the abuses there?

In response to the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church launched the Counter-Reformation. At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), Church leaders addressed abuses among their members and also clarified Catholic theological positions.[21] Among the abuses that had led to declining respect for the Church and papal authority were clerical corruption and abuses of power, and perceived misuse of finances. Some ordained men were considered hypocrites, as they lived luxurious lifestyles or maintained mistresses and fathered illegitimate children. With these abuses brought to task, a renewed enthusiasm led to the founding of new religious orders, such as the Jesuits, the establishment of seminaries for the proper training of priests, worldwide missionary activity, and the development of new yet orthodox forms of spirituality, such as that of the Spanish mystics and the French school of spirituality.

Is that better? Karanacs (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, you can do what you want with the history section. I have given Wikipedia my best effort. If you want to eliminate my work in favor of something else go ahead. I disagree that your edits are an improvement. I think they are obstructionism. NancyHeise (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

NOTE TO FA REVIEWER I have given a good faith effort to bring this article up to FA. I have answered at lenghth all of everyone's oppose comments. None have changed their vote even though their concerns have been addressed and incorporated. The editor Karanacs is actively trying to obstruct the advancement of this article to FA with unreasonable changes, edits to referenced material that then makes the material not match the reference and against the consensus of editors. I do not consider Karanacs an NPOV editor to this article but an obstructionist. I offer to work with an FA reviewer who is sincere about bringing the article up to FA but I will no longer be a part of this FA process as long as Karanacs is allowed to harrass and obstruct. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Roman_Catholic_Church"

Nancy, no one, including me, wants you to just abandon all of this. Articles change frequently for lots of reasons, and there is nothing wrong with that. The important thing is for all editors to work together in a give-and-take scenario to try to reach a compromise. Surely you've noticed that multiple people have expressed very similar POV concerns about both the article and the sources it uses. Generally when that happens, especially at FAC, that means the nominator needs to rethink some of their own prejudices (those that are good and those that are bad) to see if there is an issue. I'm really only trying to help. I've tried to suggest a lot of different methods (even in the face of personal attacks like that above) to resolve some of the issues I've seen and that you've posed so that we can both be happy, but you seem to just reject ideas without proposing any compromises. No article stays 100% the same all the time, please work with me to reach compromises. Karanacs (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

I will try to get by, but I'm kinda swamped with stuff right now. I'm busy trying to work on the medieval bishops of England, and have gotten sucked into another 'fix-er-up' article already, that's dragged me into ArbCom. So while I'll try, I can't promise anything. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, your help will be much appreciated. NancyHeise (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The main concern is that books written by an entity are going to have an inbuilt bias (as they should). Books written by third party people, while they may have a bias, can at least be balanced against others. Books used for cathecism classes and adults coming into the church are okay, but better would be something written by outside agency. I have one here in my house that would be useful, and very neutral also, as it's published by Oxford University Press. It's The Oxford History of Christian Worship edited by Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen B. Westerfield Tucker. ISBN is 0-19-513886-4. I bought it at Half-Price books, and you may be able to get it used for a good price. If you're going to continue writing articles on the RCC, you might pick it up as it's densely packed with very useful information on liturgy and practices, and will easily pass muster for a third-party source for Wikipedia. Another one that might work (don't laugh here) is one of the Dummies books, I bought one (which I can't find at the moment) because although I'm not Catholic, my son was attending a parochial school, and I needed to figure out what the school was talking about at times.

Wikipedia prefers third party sources. They allow self-published, but it's not going to be considered as good as a third party source. Given that there is a LOT of third party sources available for the RCC and its history, using RCC materials alone isn't going to get articles to FA status. You can use them to buttress other sources, but they are not going to be regarded as reliable as something from an academic press. Another concern I had with your sources was the Schaff, which is referenced to a work published in 1919. A LOT has changed in denominations since then, it's not safe to use it to say that all denominations recite the Nicene creed. Mormons don't. My methodist church doesn't all the time. I'm pretty sure that a great number of Baptist and Pentecostal churches don't either. Things have changed a lot in the last 100 years, and I'm afraid that work is out of date for current practices. Another concern is your source for the statement that "The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church comprising over half of all Christians. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the second largest Christian denomination in the world. Together, these two churches represent a decisive majority of all Christian believers." It's from a self-published website that doesn't say HOW it arrived at its estimates. I would not consider that a reliable site. Your single best guide for reliable sources, especially in history, is 1) is it published by an academic press (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, etc.) and 2)How extensive are the footnotes. If they are numerous and the book is by a reputable academic press, it's probably going to pass muster at FA. The older the source is, the less you should use it, especially for things dealing with the present.

I'm really busy at the moment, and I'll try to find time for the RCC article in the next few days, but I promised the Equine Wikiproject to try to work on the Thoroughbred article tonight, as well as trying to get BACK to working on Augustine of Canterbury. I hope this helps a bit, and I will try to look through your sources in more depth at some point. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Inquisition text

Hi Nancy, did you see my last proposal on the Inquisition text. I think we can modify the sentence to say The Inquisitions were intended to identify and prosecute heretics, and in some cases initiated from fear of Moorish invasion. Would that satisfy your concerns? Karanacs (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes and I appreciate your efforts I am sorry if I get a little upset sometimes, obviously I am not the perfect Christian - that is why I go to church to try to be one. I am sorry. Peace. NancyHeise (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I can understand how you might have felt attacked by editors suddenly trying to pick apart an article you had worked hard on, and I'm sorry if my persistence exacerbated that. You should be very proud of having brought the article to GA and I hope you won't lose faith in the FA process and will continue working toward that goal. Now that this FA nomination is closed and we've resolved what I considered too obvious POV issues in the history section, I'll bow out and let you get on with further changes, as I have a few articles I'm trying to get ready for FAC too. I am not an expert on early Church history and don't have the time or the readily-available sources to help you with that battle, though (and I do unfortunately suspect that it will turn into a battle between various POVs). Good luck!

Karanacs (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Status

Hiya Nancy. An article of the scope of RCC is always going to be a monstrous task getting to FA status, with so many people interested in it, all with very strong views. Hope you are not discouraged by all the trouble. Infortunately I do not have much CPU time at present or I couldbe of more help. I'll try and look at the history section over the next day or so in response to the stuff posted on the RCC talk page Xandar (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate long rambling introductions. An intro should be a BRIEF outline of essential points. Are you sure the intro to RCC needs to have information like candidates for the priesthood need to hold a college degree, and stuff like that???? A lot of detail on catholic censuses was finally removed from the introduction. It really should be simple and easy to read. As for Liturgical year. It would be a gfood addition. Xandar (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I already did a big review of the History section overnight, adding some new refs (Kamen on the Inquisition, The Dorian Kindersley Church History, and a bio of Catherine De Medici) I have tried to address most of the objections in the list on the talk page by Eadgyth -sp? See what you think. Xandar (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RCC: Beliefs

Hi Nancy, thanks for the encouragement regarding writing up the opening Beliefs paragraph. It's so much easier to just say "it should go like this..." than to actually write the thing. I won't be able to get to it for a while, probably longer than you want to wait. Sorry! You're doing good, keep it up! And you can call me THPT for short.  :) The.helping.people.tick (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear THPT, I like the abbreviation but it hides the nice message! I will rewrite the paragraph and incorporate your ideas - hows that? I'll try to get to it today or tomorrow. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hi Nancy,

The Beliefs introduction still contains "The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church comprising over half of all Christians. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the second largest Christian denomination in the world. Together, these two churches represent a decisive majority of all Christian believers." These are the sentences that I think don't belong there as they don't seem to relate to beliefs - would you mind these being removed, perhaps to some part relating more directly to other churches and the Roman Catholic Church's relationship with them? (The first fact is already in Demographics, where I think it belongs).

Origins looks fine - I don't think I ever had any big problems with this, just a few minor wording quibbles which others shared. Thanks - Tim (TSP (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

We still somehow seem to be talking at cross-purposes. The parts of the text that relate to beliefs should be in "Beliefs". The other parts... I'm not sure where they belong, but it clearly isn't Beliefs and isn't really Demographics either. I've put them in History for now, in the absence of a proper section on the church today - which is a bit of an oversight, really. See what you think of my edit. TSP (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Tweaking the RCC article

Hey Nancy. I've noticed that you've been doing a lot of tweaking/mark-up correction to the RCC article. Could you please mark such edits as "minor"? That way users can set their preferences to only see the major, contect-related edits. Thanks.

BTW, thanks fo your comments on my user page :) Nautical Mongoose (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nancy (re: your comments on my talk page) -- copy editing is sort of procrastinating for me, I do what I can when I get a few minutes. There are a few factual difficulties I have with the way a number of things are put, but I don't have time to go and get the sources. For example, ""...you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."[16][6] Traditionally, this is considered the church's founding..." Most theologians (contrasted, perhaps, with historians), I think, would identify Pentecost as the founding of the Church. If we are going to identify the exact moment of the founding according to tradition, while acknowledging the lack of written proof, it seems that Pentecost is the moment. The verse cited here is usually cited in talking about papal infallibility. Anyway, this is a quibble, but since I don't have the sources handy or the time, I'm not going to make an issue of it. I'll continue to copy edit without correcting problematic cited assertions, but I may alert you to them occasionally if I think they are really suspect. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I went back and looked at the sources and did some research on your comments. I don't find any mention of pentecost in the Nat Geo book or Saints and Sinners book but I did find it in the book One Faith, One Lord. I am going to add to this section according to what I found here and let me know what you think. Thanks for bringing this up, good point! NancyHeise (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Two other facts that I've changed: creed is only said on Sundays, not at all Masses; and there is a requirement to receive the Eucharist once per year, but to attend Mass every Sunday. Many people who fulfill their obligation to attend Mass should not receive the Eucharist, and one of the reasons people used to sit in the back of the church was that they would not be receiving (e.g., those who were living in a state of sin, such as the irregularly married). I cited the appropriate parts of Canon Law for this, but I don't know if that is a good reference by wp standards. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear The Helping People Tick, Your additions were great and much needed - excellent copyediting - thank you! I put your refs in proper format and one of them was transposed so I corrected it. Wow am I glad you came to the page! NancyHeise (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh, a star! I never thought I'd get a star! Thanks! :) I know my references aren't perfect -- I'll try to use that template, thanks! The.helping.people.tick (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Nancy, I think you're doing a great job on the article.--Mike Searson (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I have to commend you for your excellent work! But as I've added on the RCC talk page, I think the article still probably needs a going through for unity of style and clarity. It still seems a bit hard to understand and difficult to get through in places. I don't think we should put it up until it this has been made right. Xandar (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about unity of style on this page. I am going through to try to correct some of these tough places but honestly, I think you are better at this than I am. Can you please also go through the entire article and reword things that could be worded in a more smooth way? I was very impressed with your prose and style in the history sections you added to the article. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xandar"

Thanks for the star :) Okay. I'll have a go at the history section tonight, and hopefully put something up by tomorrow, Feb 26 Xandar (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Miguel Pro.gif

Hi Nancy, thank you for attempting to sort out the image concerns, as opposed to being adversarial. Unfortunately, the issue is that fair use images of Pro can really only be used in the article about Pro himself, unless our understanding of another topic (e.g. Roman Catholic Church) would be significantly impaired. I don't think that's the case here. No offense to Pro, but he’s a relatively minor player in the vast history/impact/etc. of the church.

It may be helpful to consider what you are really trying to illustrate (I assume from the purpose, “religious devotion to the Christ [in the face of persecution]”.

Headline text

 I think it can be reasonably expected that a free image exists that could get that message across.  If you need any help finding a replacement, let me know.  As it stands, however, I’ve had to oppose, as I believe the FU violation is unambiguous. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Its all too complicated for me. I will look for another image. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I wasted so much time on that blockquote thing, glad you got it to work!--Mike Searson (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad I was able to do something right! NancyHeise (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

I am glad to help. I think we'd both like to be able to address legitimate lacuna in the article. The critique isn't terribly substantive as far as I can tell, so unless there are some sources that are brought forward to help clarify, I don't think we need to worry about it too much. Unless a single "opposed" can sink the FA nom? I haven't been involved in this before. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrected Map for Middle Europe for Roman Catholic article http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj83/mileiii/Catholic_population_1.png references on my page (Mileiii (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

I just noticed some new bits added in the Roman History subsection and that there was some mix-up between Galerius edict of tolerance and the edict of Milan, so sorted that out. I added a link to medieval sourcebook at that point. if it should go elsewhere, please move it. Xandar (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article

I didn't realize the article was already up for FA status again. I took a look at the page, and the amount of petty nit-picking is amazing. i would think that some people don't want the article to appear as an FA on principle. I would suggest not doing too many instant alterations to appease individual criticisms, since this risks adding dubious information, and wrecking the flow. I'm sorry i'm not avaiolable for long periods to field objections as you do. Xandar (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

refs

Looking good! A bit more than I usually would do as far as title, etc(I usually edit articles on animals and last name and date are usually accepted in science). But that may be better for FAC. Maybe ask one of the editors who had a problem with it? Also, multiple inline refs are good, unless you're overusing one source too much.--Mike Searson (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, yeah, I agree with Mike, the refs are looking better. They maybe need tidying up a little once you're finished, but I'm perfectly willing to help out with that – just ask. Also from Mike's comment above, I'd agree with just something like <Author Surname, date, page number> in the inline citations, with the full book title, publisher, ISBN, etc etc in the separate references section. I've got a few FAs under my belt now – look at, for example, Battle of Barrosa (quite a different topic to a religious article!), to see how I do my references. Don't look at the code to see how it's done, because I use totally different templates to you, but have a glance at how they look: full publication details in one place, and one place only, and inline citations using simply name, date and page number. Carré (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and offer to help, I will definitely take you up on your offer tidying up. I am not going to eliminate the book title if you don't mind because I like following what the actual WP policy suggests. It helps defend against someone who would then want to downgrade the article because something isn't exactly like WP suggests. Besides, I am already more than halfway done and I am just getting ready to finish the rest tonight. I am glad I know how to do this now. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC

Hi Nancy, I have struck more of my comments. The article looks so much better than it did the first time you brought it to FA, and I think the changes that you and Mike are making will make it an even better article. Just so you know, I asked Xandar to consider doing a copyedit on the rest of the article, because I thought he did an excellent job copyediting the history section. I've also left comments to some of my comments in the FAC nomination that you may or may not have seen. Karanacs (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will get to your new comments when I am finished with the citations. I busy most of tomorrow so I may not get to them before tomorrow night. Please be patient and don't think I wont address them. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just had Karanacs message. I'll have a go at re-copyeditiing the first half of the article tonight, if you don't object. I'll try to have something for tomorrow. Xandar (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, I think that you absolutely should not have multiple origins sections in the article. It should all go in the history section, and be very NPOV. There are several other editors on the talk page who've said the same thing. By having a section at the top with only the RCC's interpretation of the history, then that's giving undue weight to the RCC version. I think from what you've said that you consider the Church's origins to be a "Belief", but it is not one of the core "beliefs" of the religion. It is the Church's interpretation of its own history, which is a small difference, but pretty vital in terms of POV. Basically, the history of the Church needs to go in the History section, with both sides presented. The "mission" pieces are completely unneeded, as those are things that pretty much all churches do, and I think that including it here really is more like preaching or propaganda. The specific pieces there, like the Catholic social teaching, are already addressed later in the article. I really think the whole "origins and missions" could be eliminated without losing any value, although you could move some of the history pieces into the history section if there is information there you'd rather not part with. Karanacs (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Karanacs suggestion to eliminate the mission section of this article. The church mission is a core part of the definition of what the Catholic Church is, the page would not be more complete or informative without this referenced information but less complete and less informative to the reader who wants to know why the church does some of the things it does. I have taken into account the views of the nine editors who voted to support the article at its second FA nomination with the content intact when making this decision. Please note that there are 4 editors who have voted against and none of them mentions the origins and mission section at all. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: RCC and reflist|3

Hi again Nancy,

the reflist|3 thing: if you edit the "Footnotes" section, you'll see just {{reflist|3}}, and nothing else. This template generates the great long list of citations, and the "|3" specifies three columns. Some people frown on three columns out of principal, but I don't; however, in this instance, I think the longer citations (those that contain quotes, for example) may look better with just two columns. So, change that section to read {{reflist|2}} and see what it looks like. It may look worse, in which case just go back to three columns and say so in the FAC page. I'm certainly not going to oppose or anything on this trivial matter, but give it a go, see if the Footnotes look better or worse. HTH.

Oh, by the way, I think the recent bout of copy-editing has resulted in a number of broken references. You should check them. Carré (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the references with help from MikeSearson and I tried the reflist you suggested but it did not seem to change anything, the list still showed up as one section. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears to depend on your browser per Template:Reflist. Internet Explorer users (like me) only see one column, but other browsers will show multiple columns. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hah, yeah, I forgot about that – I thought IE 7 did support columns though? I knew 6 didn't. That explains why you didn't understand what I was talking about anyway, although why anyone is still using IE is beyond me ;)

As for changing !vote at the FAC, I never opposed anyway, just commented. It's very rare that I'll do either a support or an oppose. Carré (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Hi Nancy, thanks for the thanks. I think the article has improved dramatically since you first nominated it for FAC, and it's improved a lot since you nominated it the second time too. You guys are doing a great job. I don't know if you saw the comment on the FAC nom yet, but if you can add more info on the church's impact on art, that will satisfy my comprehensiveness issues, and I'll be able to strike my oppose. Karanacs (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am happily going through my books so I can add that information for you and hopefully win your support - very hard won support at that! :) NancyHeise (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ODCC on RCC

pp. 100-101. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3. Eds F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Page numbers are unnecessary unless there's a direct quotation. The page looks pretty slanted toward the RCC POV to be FA. Thank you for not deleting the sentence even though the RCC would rather people thought that the Arian issue was settled in 325. Leadwind (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Trust me on this one. If you think the article is unbiased, then you indeed probably don't want to hear my suggestions for how to improve its balance. Leadwind (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First sentence of Roman Catholic Church

Hi. I left a message on the talk page, which you can view here (Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#First_sentence), but the first sentence needs a minor change. The terms Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church aren't really synonymous even though people use the term catholic church to refer to the Roman Catholic Church in colloquial speech. This is actually a really important point, as it's crucial not to confuse terms in the first sentence of such a major article. Since you've been working so hard on the article today, I just wanted to make you aware of that before I changed it. Dgf32 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

mass etc

Unfortunately, it does look as though they are initial-capitalised. Tony (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Caps follow up

Really, it's no problem. I was actually worried that I might cause confusion, but thankfully I haven't. Apart from this (minor) disagreement I think you've done an excellent job in improving this article (especially given all the time you've spent on it!).

BTW, could you please archive some of your talk-page messages? It's getting hard to navigate. THanks :) Nautical Mongoose (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I will once I figure out how, right now, my wikipedia time is pretty much spent covering my rear on the RCC FAC. Thanks for helping out!NancyHeise (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Roman Catholic Church

No problem. I'm about to receive confirmation in a couple of months, and I found the article really useful for getting to know my faith better. I certainly would like to see it on the front page some day, but I can only anticipate the crap we'll get if it is. No problem on defending her, I was trying to be fair to everyone, and I found Ling.Nut's comment very rude. I'm just hoping that I didn't violate WP:CIVIL...Hey, I'd just like to say good job on the article, thanks for all the work, and keep plugging away. User:Student7 could very well become involved if you approached him, I'm sure he'd be only too happy to help you. I'm always here if you need some help on an article... Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 01:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Benjamin, your compliment is the best kind of Featured Article star I could hope for. NancyHeise (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Final judgment and the afterlife

Suggestion for revised working version here Ling.Nut (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Sorry to cause you stress. I was actually trying to relieve your stress by inserting a bit about the criminally convicted and jailed priests, esp. in Boston. It is so widely known because of intense press coverage that it is practically common knowledge. Leaving it out will invite finger-pointing by the Neutral POV brigade. All the same, you've done a really good job. I hope it becomes FA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Ealdgyth: I don't have complaints at changes. I was just backing your point that this is an article about the Catholic Church, not other groups that may have existed. Historically the Church is the central institution that endured through those times. Xandar (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

community etc.

nancy, I'm working on that section here. But I have to quit now for the rest of the day... Ling.Nut (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church, again

Hi Nancy.. thanks for the kind words!

I hate to be a storm crow... but I am holding my breath over the coming epic flame wars regarding Apostolic Succession. So far we've all kinda avoided direct confrontation, but two editors on the FAC page used the term "indisputable". "Indisputable" is a word that only applies to information about the chemical elements etc... Sorry.. I hope things don't go too badly...

The writing needs lots of work.. really, it still does. The best thing.. please forgive me, but the best thing would be for it to fail and then to receive intensive copy editing from the very, very best editors Wikipedia has to offer... But on the bright side, you have a fair chance of being promoted this go 'round. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• See comments beginning "Not an improvement in my view" and "The fact is indisputable" on the FAC page (not the article).
• Did you see the thread about the Nicene creed on the article's talk? Can we change to the version I posted there? I fixed Xandar's concerns, but he/she didn't reply.

• Ling.Nut (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Apostolic succession is indisputable: here & here. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are just someones comments on the talk page (not me the nominator). The content we have in Roman Era of history section is referenced to three University Press books - one only about the Catholic Church and at least two other sources solely about the Catholic Church. If we were using only sources that were about Christianity alone without the Roman Catholic Church specific sources to concur - then we would have a problem but I think we are covered here - quite well at that. NancyHeise (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Creed

Sorry about this creed business. I'm trying to simplify the Roman Catholic Church article by removing universal Christian doctrines and beliefs. The sentence might be too obscure. But the gist is that Catholics recognize three creedal (belief) statements 'cause they formulated them. The Nicene creed is the basic statement of Christian belief. The Apostle's is the baptismal statement. The obscure Athanasian creed is a bit odd and reinforces the Holy Trinity. You know this. I know this (as a practicing Anglican). Most Christians know this. It isn't unique to the Roman Catholic Church. The article ought to be trimmed of this sort of redundancy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please tinker! And, tinker also at User:Wassupwestcoast/sandbox/RCC rough draft belief. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is to build a very brief synopsis of Roman Catholic belief. Rather than edit warring (well, not quite), we can build up a consensus version. Every one, please visit it and hack away. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Tossing beliefs section? Quitting Wikipedia?

Hi. I just now scanned the thread in the talk page of RCC.

It's difficult to put into words... what Wikipedia is like when you get up to the FAC level. It is.. very often, but not always... tough. It's... not quite the same as war, but it is very definitely an iron sharpens iron kinda experience. There are two kinds of people who give you trouble: POV warriors, and people who just have really high expectations. Initially at least, it can be difficult sometimes to tell them apart.

You need to make friends with an admin.. not just any admin.. but one who is very definitely an "old hand." Someone who has spent time hanging out on the various complaint forums. Someone like that can do two things: put you wise to who is or is not a POV warrior, and share war stories to commiserate and encourage.

You should not be discouraged about the RCC FAC. I know that is "easy for me to say," but it is the truth. A topic like RCC is gonna draw far more eyes than one like some stupid (in my opinion, at least) video game. It's gonna draw far more comments and discussion. It's just gonna be tough. But "what does not kill me makes me stronger." After going through this, you'll be tougher and better able to see the process as one of creative destruction rather than personal antagonism or POV war. [Again, POV warriors do exist and they are sometimes very, very nasty. But that is not really what Wikipedia is about.]

So, I hope you won't quit — although if you are a bit burned out, taking a break might be refreshing.

Best regards Ling.Nut (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am hoping for the FA reviewer to make a decision about the page and consider the version I thought was perfect and actually a useful Wikipedia piece, not a useless shell. NancyHeise (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. the whole problem with this process of running revisions is the article can become nothing like the one nominated. I've suggested on the FA Nomination page that editors agree a more or less final version, taking into account relevant comments so far, and that that is more or less put up for a "vote" or whatever the actual process is. I certainly don't think a few POV warriors should have a veto on articles getting FA status. I also agree that we do need to keep a reasonably comprehensive article. The beliefs section is particularly important, since the article is pretty worthless without it. The History section IS long, but if people insist that things like the inquisition, the Reformation and negative Catholic incidences be covered more fully, then an equal level of detail is required for the positive. This is a balance that FA reviewers must accept. it's no use syaying theres not enough about negative catholic influences in South America, and then calling for a shorter history section. Xandar (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy. I suggested a re-vote so the old objections could be weeded out and the process boil down to those who still have issues - and whether those issues are valid or not. At the moment I'm confused as to who is opposing and for what reasons? Xandar (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gratitude

Nancy, I wanted to offer my support and encouragement during the RCC FAC. I don't know if you have ever submitted an FAC before, but I have been involved in quite a few FACs myself and I have been involved in reviewing and copy editing some controversial ones, so I know the kind of stress you must be under. I wanted to send you this cartoon, because I think it brilliantly captures the feeling that we all get during these times. Please know that most of us at the FAC are intent on making the article "one of Wikipedia's best". Because it is such an important topic, we care a great deal about every aspect of article. It is a testament to your fortitude and dedication that you have chosen to work on such a difficult article. I have not been able to bring myself to tackle such a controversial topic, so I applaud you and hope you will continue your hard work. Awadewit | talk 16:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to echo that. I can only imagine what you must be feeling about the FAC process right now, but please stick with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I came here to say I'm impressed by the work you've put into this article. This is one of those topics where balancing all the viewpoints gets difficult. Gimmetrow 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I echo these thoughts, as I have said repeatedly across several forums. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to echo these sentiments as well. Nancy, you have done a tremendous job on the article; I am very impressed with the amount of improvement since it was first nominated for FA. I'm sure it is difficult to deal with so many opinions all of a sudden, but if you can navigate successfully through this FA and form the article into something that none (or most) of the FA reviewers can critique further, then you will be in excellent shape for having the article on the main page. I was part of a team that had a relatively innoccuous topic, Fightin' Texas Aggie Band, on the main page last fall, and it was picked apart by over a dozen people throughout the day. Roman Catholic Church is so much more well-known, important, and controversial, that if the article is not near perfect when it reaches the main page, it will be overrun. It may not seem like it, but we are trying to help make main page day as painless as possible! Karanacs (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Chevetogne & the Russian Catholic Church

Help. An idiot keeps removing Chevetogne Abbey from the list of communities of the Russian Catholic Church. See those two pages as well as User_talk:Albania_T#Russian_Orthodox_Cathedral_in_Nice.2C_France and my talk page. I'm at wits' end, almost. InfernoXV (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC will pass next time.

Nancy — I guess it can be disppointing when a FAC doesn't pass, but on the bright side: after the "contructive destruction" beating the article took this time, I feel very confident it will pass next time. Wait two or perhaps three months, then you'll see a gold star atop the page. I can almost guarantee it... thanks for the barnstar, despite the less-than-optimal circumstances. Cheers — Ling.Nut (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not too burned out, Nancy, after the horrible experience over FA status. I only wish I was online enough to have helped you more. At the end, the article had had so many quick changes that the fluidity of the prose had gone again. I hope you will continue to work on the article though. And if we go for FA again, My personal view is that we need to get a thoroughly defensible, stable, article, and make very few changes during the actual process unless something really glaring is pointed out. Changing the article one way just seems to draw more objections from the other direction. The imjportant thing is that people have a good, informative and useful article to read. FA or not FAXandar (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree! NancyHeise (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sex Scandals

I am sorry but I totally disagree with placing the US sex scandal in the lead of the RC article, despite LingNut's evident desire for this. It is not the place and would only serve the purpose of reinforcing the idea (that some wish to create) that the sex-scandal somehow epitomises the Catholic Church (and just the Catholic Church). It is entitled to a place of relevant size in the main text, but not in the lead. The idea of then placing further explanations in the introduction would not work in my opinion, since the intro must be brief. Xandar (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

put the script ...

put the script here Ling.Nut (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

first clear your cache. then look in the boxes on the left side of your screen.. one box is called a toolbox.. look for a link called page size.. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to be such an idiot but what is a cache?NancyHeise (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you using microsoft Internet explorer as your browser? or firefox? or safari? or...? Ling.Nut (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Internet Explorer.NancyHeise (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold down the CTRL button (bottom left of keyboard), then push the F5 button. That will clear your browser's cache. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I did that and saved it. Then I edited the page and reinserted the prose script. Not sure if I have accomplished what was intended.NancyHeise (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

maybe not; your edit to the monobook.js loks a bit off.. but try it and see: go to Roman catholic church. then look in the boxes on the left side of your screen.. one box is called a toolbox.. look for a link called page size.. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

do you see it? if so, did you click it? (read above) Ling.Nut (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I did, it works and I thank you for helping me with that technical stuff. One of the reasons why I am such a dummy with those things is because my husband is such a wiz at it and he takes care of any computer issues in our home. I find it boring so I dont take the time to learn. Thanks for helping me out there. NancyHeise (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :-) I have to go now... cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to NancyHeise for her tireless efforts to improve Roman Catholic Church amid much turmoil. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

PS Nancy, do you need any help archiving your talk page? I can walk you through how to do it (or do it for you) if you're unsure what to do. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mass

Nancy, Why would a Mass codified in the 15th Century need to go in the Post V2 section? That makes no sense. The presence of the Tridentine Mass in that article has nothing to do with the traditionalists, schismatics, sedevacantists, conclavists, SSPX, or anything else. It belongs in the article to show how "Catholic" the Mass used to be. That is, if you went to Mass in South Africa, New York City, Tokyo, or anywhere else in the world that the Roman Rite was celebrated...you got the exact same Mass in the same language. To remove the history of the Mass from the Mass section and relegate it to the history section serves no purpose. What would you do...devote a Pre tridentine segment in the Early Middle Ages? The Tridentine to the Late Middle Ages and all the way up to 1969? I apologize if it confuses you because you are not familiar with it; this article needs to represent the Mass accurately not gloss over it in favor of some of the other non-essential talking points. Which is more fitting for the Mass section...the Mass of 500 years or the Mass of less than 40 years? I will be more than happy to write a section of all the scandal and apostasy and number of converts to other Faiths that the "New Mass" has caused...but that would touch off more controversy than the clerical abuse scandal.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Mass?

Ah ok...I think I get it, sorry if I misread it...I might have toomany windows open on my PC!...let me work on it some more. I do think it's a mistake to get into the Trad vs NO conflict here. That will really draw people out of the woodwork (the kooky kind that think there has not been a valid pope since the Franco-Prussian War.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism: A Very Short Introduction

I'll think you'll like this Oxford University Press short book. It is coming out in Nov 2008 and very inexpensive.

• Gerald O'Collins (2008). Catholicism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 144. ISBN 019954591X.

There is a content description at the OUP site - Catholicism: A Very Short Introduction - "Explains clearly and concisely where the Catholic Church comes from, what it believes and practises, and where it is heading". Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is another in the same vein, giving lots of descriptions and historical background of various beliefs and practices. Its tone is written with the non-Catholic in mind, so it may be very useful as a WP source. I currently have lent my copy out right now, but I do recall it is also heavily footnoted itself.

• Johnson, Kevin Orlin (1994). Why do Catholics do that?. Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-39726-6.

Hope this helps. Keep up the good work; the article is still way better off through your (and others') efforts. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. NancyHeise (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Here is my version to replace the 222 words in the last paragraph of the Roman Catholic Church article. My version is NPOV - I think - and has 180 words in two paragraphs (about 50 words shorter):

The Church is not unique among institutions that educate and care for children. Child abuse by deviant employees and volunteers has caused scandals worldwide. The Protestant churches in the U.S. report 260 cases per year. The U.S. Department of Education estimates that teachers abuse up to 10 percent of school children. In 2001, a child abuse scandal erupted in the United State. Investigations revealed that 4 percent of all priests who served in the previous fifty year faced accusations. The scandal is mirrored in several other countries including Australia, Canada, Ireland, Mexico, Poland and the United Kingdom. The result has been the spectacle of large financial settlements to the victims and the resignation, defrocking and jailing of the deviants.

Some bishops demonstrably knew about the allegations of misconduct but then reassigned the accused rather than report them to the police immediately. The church has since instituted reforms to prevent future abuse. These reforms set up a clear code of conduct for all dioceses to follow when faced with an allegation including alerting the authorities, conducting an investigation and removing the accused priest or employee from duty.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. It will be longer. I can return the sentences that I left out. But be clear that these sentence invite mockery;

"Pope John Paul II responded by stating there is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who abuse children."

Were priests really so confused about the issue, that they needed John Paul to tell them right from wrong? As for the sentence about the prevailing psychology of the day; well, that would be relevant for priests with latent tendencies that had not been acted upon. But, this is irrelevant once the abuse had started. The police should have been called, then and now. I think returning either John Paul's admonishment or the 'prevailing psychology of the day' invites mockery. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am more concerned with keeping real facts that were key parts of the scandal and should not be omitted. All else is our own speculation which should not be part of the decision on whether or not to include basic facts. NancyHeise (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Further to the prevailing psychology of the day. The relevance is to the fact that it was psychological advice that these tendencies, even when acted upon, could be cured through effective counselling. This was a widely-shared view which the Church went along with. With hindsight, we now know that this was largely erroneous advice. I don't think the church can be mocked or chastised too heavily for accepting the best advice available at the time. Xandar (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have a go at copy-editing the beliefs and history sections overnight. Some of my prose was criticized last time, so it may still need further polishing thereafter, to satisfy everyone. :) Xandar (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC concerns

Nancy, your messages to regular FAC reviewers have popped up all over my watchlist, so I wanted to express my concern that you not again expose Roman Catholic Church to a premature FAC. Karanacs expressed her concern about the article very clearly before the last premature nom, and she has again done so, cleary recommending a peer review first.[2] She is an experienced reviewer, and her recommendation to open a peer review, invite WikiProjects and previous opposers to provide feedback there, and get the broadest possible input before hashing things out on another FAC is wise. Everyone involved would like to see the article succeed; a peer review at this stage will help prepare it for a successful FAC. I also wanted to ask that, should you bring it back to FAC, to please be more aware this time of staying on topic, specific to WP:WIAFA, and threading and indenting your responses correctly; I had to ride the last FAC almost every waking hour, constantly correcting the threading per WP:TALK and moving off-topic rants to the talk page so that the FAC would be decipherable. When a FAC goes off-topic and becomes indecipherable due to improper threading, subsequent reviewers are discouraged from reading and reviewing. Good luck next time! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to inform me of the appropriate way to discuss items on FAC - I was not aware that there was a certain procedure to follow. I have asked certain people to come comment on the page as a result of Karanacs advice. These people were people who opposed the nomination before and had specific areas of concern that I had addressed and wanted to know if my efforts met to their satisfaction or not. Ealdgyth kindly left me a small list of his concerns and I had hoped for others to do the same - at least then I would know if the previous concerns had been adequately addressed. I will submit for a peer review when I am done addressing these current comments related to the last FAC. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a FAC convention; WP:TALK (threading and indenting conventions on wiki) apply to all Wiki discussions (if you haven't had a chance, you might want to read it). Good luck with the peer review; I suggest it would be much easier on all the people you've contacted if you open one now, so that they can all comment in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am not sure how to do that and Im actually trying to cook dinner for my family at the momment so I'll look into that a bit later. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how to read edit summaries? Look in the edit summary for the change I just made to the post you just made, where I added three colons before your post, to thread it correctly.[3] Perhaps you weren't aware of how much work I was doing to try to keep the FCC FAC readable, by having to do that sort of work on every post. Also, the instructions for opening a peer review are at WP:PR; any one of the involved editors can open the peer review for you if you don't know how. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I also want to note that you've now had at least three reviewers say the article isn't ready for another FAC submission and previous issues haven't been addressed.[4][5][6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I have not nominated the article for FAC. I have made my wishes known so we can address whatever else there is to address. If I never said anything at all, no one would have shown up to do all these nice things like list it for peer review and give me their comments. Don't worry, I intend to renominate after all standard procedure has been followed. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)