User talk:71.145.132.80

Of course you haven't. Some other Protestant annoyed by us Catholics insisting on identifying ourselves as "Catholic" and not "Roman" Catholic made the reversions.

FYI, i did not "vandalize" ANY page. i corrected it to reflect the preference of Catholics to be called Catholics and not referred to as "Roman" Catholics by Protestant ignoramuses and bigots such as your self. If you do not accept that, let's take it to a higher authority, such as "The Catholic Encyclopedia," which shares my position instead of Protestant heretics who wish to be called Catholics as well. There is a reason why The Catholic University in Washington, D.C. is NOT called The Roman Catholic University. Quit whining, exercise some intellect, and accept reality. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than pout that Catholics do not support your moronic position? Grow up, dude.
 * Did you read my comment at the end of the page? PhilKnight (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes Phil, i did read your comment. Did you read mine, or simply move straight to reversion?


 * I haven't reverted you. PhilKnight (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Phile, unless by a "verifiable" source you mean something which agrees with your preference, the evidence in support of not calling Maddow a "Roman" Catholic is verifiable. See below.  The term "Roman" Catholic appears in NONE of the 16 documents from Vatican II, and is not accepted by the Church in self-identification.  (See Kenneth B. Whitehead, "How the Church Got Her Name"). Additionally, you can read what Rev. Richard McBrien, professof theology at Notre Dame has to say on the subject as documented by Wikipedia.  We both know you will continue to change "Catholic" to "Roman" Catholic not because your source is verifiable, but because it is your preference.  Please try to remember that editorialists are expected to refrain from misrepresenting positions with which they disagree.  Maddow is a Catholic, NOT a "Roman" Catholic.


 * Again, I haven't made any such change. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Benedictine College has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Jesuit High School (New Orleans) constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to The Catholic University of America. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to University of Detroit Mercy. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

12 hour block
for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Explanation for block
Unilaterally going through articles making a name change, such as 'Roman Catholic' --> 'Catholic' is disruptive. Have a look at WikiProject Catholicism, and after your block expires, you could start a thread on the discussion page about whether such a change is appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Note to other admins
Feel free to modify this block without contacting me. PhilKnight (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about the block
To delete the prefix "Roman" from "Roman" Catholic is not "disruptive editing", except perhaps to a Protestant. No where in the 16 documents of the Vatican Countil is the word "Roman" used. Furthermore. one need only refer to the "Catholic Encyclopedia" to recognize the majority of Catholics object to being called "Roman" Catholics. Note as well the Washington, D.C. university is "The Catholic University," NOT "The Roman Catholic University." The only thing disrupting is the obdurate insistence by Protestants that Catholics do not have a right to call themselves what they choose, and that Protestants will decide for themselves what Catholics should be choosed. As a Catholic, and NOT a "Roman" Catholic, I will continue to point out the errancies as i peruse Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.132.80 (talk • contribs)
 * I've unblocked your account. Please accept my apologies, having looked more closely at this subject, I think you're essentially correct. However, please note that Catholic and Catholic church have different articles on Wikipedia, and so just removing 'Roman' won't necessarily link to the correct article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop altering the Rachel Maddow article to fit your word choice over, per the source, hers. If you truly believe that people can decide for themselves, please respect her choice as stated in print. - Dravecky (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

STOP
Stop removing "Roman" from the Rachel Maddow article. As has been explained to you many times (including under your previous IP addresses 71.145.143.99, 71.145.166.252 and 71.145.166.120), the reliable source specifically refers to Maddow as being brought up as a "strict Roman Catholic" here. You WILL be blocked if you continue to edit disruptively in this manner. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Rachel Maddow. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
Since you have continued to disrupt Wikipedia with this agenda-driven editing, I have opened a thread at WP:ANI discussing your conduct. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

==Stop revising "Catholic" TO "Roman" Catholic. There is no verification for Maddow choosing to call herself "Roman" Catholic. The Catholic Church identifies itself as "Catholic," not "Roman Catholic." To wit, "The National Catholic Reporter" is not "The Roman Catholic Reporter." "The Catholic Encyclopedia" is not "The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia." VERIFICATION: "Roman Catholic" appears in none of the 16 documents of Vatican II, and is not accepted by the Church in self-identification. (See Kenneth B. Whitehead, "How the Church Got Her Name").


 * Can you maybe do something constructive and provide some background and sources on the "Roman rite" and the difference (or lack thereof?) between Catholics led from Rome and the other sects that call themselves Ukrainian Catholic, Greek Catholic, etc.? I've been following this and I still can't figure out the differences. The vatican.va site uses Roman rite, Roman Catholic, and Catholic. Maybe if you can educate us, we can understand the issues better than simply reacting to a "this is what we want to call ourselves" argument.LizardJr8 (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

12 hour block
You have been blocked from editing for to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

==i have not made any changes since previous block expired. Quit your Protestant pouting. But know that we Catholics are NOT "Roman" Catholics, how ever many revisions you make. You are, sir, plain and simple, a bigot. Grow up.


 * I'm not a Protestant, and I haven't reverted any of your edits. Edits such as this were clearly made after the previous block issued on the 9th. PhilKnight (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)