User talk:Hyphen5/Archive1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! PJM 14:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic conservatism
I don't favor a redirect in this case. This term / concept is very general, and seems subjective. I don't feel we should tie it into "traditionalist". Happy editing. PJM 14:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church move
Hi,

Sorry if I seem obstructive; but to be honest I'm a lot happier with the idea of the article being at Catholic Church than Catholicism - with an appropriate disambiguation header, of course. I'm borderline on the first - I think it is undesirably ambiguous; but on the other hand it is the most common term, which is the primary metric which the Naming Conventions mandate. Catholicism seems to have all the same disadvantages of ambiguity without the advantage of commonness (Google Test: 34m hits for 'Catholic Church', 12m hits for 'Roman Catholic Church', 7m hits for 'Catholicism'). TSP 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The most useful Naming Conventions seem to be the first one - "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature" - you should be trying to justify whatever location you think the page should be at according to this principle. The conventions on common names and precision are probably also worth looking at.  The naming conflicts page also has some useful stuff for metrics to apply when the name is disputed - though it should be noted that that page is only a guideline, not policy.  If you justify the move according to these standards, then we should be able to have a proper unemotive debate on what title best fits the criteria laid down.
 * (PS. I'm Tim.) TSP 01:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You stated on my talk page..."If voters don't start responding to my actual case (laid out in the discussion section), and explain to me why Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Eastern Orthodox Church, Church of Christ, and similar articles, should be titled by their claimed names--even though they can be ambiguous--but the Catholic Church should not be extended the same treatment, then I will begin proposing moves for those articles, as well." Please review WP:POINT.  You called for a vote; any editor can vote any way they choose for any reason they choose, regardless of how you feel.  I will make some administrators aware of your plan to disrupt Wikipedia to prove your point (please review the policy).  KHM03 (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also please note, your rational is that those articles you list are at their "claimed names". So is the Roman Catholic Church. That is one of the names they use to refer to themselves. I'm sorry you find it objectionable, but most Catholics I know either disagree with you or flat out don't care.JohnnyBGood 19:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because the "Eastern Catholic Church" is a nominally seperate church from the Roman Catholic Church. If anything the Eastern rite churches should have their own seperate articles that mention that they're seperate rites that are in full communion with the larger Roman church.JohnnyBGood 21:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel like we're going in circles. I told you my solution yesterday. Create a disambig page at Catholic Church, with links pointing to the Roman Catholic Church along with each of the different eastern rites that have articles now if any exist. Then add more eastern churches as you or someone else creates the articles. That should work fine in this matter as it appears Roman Catholic Church isn't going to be moved.JohnnyBGood 22:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually to answer your questions, yes and no. Orthodox Church should also be a disambig page with links to the Eastern, Russian, Armenian Orthodox churches etc... As for Church of Christ that refers to a specific protestant denomination however a small disambig label should be placed at the top linking to Christian Church or Christian Churches. Also you state it should be at "Catholic Church" because that's the most common name... well only to people of the faith and even then not all of them would search for Catholic Church first. The majority of non Catholics would search for Roman Catholic Church when looking for it. So that argument is moot. As for "extending it courtesy afforded other churches" I'm not seeing your parallel. You seem to think calling it the Roman Catholic Church is an insult. That is one of the self appointed names of the church chosen BY the church. Your comparison to say, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is moot as well since that church does not refer to itself as the Mormon Church. Only outsiders call it that. JohnnyBGood 23:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you're not choosing to listen to my arguments and are injecting POV into your decision I'm going to let the overwhelming consensus at the RCC article stand. It might surprise you to learn I too am a Catholic... a ROMAN CATHOLIC. I always have been. I follow the Roman Rite, hence I'm Roman Catholic. You cannot place the Roman Catholic Church at "Catholic Church" for the reasons stated many times above and for the simple fact that in some measure all Catholic Chruches have a claim to the title of "Catholic Church" which obviously won't work. Hence we use qualifiers like Eastern Catholic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox etc... If you feel this impinges on the Roman Rite then you're letting POV get the better of you. The article is at an officially sanctioned, accepted and commonly used name for the Roman rite mother church. The Holy See itself accepts the RCC name and makes no claim to be one of the "Orthodox" churches. Your claim to "orthodoxy" does not trump both the Holy See and common usage. I'm sorry.JohnnyBGood 00:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I accept Protestants claim to "catholicism". I reject their claim to "Catholicism" as that is reserved for Catholic Chruches. However as you say, this article (the RCC page) has a disambig for other Catholic Churches. This can be remedied much more easily. Take the disambig part out of the article and place it at Catholic Church. The majority of this article has no business at Catholic Church as it refers to the Roman Rite exclusively. The other better alternative would be to leave it as is since the Roman Church is the mother church of most of the other "Catholic" denominations that are in communion with Rome. However you seem to have forgotten exceptions like the Old Catholic Church or Liberal Catholic Church. These churches are also Catholic Churches and call themselves such but have no ties to Rome.JohnnyBGood 00:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Be sure to include a link to One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which seems to be the article about the theological aspect of "Catholic Church" (as opposed to the primary temporal meaning, which is a reference to the denomination headed by the Pope).  KHM03 (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Should we have disambig pages at Orthodox Church and Church of Christ also? To redirect to all the churches that claim to be orthodox and "of Christ"? Look, I've never had a problem with discussion of small-c "catholic" at Catholic (even though we are normally supposed to redirect adjectives to nouns) or at Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. All I'm asking for is for Catholic Church to be extended the same courtesies as the rest of the Churches that claim possibly ambiguous names. According to the Google test (40m hits for "Catholic Church", only 10m for "Roman Catholic Church") and Naming conventions (common names) (which states: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?"), we should err on the side of "Catholic Church". --Hyphen5 22:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously we disagree. Gain a consensus for your proposal to move. So far, you've failed to do so. KHM03 (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm trying to do by these private arguments! But now you seem to be throwing in the towel. Nobody in the actual VOTING is responding to my points, so it's impossible to gain a consensus. --Hyphen5 22:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You've asked for a vote..."should RCC be moved?" Editors can agree with, disagree with, or choose not to address your concerns...and can still vote.  Build a consensus or give up.  No disgrace either way.  KHM03 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a thought. Is there any fear that the result of your Roman Catholic Church campaign will be the opposite of what you wished, and will lead to "Catholic Church" being turned into a multiple-choice disambiguation page that people will have to navigate through before getting to information on the Catholic Church as you and I understand it?  Your campaign has already led to the insertion of a disambiguation or semi-redirect to Catholicism at the very start of the article.  If the article were headed "Catholic Church", someone would certainly develop that disambiguation further, raising the profile of the other meaning(s) of "Catholic Church".  From your point of view, the best arrangement was what existed before your campaign began, whereby anyone typing in "Catholic Church" was automatically redirected to the article "Roman Catholic Church"; by its title the article alerted the reader to the fact that it was about one understanding (yours and mine) of the proper interpretation of "Catholic Church", but it left until the "Terminology" section the semi-redirect to articles on other understandings.  Lima 15:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern about my motivations. WP:AGF. Frankly, through redundant discussions of this issue at Roman Catholic Church, Catholicism, Catholicism (disambiguation), Catholic, and, to a lesser extent, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, we've really stretched the bounds of what is reasonable and neutral for an encyclopedia in terms of "raising the profiles" of other churches claiming to be "Catholic". To create a brand new disambig page at Catholic Church -- without consolidating any of the others that effectively serve as disambig pages -- would betray a POV. Nearly every word that a reader (looking for the papal Church) might search for would direct him to a page not about that Church but about the symantics of "Catholicism" vs. "Catholic" vs. "Catholic Church". I can't think of any reason for this labyrinth; we are, after all, dealing with the largest single religion on the planet. Anyway, that's why I support the proposal by Fishhead64 that would consolidate the aforementioned maze of articles and create a disambig page at Catholic Church. --Hyphen5 18:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Only now have I come back to this page, where I find you have posted a reply to my observation of 25 March. Events are turning out as I foresaw, with "Catholic Church" no longer redirecting to "Roman Catholic Church".  Chance readers, looking for "Catholic Church" in Wikipedia, now find the profile of Churches other than the (Roman) Catholic Church very effectively raised by the new "Catholic Church" page, to which they come first.  Soon, perhaps, they will find the profile of those Churches raised yet further, if and when the two English Anglicans involved in the project get acceptance for their plan to add to that page material from three other articles that reserve little space for "the largest single religion on the planet."  You seem to be happy about the multiple-choice situation thus created (which looks likely to be added to), and with the greater prominence now given to the looser definition of "Catholic Church".  I am sorry I misunderstood your intention: I thought it was quite the opposite.  Lima 12:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)  Sorry, one of the two is Canadian.  Not my first, and unfortunately not my last, I feel sure.  Lima 13:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)  Not my last mistake, I meant.  That goes to prove what I said.  Lima 13:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church (Roman)

 * Possible; but possibly conflicts with this from the Naming Conflict guideline: "Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." That said, clearly we frequently add bits in brackets and don't view that as 'inventing names'.
 * I'm still not sure I've seen anything that convinces me that Roman Catholic Church, in either common or official use, means anything other than the Church in communion with the Pope. It isn't the Church's preferred term; but I still need to see something to convince me that, if that is viewed as unacceptable for NPOV reasons, it isn't an acceptable term. TSP 18:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Re you comments on my talk page
Hyphen, you still dont get the point I have been making. I dont expect you to agree with it, but its frustrating not to be able to get it across to you. In general terms I mean, forgetting for a moment this particular naming dispute. You said "your complaint about how Protestants have been complaining about the term "Catholic Church" for, as you say, "generations" is silly. The Catholic Church was called "the Catholic Church" long before there ever were any Protestants."
 * Its your last sentence there that is the problem. You are still treating the post-reformation Vatican Church as the true successor of the early Church, therefore you naturally think it has most rights to the term Catholic, and that the Protestants are newcomers. But this is completely in dispute. Indeed it is the dispute. It is just as POV to claim that as it is anything else. For Protestants, the Vatican had strayed so far from the proper path that it forfeited all claims to be regarded as the same line of succession as the early Church, most catholic, whatever term you want. It was the Reformers who were carrying on the traditions of the early Catholic church (before it went wrong).
 * I fully understand that you wont accept this argument, but can you now see why many cant accept that the "current Vatican-based Church" is more Catholic than anyone else. To claim that the Vatican is the legitimate successor to St Peter,etc, goes completely against the Protestant viewpoint. The Protestants, in their own view, were not setting up a new church out of the blue, they were going back to proper Christianity which had been betrayed by subsequent Popes. They were the tue successors not hte Vatican.
 * Of course that is Protestant POV: but the converse claim is POV too. Which you are of course perfectly entitled to believe, but cant you see that the Vatican's claim to be the true successor is POV too, not a universally-accepted fact. There is simply no agreement on the succession question.
 * This is not about the naming dispute but Im just trying to get you to understand the other point of view. Jameswilson 23:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer and for taking my comments in the spirit they were intended. In ansewer to your implied question, I'm going to say a bit more on the history of this - please dont take offence. Grit your teeth!
 * You are of course correct to say that the structure/hierarchy of your Church is continuous. No Protestant would dispute that. The Protestant viewpoint would be that it was rather the spiritual continuity via Rome which had been lost, because by the late Middle Ages the pre-Reformation Catholic Church had become decadent, corrupt, too rich, too bureaucratic, etc, etc, etc. It was of course still Christian in the sense that millions of people devoutly believed in Christ and his teachings. But, as an institution, those at the top of the hiersrchy were no longer operating according to the values of the early Christians. So yes in a sense, they did indeed believe that the Catholic Church had lost its identity - had at some point ceased to be what it purported to be. Reform was needed. It proved impossible to achieve and so the dissenters had to re-create a "proper" Church - go back to first-century basics.
 * BTW, and you'll have to talk to someone better-informed than me if you want to pursue this, the perceived "defectiveness" of the Catholic Church at that point in time caused a lot of argument among those who were to become Protestants. They couldnt understand how the Mother Church had "gone so bad" (in their view). Some thought that it was a consequence of too mnuch power ("power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely", that sort of thing). Those that saw it that way decided that their own Protestant churches should have no bishops, cardinals, etc. Otherwise the same thing would inevitably happen to their churches within a few generations. Others, in line with their own prejudices no doubt, blamed Italian influence. Others even went so far as to seriously suggest that the Devil had infiltrated Rome and was working to destroy Christianity from within!!!!
 * All this explains the superior attitude which Protestants tend to have towards your Church (although many will deny that). The whole Protestant mind-set, IMO, is based on the premise that the Church of Rome had become "defective", and (they assume) to some extent presumably still must be. If one didnt have that belief/prejudice at some deep-down emotional level, there would be no need to be Protestant. One could happily be Roman Catholic. For most people its hardly a major issue, but even today you will occasionally hear some of the more fire-and-brimstone preachers in the USA or Northern Ireland repeating the old lines that the Pope in Rome is in fact the Anti-Christ.
 * Anyway I have abused your goodwill long enough. I just felt that their were underlying "issues" to the naming dispute business which people were circling around and which needed to be spelled out. Thanks for not taking offence. Jameswilson 23:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Help
What do you need help with? Jfing e  r  s  88  00:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you just have to take your losses and go with them. If you can find Hon. Casey and take a picture of him, that would be fine, but trying to get a picture from the AP will not go over well. Besides, not every article needs a picture. If every article did have a picture, the Wikipedia servers would probably explode. Jfing  e  r  s  88  05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

helpme request
I noticed you had helpme on this page. What can I help you with? You can ask here and I will respond. --Commander Keane 21:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am trying to get permission from the AP to use one of its photos on my new article, Richard C. Casey. I copied and pasted the "Boilerplate" example of a permission request from Wikipedia, asking them for permission under GFDL. I'm new at this, so I just need a little help. They responded and said: "After reading a bit of the Wikipedia license it states 'permission is granted to copy, distribute and/ or modify...'. We could grant access for AP Images to appear on Wikipedia but could not allow our images to be copied, distributed or modified by any user of Wikipedia. Please let me know if you would have interest using our images under these terms."Is that acceptable? What should I do? --Hyphen5 22:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not acceptable. Wikipedia cannot accept images where permission in only granted to Wikipedia. So I guess you just have to find a different image.--Commander Keane 22:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Simmer down
Simmer down now. No one has done any bad mouthing of you. Only facts have been stated anywhere and none of it is "bad mouthing". Please step back and take a breath.JohnnyBGood 21:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What was this about, then? I'm trying to come to a compromise, and you're trying to undermine my good faith efforts. --Hyphen5 00:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't "bad mouthed" you at all; you called for a vote, failed to build consensus, and lost the vote. Refusing to abide by the results of your own vote, you've endeavored to disrupt Wikipedia by taking the issue to numerous places.  Mediation was unnecessary because a clear, strong consensus emerged.  Please review WP:POINT when you have time.  Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Particular Churches
Read further down under the heading in Roman Catholic Church. "Particular Church" doesn't mean only autonomous ones. The term has two meanings. A diocese is a particular Church or local Church. Patriarchates etc., which are particular Churches in another sense, that of "Rite", are also groupings of such local-or-particular Churches. Lima 09:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Helpme request
What do you need help with? --Spook (my talk 12:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do the research, find out if transcripts are public domain or not.

As for the article, if it isnt looking right someone else will fix it up! :) --Spook (my talk 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

tables
Well here's some random examples:

— Mar. 24, '06 [16:46] 

Helpme request
Hello, how can I assist you? --Spook (my talk 06:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm sort of new to WP. I've noticed that everybody who's anybody has a user page. What should I put on it? What are some cool things to put on it? And what are those tags that say, "This user is Irish" or "This user supports the troops"? Where do I find a list of those? Thanks. --Hyphen5 06:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And how do I edit my user signature like you've done? --Hyphen5 06:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Those "things" are userboxes. Feel free to add some to your userpage. You can also talk about some of your interests, possibly mention if you are a member of a WikiProject or anything you like. To edit the signature, click on My Preferences (top right) and check the 'Raw signature box'. Then modify your nickname as you please. For example, mine is, ' Gflores Talk ' Let me know if you have any more questions. :) Gflores Talk 06:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you'll want to look at the List_of_WikiProjects and find something you may be active in. Anyone can become a member, there's no requirements of any kind. There's usually a sign-up section for each project for those who are interested accompanied with a userbox for the wikiproject. Alternatively, you can just state in plain text that you're a member of X project. Gflores Talk 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a huge debate on their usage with some prominent members leaving. I would refrain from using those, if I were you, at least for the time being. Some were highly controversial. There was one for pedophiles and some that were offensive to certain groups. I don't know everything about it, I tried to stay away from that debate.


 * Sure, you can add yourself as a member and introduce yourself on the talk page too. There's a todo list if you're looking for work. :) To archive your talk page, you simply move it to a separate page (such as User:Hyphen5/archive1. See How to archive a talk page. Gflores Talk 07:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question was, but if you are still asking about user pages, you are welcome to look at mine User:JesseW. It's mainly a short description of who I am, then some bookmark-like lists of interesting pages I've come across, then some tools I've written for wikipedia, and that's about it. You can do the same. I'd advise against userboxes, also, as the idea of Wikipedia is that everyone is a Wikipedian first, and a member of some faction 2nd, if at all. JesseW, the juggling janitor 12:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Help Me
Yes, what can I help you with? (Generally, we don't put at the top of the page; we put it at the bottom of the page with a description of why you need help. I see you have already done this several times, so nevermind.) GofG undefinedundefinedundefined  Contribs 14:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Law
Thanks for signing up - your contributions are much appreciated! Cheers, BD2412  T 18:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that you feel membership of the law group is not a good thing (I also edit law pages but have not put my name in the group list). I hope that you will nevertheless continue to work on the Wiki. We have a real need for people with an interest in law to address the many instances of inadequate or inaccurate coverage of things legal. David91 12:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you are not giving up. We all contribute in the way that works best for us. McConnell is not the most interesting First Amendment case: a bit limited. But then you are not really supposed to comment on the decisions in the project. That would be a little frustrating. Still, good luck to you in all your future efforts. David91 13:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Helpme!
Question: How do I request an editing block / protection for an article? --Hyphen5 06:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Requests for page protection, but it's a rare occasion when a page is protected. Which page is it and what is the problem?--Commander Keane 06:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Catholic Church. It has been a redirect to Roman Catholic Church for months, and there is a vote underway to change it to a disambig page. (But most editors have opposed it in the vote.) In the meantime, people have been preempting the vote, making a disambig page anyway, and there's basically a revert war going on. --Hyphen5 06:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have protected Catholic Church--Commander Keane 06:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen5, I don't understand. You've already indicated your support for expanding Catholic Church as a separate article, and when we get a start on that project, you go and request page protection as a redirect. What's up with that? Fishhead64 07:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, about this Catholic Church situation. Fishhead64 tells me that consensus has been reached, and that is for there to be no redirect. So I'm going to unprotect Catholic Church. However, you should take a break from Catholic Church - because your editing has been causing the edit war in some part. Please, don't edit it. Talk to people instead.--Commander Keane 08:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen5, 15 editors opposed renaming Roman Catholic Church Catholic Church, compared to five in support. A redirect accomplishes the same purpose through the back door, does it not? Even in the current survey, five editors support the temporary solution, two think we should do the merge immediately and not have a temporary disambig page, and only three editors unambiguously support the redirect. We can't merge the related articles into Catholic Church if it's a redirect. More to the point, we can't abide by the consensus if a redirect means that Catholic Church equals Roman Catholic Church anyway. What is disingenuous is your support for a redirect in order to have your will prevail over against the consensus of the editors. You either think it should be a redirect or you don't. Fishhead64 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that the consensus is to redirect. Lima and KHM, who both oppose temporary disambig, explicitly state that their opposition is based on their belief that the Catholic Church article should be rewritten immediately. That isn't spin - that's what they say. Taken in concert with the supportive votes, and the comments in the previous survey, and the comments in the mediation page - including, until yesterday, your own - I do not think it a stretch to conclude that there has been consensus abou this article. But not consensus to keep it as a redirect. You cannot have a substantive article that redirects. Fishhead64 20:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm done with the matter.--Commander Keane 00:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Conversation with AvB
Hi Hyphen5,

I voted in support of the temporary disambiguation page at the CC article. I added an opinion to my vote that I hoped would give others some background info about where I am coming from (i.e. Wikipedia policies - I do not have a personal opinion or POV on the subject). I would like to help resolve the situation but I see no way out other than what I've already said mentioned in my vote. I tried to recruit Commander Keane as protecting admin (which implies a responsibility to attempt to resolve the dispute) but s/he preferred to unprotect. I really hope this will be resolved soon. I can see this is getting on your and other editors' nerves and that is not good, not for the editors and not for the encyclopedia. If you think I can help, although my policy-based opinion goes the other way, just let me know. AvB &divide; talk  16:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Weekly Collaboration
Hey Hyphen! I apologize for it taking me so long to get back to you about the collaboration page as I've been doing a lot of work with Cornish Wikipedia. My only function on English Wikipedia anymore at the present time is linking English articles to the new Cornish ones ;) You've done an extraordinary job with the Catholic Collab. page and I'll assist as much as I can! --Caponer 18:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help Hyphen. --WikiCats 01:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy to help! I nominated a new collaboration. Perhaps it should be monthly, instead of weekly? There doesn't seem to be much interest in maintaining a weekly schedule. MamaGeek Joy 15:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholic social teaching
Hello Hyphen5. You can find my response to your comment on my user talk page at User talk:Guðsþegn.   GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 16:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How to report vandalism?
Question: User:4.226.225.207 is vandalizing the page Catholicism, calling the Catholic Church the "mother of devils" and other such bile. How do I report this, and to whom? He should probably be blocked, at least temporarily. --Hyphen5 03:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Vandalism outlines the procedure. After a few warnings you list the vandal at WP:AIV.--Commander Keane 03:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-life and Pro-choice
Hi. Glad to see that you are seeking talk page discussion. Note that I did not extensively review your changes; I was just pointing out that they did not deserve an uncerimonious revert. Although you did the right thing by seeking consensus on the talk page, it will be nearly impossible to get a consensus for the final draft given the climate of such articles and once (and if) you do, the article will have changed signficantly, requiring you to tediously work your changes in. May I suggest that you do the changes individually (or in logical groupings) with an edit summary that explains the reason for them. Start with the least controversial, and (if you want to add anything) what you can source. Then, try to gain consensus individually for the changes which you anticipate others might disagree with. You may not be able to get consensus for your exact change in this manner, but at least there will be some disucssion. The current talk page discussion will be far too daunting for most users, I suspect. Dividing it into the salient issues would be more productive. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Having looked more in depth, I wanted to advise you that it is somewhat bad form to use miscellaneous grammar edits to justify your version which includes many more controversial changes. I respended with your hard numbering on both talk pages. However, as I said, you are going to have to extract the issues individually if you want to get consensus for any of these. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My bad. I was referring to this edit and this one. But obviously you've moderated your editing style since then. I think your rewrite is fine in terms of many semantical issues ("pro-life people") etc. but two major biases stick out to me. 1) The attempt to downplay the religious nature of the pro-life movement, and 2) the switch from (admittedly biased) POV rhetoric to simply prolife rhetoric. Instead we need to agree on NPOV of referring to these things (I think the answer is to use the terms that people self-apply and note that in the terms section). savidan(talk) (e@) 07:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Archivebox
My apologies. I was actually trying to fix this error, but you fixed while I was looking at it. (That is, the page became obsolete as I was reading it.) My revert therefore inadvertently cancelled your subsequent edit. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church redirect
I was able to defend the Catholic Church redirect with a compromise solution. Are you happy with that? --WikiCats 08:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Listed for deletion: Image:NRT6 2001.jpg

 * Uploaded by Dandelion1 ([ notify]). This is an image of several nude people, one or two might be underage as well. Unencyclopedic at the least. - Hyphen5 20:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Keep. This is a great image and is used on at least two articles Nudity and Nackt Radtour. What is the reference about being underage? Underage for what? Please refer to specific Wikipedia Policy if you have a specific problem. See also WP:ISNOT.Dandelion1 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
Please see my comment at User talk:Alienus. In short, Alienus' edits are not considered vandalism; you're using the wrong word and inappropriate warning templates. It's a content dispute, not a vandalism issue. I just wanted to help clarify that. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * GTB, this is hardly a good faith edit. Look at Alienus' contribution history; it's full of revert wars on various articles. (S)he is trying to stir up trouble. In this case, cateogrizing PAS as "quackery" and "pseudoscience" would not be justified even if PAS were merely a politically expedient invention. There is no way to think that that is not POV. --Hyphen5 22:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually quite familiar with Alienus' edits, and I repeat - edits that you consider POV - even if you're obviously right - are not vandalism. Vandalism is blanking pages, replacing articles with pictures of penises, inserting text like "OMG JIMBO IS GAY LOLERZZ!!!1!", or subtly changing information to make it incorrect.  You disagree with Alienus - that does not make him a vandal.  Read Vandalism, where you'll see that we define vandalism very narrowly.  Especially note the section "What vandalism is not," where POV edits, stubborn edit warring, and even bullying are explicitly excluded from the definition of vandalism at Wikipedia.  The situation you're dealing with is ideal for an article RFC; I suggest that as a dispute resolution step. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
After this edit, I have blocked you for 48 hours for disruption. Your block may be lifted or extended after discussion with other administrators. — FireFox • T [15:55, 4 April 2006]
 * Woops, my bad. --Hyphen5 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, was it all about? — FireFox • T [16:04, 4 April 2006]
 * I would like to resign from Wikipedia. I have been an editor in good faith for a week or two now, getting addicted to this thing and making about 700 edits in this short time. After trying to remove some POV from a few particular articles, though, I was accosted by ideologues with blatant POV agendas. I tried to reason with them from Wikipedia's policies, only to be shouted down by non sequiturs and inconsistent ramblings. They would attack one of my arguments, and then I would respond point-by-point, then they would change their arguments or ignore mine and simply reassert theirs. One editor in particular patrols a certain category of articles to make sure the articles reflect his uncompromising POV. He has kept putting one article in particular into Category:Quackery and insisting that he is thereby "ensuring NPOV". I cannot stand this game, and there seems to be no remedy, since there is nowhere to take content disputes for final decisions. I simply don't have time for this. After encountering not a few of these people, I have concluded that Wikipedia is not a serious or intellectually honest enterprise. Therefore, I vandalized the ArbCom page (1) in protest, and (2) out of curiosity. Seeing how Wikipedia works (er, doesn't work) from the inside, I would not trust Wikipedia as a source of information. It is a huge waste of my time. --Hyphen5 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, based on limited experience, the more passion there is towards an issue, the less well the wikipedia methods works. This is true of the big social concerns you were interested in editing as well as surprisingly trivial articles with a few passionate defenders.  It takes persistence and stubborness to fight back, and you would not be the first person to be disheartened by the experience.  I myself tend to avoid the truly contentious articles because I think I can make more of a difference editing 20 noncontroversial articles than fighting over one controversial one.  I hope you reconsider; I haven't examined all your edits but the ones I looked at seemed to show patience and civility even in contentious areas. Thatcher131 21:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

abortion poll
Please weigh in on the abortion talk page. There is a poll regarding the opening paragraph. I have voted to adopt the new language with the exception of the inaccurate word "nonviable", since viable babies are sometimes aborted.____G_o_o_d____ 11:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Couldn't help noticing this request. If you take a look, you may want to read the relevant talk page entries and also Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph before making up your mind. AvB &divide; talk  13:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A waste of time?
I too have looked at some of your work on Wikipedia and think that you have the makings of a good editor - someone who is able to help improve the encyclopedia. But you may want to revise the idea that you have seen "how Wikipedia works (er, doesn't work) from the inside". I think you've just scratched the surface of what WP:NPOV actually means, and of the (admittedly often cumbersome) consensus processes intended to sort of enforce policy. I hope you will be back to try and find the middle road generally taken by those who have successfully edited Wikipedia over a longer period of time. AvB &divide; talk  12:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortion poll
Please weigh in with your view on this abortion wikipedia poll. ____G_o_o_d____ 08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

pro-life
You are invited to help remove POV phrasing from the article. Alienus is pushing. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, please join Evil in an edit war. The more people who participate, the more people get banned.  Alienus 05:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please visit
Partial-birth abortion. ____G_o_o_d____ 12:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Help
Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

Catholic Church issue heating up again
Howdy, Hyphen 5,

Just want to let you know that the "Catholic Church" vs. "Roman Catholic Church" argument is heating up again on Talk:Roman Catholic Church. What is at issue is whether RCC must be used in every reference to the Catholic Church throughout all of WP. Just wanted you to know. Thanks, --Vaquero100 00:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Msg about McConnell case (belated reply)
I noticed your msg at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases about McConnell v. FEC. I just wanted to complement you on what a great job you did fixing it up. Sorry nobody responded to your msg on the project talk page. I'm working on revamping the project right now and it'll hopefully be UTD in a few days. More soon. Cheers and happy editing! --Kchase02 (T) 09:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)