User talk:LoyolaDude

Leave a message!

RCC vs. CC
I beg to disagree. For one thing, a redirect is not a major performance issue and wikipedia says not to make a mountain out of a molehill as far as it is concerned. Next, 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.

One more thing, forgive me for saying, but you being a product of Jesuit education seem to be confused by the name of your own church. 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. 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. Moreover, I do not see any disambiguation problems. The disambiguation on the RCC page is quite clear. I will ask you to perform an experiment: ask an ordinary Orthodox, Anglican or Armenian Apostolic church member if they are Catholics. I tried it, and fortunately they were still civil. The Orthodox reaction is the most interesting(but don't be within arm's reach when you do this). 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. Dr mindbender 06:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application
Dear LoyolaDude,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that you only have 162 mainspace edits. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status
The Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to and/or  status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Stories Project
Aloha!

My name is Victor Grigas, I’m a storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco working on collecting unique and interesting stories from Wikipedians that can be used to compel donations for the 2011 fundraiser.

I found your user name on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Chicago

If you are interested in participating, and would like to schedule a telephone or Skype interview with me, please send me an email (vgrigas@wikimedia.org) along with any questions you may have.

Thanks for your time!

Victor, User:Victorgrigas Victor Grigas (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

PS If you know of anyone with whom I should speak please let me know :)

Photo requests in the Chicago area
Hi! Do you take photographs for Wikipedia in the Chicago area? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)