User talk:Vaquero100/Archives/Archive 02

Harassment
Stop harassing other users about or for their religion. --Golbez 19:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is your last warning. --Golbez 21:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that I put the first warning here at 15:04, and you put "You have a need to suppress the Catholic Church. That is sad. But more than that, it is unjust, it is cruel and un-Christian." on Garzo's talk page 57 minutes later. In other words, you'd been warned about your uncivil, harassing behavior, and you continued. Therefore, the final warning. Please don't do it again. --Golbez 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Category/Article renaming
You may want to check out CfD. Gimmetrow 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The "annoyance" remark was in relation to the "CC hierarchy" page. A couple pages used double-redirects to get there, and moving the article made them triple-redirects. I think I went to the article(s) and made them direct links so if it changes (yet) again it will continue to work. I was sad nobody reponded to my comment on the "counter-reformation" name debate; thought you especially would get a kick out of this. Gimmetrow 03:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hilarious!! Actually, all of those links were great! Also noticed the "etymology" of your username. Very clever.  Have a good night.  --Vaquero100 03:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Large copy-pastes into CfD or elsewhere are not likely to help your cause. I would suggest you just put a link to your page if you think it is relevant. Gimmetrow 23:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Method can contribute to bias as well. In this case, your method looks like distributing a religious tract, and that's not likely to help. Also, your page does not really make reference to WP policy and precedents directly, which gives the impression that you are not trying to work within WP guidelines. You should argue from precedents like Java, which is the island due to arguments about number of people involved and history, and Counter-Reformation, which apparently doesn't need any further modification to refer to a regional historical event. The naming conflicts example seems relevant. I seem to recall something about greater flexibility in sub-article naming too, but I can't find it now. Gimmetrow 15:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What is your plan with Category:Canon law (Catholic Church)? Does this need to be different than Category:Canon law? Is this for articles that deal exclusively with Catholic canon law? (If so, valid but illicit does mention anglicans) I doubt there are many "canon law" articles that deal exclusively with anglican or orthodox law. Gimmetrow 04:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing the cat on that article. I still would like to know what you have in mind. I generally agree that "RCC" is a biased name of regional use, and I find the arguments about "ambiguity" weak especially after seeing Java and Counter-Reformation. The argument that "catholic" is used in the creed in another sense is curious, because I don't see that argument made over at Apostolic Church. Build consensus and things will change, friend. Gimmetrow 14:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing
Please stop using AWB to POV push. I'm going to revert such instances of the misuse of so-called "cleaning up" using AWB. Fishhead64 22:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, and in the opinion of others, it is. Your unwillingness to compromise by using both terms - both of which are equally legitimate - results in a lot of unnecessary back-and-forth editing.  But this seems to be your cause, so be it. Fishhead64 22:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your welcome back. I needed a break!  LOL! Fishhead64 22:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Theology of the Body
Hi, I've already proposed it. --Briancua 02:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
From the little interaction I have had with the anon IP I suspect he may be quite devout. I know you are trying to encourage him to register but it might be more tactful to refer to him other than as "666" :) Sophia  21:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism
Dear Fr. Vaquero,

I see that you have a history of mischevious edits relating to maintaining a Roman Catholic monopoly on Catholicity. Eventually, most children reach the age when their solipsism ends and they learn that they are not the only people in the universe. (Perhaps someday you will too). Likewise, there are many devout Catholics who find themselves outside the Roman Catholic Church. I am personally insulted that you would deny me my Catholicty after I had to leave the church against my will. You and your cohorts may have shoved me out, but you will not tell me that I am not a faithful Catholic. Futher to that, you have mucked up Catholic spirituality so that I cannot fix it again. I am seeking administrative action against your vandalism at this time.

Sincerely in Christ Crucified,

Carolynparrishfan 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Polite warning
...or an attempt at a polite warning. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a venue for negotiating ultimate truth, nor righting historical wrongs of whatever stripe. Instead, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore we locate our articles and employ links that reflect the most common names, locations, and usages of our users. The validity or invalidity of your complaints is not at play. When the whole Anglophone culture changes its usage, it will be appropriate for Wikipedia to change its naming. Until then, we are creating a reference work for English speaking persons. If you continue to act against consensus in page moves, renaming, and link alteration, an RFC or mediation will be filed. Geogre 13:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic vs. Roman Catholic
You seem to be acting as a rogue editor. You have not reached consensus about titles on any talk page (to my knowledge) yet you still go around moving pages and changing titles to say Catholic instead of Roman Catholic. This seems to go against a number of wikipedia policies. Please, please do NOT make any more changes unless you can get the Roman Catholic Church page to be renamed first. If that ever occurs, then it will be easy for every old Roman Catholic Church link to simply be changed to Catholic Church instead of sidestepping that process by Catholic Church. I understand you have VERY strong opinions on this matter, but that still gives you no excuse to edit in this manner. Your edits are disruptive. Please do not continue with your crusade unless you can get consensus for a name change on the main Roman Catholic page. Sidestepping consensus is in very poor taste.--Andrew c 14:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 3rd.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked from editing. For a detailed reasoning, please see Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Canon law (Roman Catholic Church)
A formal move request has been posted regarding a page you moved. See Talk:Canon law (Roman Catholic Church) for more information. Gimmetrow 15:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Friend, take a breath. I've already talked with MGM, and note that the article is currently at Canon law (Catholic Church) pending discussion. I don't see that MGM has a POV in this - he basically reverted your move because of your history of questionable moves. MGM and I talked over a number of facets of this, and have agreed that the article could be at Canon law of the Catholic Church. (But do not move it anywhere yet.) Gimmetrow 23:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please hesitate making any more moves. Note that I could have moved the canon law article back to where it was, but I didn't. Instead I talked with MGM, and we achieved some sort of agreement. Gimmetrow 20:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't responded to a couple questions I posed: Also I'm thinking about a naming proposal. What if most topics X had an article at "X in the Catholic Church" and "X in the Roman Catholic Church". If there are "X in the Anglican Church" or "X in the Orthodox Church" articles, then the "X in the CC" article covers history up to the 11th century, and "X in the RCC" covers (more) modern practice. Otherwise, "X in the CC" redirects to "X in the RCC". On topics with no overlapping content (eg, Cardinals), the RCC article would be at "X in the CC". Sound workable? Draft at User:Gimmetrow/sand Gimmetrow 20:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Catholic Church currently redirects to Roman Catholic Church, as voted. Why does the article need to be at CC?
 * What was your plan with separating out the CC part in the Canon law category (and article too, I guess)?

Hi, Gimmetrow,

I will not make any more moves. All of the articles I have assembled with "Catholic Church" in the title are as they were before since I made one move this morning. I advised MGM of the move and he made a similar request that I not make any more article moves. I am fine with that as long as they remain where they are unless moved by due process. I was impressed with your method with MGM, but he is not the typical editor who moves something to "Roman." In most cases, it is an ideology at work. Perhaps you would have more sway than I, should it happen again.

My purposes in separating out Catholic articles from general articles and Catholic categories from general categories are three-fold:


 * Catholic material in mixed articles draws a lot of petty POV editing by non-Catholics. These edits if not reverted are often contested and then re-contested etc., making the article text a means of debate.  Articles on Catholic topics off the RCC page tend not to attract such controversial editing, but rather a more knowlegeable variety of editor.
 * The Catholic portion of mixed articles tends to be more complex that the material from other Churches, because Catholic teaching is that much more articulated and has a longer history. While these Catholic sections tend to be longer, they are in no way as in-depth as a separate Catholic topic article would be. Editors tend to slow down in their work on a general article once the headlines are discussed. Separated articles tend to encourage editors and the articles "room to breath."  For instance before I started working on the article Canon law it looked like this: . It is my hope that Canon law (Catholic Church) will have several sections:  a lengthy history, a thorough section on the Canon Law of Marriage (and annulments), another on sui iuris Churches, another on basic principles, another on canonical penalties, etc. etc.  This depth of material would be ludicrous in the article as shown above which was barely organized.
 * Lastly, having a wide range of articles particular to Catholic Church topics (and not just general articles with Catholic materials stuffed in) will prepare the way for a Catholic Church WP portal, which is fully justified considering the wealth of material that needs to be incorporated.

I hope this was helpful. Thanks again for your cooler head and your patience with my impatience. Also, if you are planning on taking up MGM's suggestion of leading a centralized discussion on CC vs. RCC, I would support that in any way that you would like (including getting out of the way, if you think me a liability). Please feel free to use anything I have written--and do not feel you have to cite my name. Vaquero100 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm still trying to figure out what exactly you want. Specific question from above:
 * Catholic Church currently redirects to Roman Catholic Church, as voted. Why does the article itself need to be at CC? Gimmetrow 14:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic vs. Catholic

 * What I would really like is to have those who favor "Roman" in every occurance of "Catholic" in WP text to actually engage the discussion on the basis of WP policies and conventions rather than on the Book of Common Prayer or their version of the creed etc. Bringing competing theologies into this discussion is exactly what WP naming conventions is designed to avoid.

As far as I've seen no one is trying to use Roman in every occurance of Catholic, only in cases when it's Roman Catholicism instead of Catholicism in general being discussed. - Mgm|(talk) 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've recommended User:Gimmetrow to start a centralized discussion to get the naming dispute. Centralized discussions. If he hasn't already, I recommend you to start it and use the subpage you created to show your reasoning. I also recommend you to wait with moving any other articles until the discussion has reached a concensus as a sign of goodwill. If you consider doing all that, your ideas are a lot more likely to be considered. I'll leave a note on the administrator's noticeboard to point some admins to the message you posted on my talk page. - Mgm|(talk) 15:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we've been round that particular loop quite enough times. The one thing we don't need is POV forks springing up. Just zis Guy you know? 21:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You may find interesting the description of Catholic at adherents.com SynKobiety 01:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

-Vaquero,

Geogre suspects that I am you. This is another thing that he has wrong.

I have read Wikipedia for some time and have seen and discussed its Anglican bias with others. I hoped that it is not a fundamental problem, and thought that an objective argument might be pursuasive. That thought could be wrong.

I see that you were a Biblebelt Catholic. I was raised in southeast Tennessee by a pair of Catholic transplants. Our little parish has produced at least two priests (so far), although I am not one of them. SynKobiety 03:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero, while I think the CC v. RCC debate is generating more heat than light, your arguments have convinced me that we, the Church, do have a right to the name Catholic without a modifier. Though it looks unlikely that the consensus of the WP community will be swayed that way soon, I've at least made the symbolic action of joining you in Category:Catholic Wikipedians. Keep fighting the good fight. -- Meyer 07:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia
Please be more careful when using text from the Catholic Encyclopedia. There are a number of problems with your usage in such places as Roman Catholic and Catholic devotions: improper use of the 2nd person (we, us), POV issues, formatting problems, lack of wikification, no template:Catholic tag, etc. Here are some guidelines:


 * While the text is public domain PLEASE do not simply dump text from the CE into Wikipedia without modification. The Encyclopedia was written to serve the Catholic Church and reflect its doctrine, therefore nearly every article has a distinct POV and no article should be included word for word. Format the text according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Update any spelling anomalies. Rephrase any awkward-sounding prose to improve clarity and flow. Remove 19th century references unless they really move the text along. Update the articles with new information. Any text describing the "current situation" as of 1908 or 1913 should be revised as necessary.


 * When you have finished writing your article, add the Catholic template to all articles based on a CE entry. Not only does this create a proper reference of the source of the text; also you are then able to find the CE-based articles at "What links here" of the template. This is important because some of the information from the CE may be obsolete and the CE category will be very helpful for locating articles which demand updates. It may also help to add an External link to the original article, especially if it was heavily revised in the process of wikification.

More found here: Catholic Encyclopedia topics Hope this helps.--Andrew c 00:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Padre J?
Hi, I'm just wondering what's going on here. User:Padre J appears to be a sockpuppet of yours (by your own admission), but it was just added to the memberlist at WikiProject Catholicism. — Mi ra  20:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 10th
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Signpost delivered by: RoyBoy 800 04:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Catholicism Assessment
Hello, fellow WikiProject Catholicism member. The project has recently begun work on assessing articles relating to Catholicism, and you are invited to comment and participate. The subpage for this assessment is located here. Thank you. — Mi ra  07:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead's rename votes
Fishhead didn't post to WPProject Catholicism. I noticed about 2 days in that he had not and copied his post from WPPAnglicanism, including the link to the July 11-specific CfD page. I'm thinking you misread the post; I was wondering why you posted similar info about an hour later. This 2-place listing happened because Fishhead originally listed categories at WP:AfD. It bothers me that these move processes were started at all, because now once they end they are fixed for 6 months. You might want to edit your comments at CfD as they could be taken as violation of WP:NPA. Gimmetrow 05:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Trust you to keep a cool head, assume good faith, and act prudently, Vaquero. You may be interested in the real reason for this. I quote from my talk page:
 * I agree, I was a bit vague when I first asked you. It was 4:35 in the morning here and I was tired, but that is no excuse. Anyway, categories to be renamed should be listed at Categories for deletion. Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, at WP:RM, after crossing out the category pages, I wrote:
 * Moved the category proposals to CfD per guidelines. Fishhead64 18:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to counteract your ongoing, inexplicable character assassination of me, I will post this explanation at the Catholicism 101 project page - I'm sure you'll excuse me for not trusting you to clear it up. Fishhead64 07:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanking comments
Welcome back to the party! I'm assuming this was accidental, but I thought you should know that you blanked the comments of two editors on Talk:Anglicanism. I've restored the comments. Cheers, Fishhead64 07:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cathedral of the Sacred Heart (Richmond, Virginia)
Are you trying to be contrary to me? Do you have personal hang ups regarding my editing? I seriously question your motives behind reverting my simple layout edit on Cathedral of the Sacred Heart (Richmond, Virginia). First of all, having an opening image float left is uncommon and therefore must have some justifiable reason. Second, if you are going to float left, you need to float the TOC right or you get bad formatting. Next, a simple design principal is that the eye of the reader follows the flow of the image. If the image is of a figure looking right, then the eye flows to the right. If the image is of a building in perspective with the vanashing point off to the left, then the eye follows these lines off to the left. You don't want your reader subconsioucly being drawn OFF of the page because of this. In this example, the perspective of the Cathedral obviously is flowing to the left, so it makes perfect sense to have it on the RIGHT side of the page to avoid these problems. On top of that, the image is rather large, especially when compared to the smaller block of text in the opening paragraph. This is from the WP:IMAGES page: Images should be large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text. The resize I made did not violate this guideline, where I feel the current size does. These are very basic layout edits that are backed by policy. I cannot comprehend why you reverted me, besides you having some sort of grudge against me. I apologize for taking this personal, but a) design IS my business and b) you baselessly accused me of having an anti-catholic bias in the past. If you need to address something to me, then we need to get that over and done with and hash it out so you no longer revert helpful edits of mine. If I missed something, and I'm getting too defensive and my layout edit was problematic, I'd like that also explained to me. I hope we can work things out.--Andrew c 06:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I was a little upset you didn't comment on your revert regarding the Sacred Heart Cathedral here in RVA. As for your questions, I do not have an obsession with you, nor do I have anything personal against you or your religion. I first came across you at the Sacred Heart article, where I was working to update some archaic text from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and rewrite the intro (notice how I worked perfectly fine with the editors, and we worked together to make a superior intro during the collaboration effort). You came along and changed a wikilink from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church . I did a little research and saw your edit history consisting of a whole slew of similar edits. And this had been going on in the previous days as well, and reverted by a number of editors. I did even more research and found out that you wanted to change the name of the main article from RCC to CC, however you were UNABLE to get the name changed (yet). There was a rough consensus (or precedent) reached that CC would redirect to RCC, and there would also be a CC disambig page. Therefore, I saw your edits as a way to push your POV against community consensus, against the actual name of the article. And I said as much in my revert edit summaries. I stated clearly that you shouldn't bypass consensus this way. That you should instead work to get the main article name changed (and if and when that occurs, it is much easier to automate that name change across wiki using a bot). And then there were the articles that you moved that I reverted, and the one article I moved for the first time (that was not a revert). So after that one night of me undoing your "work", I imagine that is what gave you a bad impression on me. Ever since, I feel that I have been civil, and my edits regarding the naming controversy have significantly dropped. But, still I think I have left a sour taste in your mouth, and I am hoping we can clear that up. I still think that the sort of edit (using a soft redirect to your prefered article name, without reaching consensus to actually change the article name) is in bad taste, especially while there is an ongoing discussion regarding the name. This has nothing to do with anti-catholic bias. I have made a couple posts where I did support the name RCC instead of CC, but to tell you the truth, I don't buy the anglican argument that its improper for the CC to claim the word "Catholic" and I don't think anyone in my location would think I went to an episcopal school if I said "I went to Catholic school". But on the other side of the coin, I'm not totally convinced RCC is slanderous, or TOO descriptive, or that CC is totally unambiguous by itself. So right now, I am on the fence with the debate. I am not a POV warrior in this regard (hopefully, not in any regard). I'm sorry that we got off on a bad start, but it was the nature of your edits that struck me more than the content of your edits (if that makes sense). While I do not think we will ever agree on everything, I think nothing is stopping us from working together civily. If you have any questions or a response, feel free to contact me. If I have edited inappropriately or anything else, feel free to call me out on it. Thanks for your concern.--Andrew c 04:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop now.
You changed Religious life to point to Consecrated life (Catholic Church) instead of religious order. This is blatantly against WP:NPOV. It is not the first time you have made a tendentious edit pushing the Roman Catholic Church. Your edit summaries are often combative. Wikipedia is not here to serve the interests of any one church or denomination. If you continue to make non-neutral edits you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. Just zis Guy you know? 19:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right, it never was to religious order. But it very obviously should have been. The rest stands: I am not a great fan of people who come to this project with the aim of righting giant "wrongs" which are actually the result of careful negotiation and long-standing consensus. Just zis Guy you know? 20:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I see that you have problems with this aggressive admin, too, I invite you to comment in the arbitration case I file. Socafan 22:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)