User talk:Vestapol

RV
Hello and Welcome. I have reverted one of your recent edits, because some of the facts you added did not have a reliable source to Cite them. If you have a reliable source for those edits, Please add it back! Thanks. Thegooduser  Let's Chat  🍁  21:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss your changes before engaging in disruptive editing
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Alcoholics Anonymous, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. As per the discussion in Teahouse, and the reverting of your changes by no less than three different editors, your edits do not reflect consensus. In particular, the claims that AA is "Patriarchal", "Monotheistic", and "Christian" are contentious, and need to be supported by references from reliable sources using the same terminology (the references have to use same words). To say that AA is "Patriarchal" because the Big Book uses male pronouns for God is original research, which goes against Wikipedia policy. The claims that Alcoholism is, in fact, a disease seems reasonably well referenced, although I would prefer a more definite reference (such as a webpage any editor can access, or a peer reviewed scientific paper). Defendingaa (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, you must discuss your changes on talk before editing
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alcoholics Anonymous. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Again, you have not provided any references which actually state that AA was/is "Patriarchal" and "Christian", so you can not add those claims to the article. And, you refuse to work with us on talk pages. Defendingaa (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Stop your disruptive editing
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Alcoholics Anonymous, you may be blocked from editing. If you bring up how AA is patriarchal without giving us a reference that actually says that one more time, I will report you. Defendingaa (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

I have brought up my concerns about your edits to administrators
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Defendingaa (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue has been resolved so that Alcoholics Anonymous is protected from editing by new editors. Please let me or anyone else know what changes you want, and I will work with you to make them to Alcoholics Anonymous.  But please have a discussion on a talk page. Defendingaa (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, AE. I sincerely want to make useful, accurate contributions. I like the option of consulting with other editors; my contributions are evidence-based but may be ahead of the curve for some people. Which is why the're important. Being new to this and with modest tech skills, I just now found a number of complaints about my editions on AA culture to the Alcoholics Anonymous article. I hadn't gotten into the habit of looking at the upper-right prompt for messages. Also, I haven't found how to respond to a talk page or "Tea" discussions. What do I have to do to reply and communicate with folks?

I hope this try at participating (edit source) is okay...I'm open to suggestions,

Vestapol (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)VestapolVestapol (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Vestapol


 * Thank you very much for your attempt at dialogue. I feel the best place to talk about this is over at Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous.  The first thing to keep in mind is that Alcoholics Anonymous has had a lot of issues with very contentious edits and editors not willing to have any dialog at all, so editors are a little sensitive when the article starts getting edited by a new editor.  There are a number of different edits you have made to the article; as just one example, labeling AA as being "Christian" and "Patriarchal" is contentious, since many do not characterize AA as being either of those.  Wikipedia is based on five pillars, once of which is that edits need to be neutral; since many reliable sources (and AA itself) do not characterize AA as being "Christian" or "Patriarchal", we can not call AA that in the Wikipedia.  What we might be able to do is have a section where we discuss how some people use those words to describe AA, but only if we can find reliable sources using those words (saying the AA Big Book describes God like that is original research until when and if we can find a reliable source saying so), it would have to be balanced by the reliable sources saying that is not how AA is.
 * Again, the best place to discuss these edits is over at Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous Defendingaa (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Human cannibalism. Kb03 (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Fellow Editors, I read the warning that my addition to Cannibalism was judged inappropriate, as vandalism. I don't intend to damage the Wikipedia process and hope to add information that others have not contributed or even thought of, which I believe is the case when we acknowledge Roman Catholic flesh eating and blood drinking. I am reading the various Wikipedia Guidelines and will discover how my addition meets the criteria for vandalism.

For now, how can I discuss this with the editors? I believe we editors may choose to acknowledge the beliefs of Roman Catholics [1], or we can choose to eliminate their Communion from the Cannibalism page by judging their ritual as symbolic, knowing that for them it is literally flesh & blood being consumed.

How can we discuss this?

Vestapol (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)DougVestapol (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(written in their Canon Law)
 * That's your understanding of it and we don't rely on individual editor's understandings. This, this, and this make it pretty clear that Catholics do not regard transubstantiation as a chemical change but affirm that the chemical composition (and all other perceivable attributes) is still identical to bread even if the imperceptible substance or essence has supposedly changed.
 * At any rate, "Catholics are cannibals" is an old Anti-Catholic canard. Between that and your advocacy in the Alcoholics Anonymous article, you appear to gravely misunderstand the purpose of this site.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. My addition is not intended as a negative canard. Roman Catholic Communion is an important, living example of the spiritual meaning of most cannibalistic rituals. Eating the flesh or drinking the blood is believed to intake the powers of the person who has died. It's important that our article help people appreciate the persistence of cannibalism in current society. "Important" because most of us do not have the awareness to appreciate how many of our rituals, symbols, words and gestures are ancient archetypes. Our common sometimes-unconscious spiritual needs keep us connected to prehistory and to our universe.

I checked your first reference and it says pretty much what I had written; that Roman Catholic communion is literally eating flesh & blood but they try to avoid the association with cannibalism. This is factual, not my opinion:

Pope Leo XIII spoke of this in his encyclical "Mirae Caritatis:" "This miracle is the greatest of its kind . . . for here all the laws of nature are suspended; the whole substance of the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood; and the species of bread and wine are sustained by the power of God without the support of any underlying substance." St. Thomas Aquinas gives three reasons why it is fitting that God intervenes in this miraculous way (III, 75, 5). 1. Because it is not customary but horrible for men to eat human flesh and drink human blood; hence Christ’s flesh and blood are given to us under the species of those things more commonly consumed by men. 2. Lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, were we to eat the flesh and blood of Jesus under his own proper species (i.e. appearance of flesh & blood).

Please don't dismiss my contribution. Let's encourage other editors to ponder and provide feedback. Vestapol (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)DougVestapol (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. See WP:No original research, which is all you're doing. And not even really good original research at that, since you're having to twist Aquinas's meaning to ignore its Aristotelian context entirely.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Ian, one of the services we provide in Wikipedia is to help people see more objectively the relationship between denotation and connotation; to help people see beyond their personal or cultural biases so they see things from different perspectives if not objectively. That's a rare experience but we do offer that here.

So think of the assumption one makes if they choose to see Cannibalism as a negative ritual, or as an aspersion against Roman Catholicism. The assumption is that the connotations of the word are more important than the denotation; that a religion practicing cannibalism is savage, primitive, bad. Yes, most people would judge Roman Catholics like this if Catholics used the word cannibalism. Which is exactly why we provide an enlightening service for all who have the intellectual curiosity...intellectual honesty, really...to grasp the important persistence of cannibalism as a spiritual ritual. There's a spiritual power in cannibalism that Roman Catholics intuit even as they protect themselves from the word.

Vestapol (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)DougVestapol (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't try to teach grandma how to suck eggs. Like I said before, all we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.  You are not "helping people see more objectively," you are arguing for your own culturally-biased and subjective opinion on the matter.  Check your privilege or check out, this is not a forum nor a blog for you to keep arguing on.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Ian, I see your point. My agenda to add perspectives that most people miss is self-serving. While I believe that what I would like to add is valid and useful, meeting this resistance means what I offer's just not a good match right now for the Editors' vision. Thanks for the hard work you and Defendingaa, and all the others put into Wikipedia. If you ever need someone to start a Wikipedia article on The Provocative Intellectual Personality, let me know. Vestapol (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)DougVestapol (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and you've apparently made up "The Provocative Intellectual Personality", I wouldn't hold my breath. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)