User talk:CatholicW

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. AV3000 (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Thank you. If you look at it from an abstract point of view though it's clear that Scott donated as an extention of his religion and lost his job for it.[reply]

If people are punished for voting or in this case donating to a political cause that qualifies as political repression.

adding disputed content to Scott Eckern

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. AV3000 (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Boycotts of Proposition 8 supporters. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of George Tiller

Please respond at the Talk page. Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to reference

place your references between <ref>...</ref>. That will place them at the bottom under "References". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Luigi Padovese

I have nominated Luigi Padovese, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Padovese. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Don Ritchie

I have nominated Don Ritchie, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Ritchie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Timneu22 · talk 19:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding James Cameron page

Please stop removing the content about his atheism by citing random wikipedia policy. This is at least third time you have removed this content without giving good explaination. This content has been in James Cameron since years and we have WP:RS like his biograhy. If you are interested, there has been discussion on this regard. Please go throught the history of discussion pages to read it. I understand that having Catholic in your username, personally you don't want to see famous personalities being atheist. But wikipedia is no place to bring your personal prejudice. -Abhishikt 23:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of references to atheism

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Jamie Hyneman appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CatholicW. I notice that you've done some really good work in removing unsourced material relating to BLP subjects' atheism, for which I agree with you and commend you. (James Cameron and Peter Fonda, for example.) However, I notice that in two recent examples, you removed references to subjects' atheism that were indeed sourced, specifically this edit to Jamie Hyneman and this edit to Matt Stone. In keeping with Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability, source reliability and source citation, the material you removed was indeed supported by the sources cited in those articles. The versions you created are not. If you'd like to discuss this me further, I'd be happy to; just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned by others on this page you should not alter referenced info to look like it is saying something that it is not. If you want to add info about his beliefs in the past - with references - that is fine. But do not try to rewrite his recent words. MarnetteD | Talk 21:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your experimenting in the WP:SANDBOX. when you are finished then you may enter it into the article currently you are attempting to put words in his mouth that he did not say in the Mar 2011 interview. MarnetteD | Talk 21:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Matt Stone. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MarnetteD | Talk 21:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to John James Audubon, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Human Centipede (First Sequence) with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:The Human Centipede (First Sequence). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. It doesn't matter how much you dislike the article, that doesn't give you the right to attack contributors. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

It doesn't matter how upset or passionate you are about an issue, that is no excuse to vandalize, soapbox, attack other editors, or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia. I've blocked you for 24 hours to prevent further disruption. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

think about it

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CatholicW (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Trying to help society and keep wikipedia from being banned from multiple countries is a good thing

Decline reason:

You've devolved to attacking and harassing others and blatantly vandalizing. No admin in their right mind is going to unblock you, myself included. –MuZemike 04:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

FTR remember this? WP:IAR --CatholicW (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. How about WP:VANDAL, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:DE and WP:NPA? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No admin in their right mind"?

Isn't that a personal attack?

--CatholicW (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if someone unblocks you - the implication would be that that person would not be in their right mind. Attacking this hypothetical person is not as serious as attacking a named contributor. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at James Cameron, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. With this edit you seem to have resumed your edit warring over Cameron's atheism, an activity for which you have previously been warned. In view of your very recent block, this kind of behavior is highly inadvisable. Favonian (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

I've blocked you from editing for a day, owing to content blanking at Kim Jong Il. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake

And changed it right back

I've unblocked, but you should heed the warning below. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I seem to still be blocked. --CatholicW (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was the autoblock, which I've also lifted. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop now.

I notice that you've extended your pov-pushing on atheists and catholics to a new dimension: Labelling evil people as atheists, regardless of what sources say - cf [1] [2] &c. Stop this now. You might well believe that Catholicism is Good and Atheism is Bad, but it is not appropriate to distort wikipedia articles to further that message. This is supposed to be an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was sourced

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CatholicW (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It sourced I don't know why it didn't show better

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for the block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I just got a second one to when I got blocked.

http://books.google.com/books?id=TiZf7AeIyvAC&pg=PA100&dq=Kim+Jong+Il+atheism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j8PuTrf1EuOkiQL16_juAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Kim&f=false

--CatholicW (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a third source.

http://books.google.com/books?id=baRrfmjDnbYC&pg=PA37&dq=kim+jong+il+atheist&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RsTuTq_NLaTSiAKLn93TBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=atheist&f=false --CatholicW (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are reliable. Either way, you edit warred over this. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

blocked for edit warring

Given your contribution history and earlier warnings about this, I've blocked you from editing for 72 hours because you have edit warred over an atheism category at Kim Jong Il (moreover, the source you cited in the latest edit does not support the assertion, nor would that source tend to be taken as reliable on this topic). Gwen Gale (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"the latest edit does not support the assertion, nor would that source tend to be taken as reliable on this topic"

Are you sure?

USA International Business Publications sounds like a respectable group.

Title Korea North General Secretary Kim Jong Il World Political Leaders Library Author USA International Business Publications Editor USA International Business Publications Publisher Int'l Business Publications, 2002 ISBN 0739711970, 9780739711972 Subjects Political Science › Political Process › Leadership

Biography & Autobiography / Presidents & Heads of State Political Science / Political Process / Leadership

FTR It was very nice of you to reverse your last suspension so I don't want you to get banned for suspending me for doing the right thing and adding facts to wikipedia. --CatholicW (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for edit warring. As an aside, no, "USA International Business Publications" may sound to you like a respectable name and they may indeed be respectable, one way or another, but I'm not aware of any hint that they're ever meaningfully cited anywhere as a reliable source on the theistic outlooks of Asian politicians and/or leaders. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At what point did my improvements become edit warring?

--CatholicW (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a warning today by the other editor above, along with this one by me. I should also say, given your background on this topic and the lack of reliable sourcing, there is unlikely to be a consensus that your edits were improvements. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darn I missed your suggestion that we talk about this at the end of your long post.

As for the other editor (not you) I call AID's an infectious disease even if some with it don't like it when I state fact.

You really might want to reconsider considering USA International Business Publications not respectable enough to cite they seem to be very respectable [3]. --CatholicW (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This warning by the other editor had nothing to do with AIDS, it had to do with you adding the atheist category to Kim Jong Il. An Amazon listing neither makes a publication "respectable," nor reliable as a source. Either way, "respectable" is not at all the same thing as reliable as to sourcing. You were blocked for trying to add those categories three times today. That's edit warring, which isn't allowed here. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources did not verify your claim and this third one is clearly just forking some revision of our article. Misuse of sources is worse than lack of citations. Prolog (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USA International Business Publications

In case you missed (or decide to miss) the discussion above, the discussion at Talk:Kim_Jong-il#USA_International_Business_Publications or the response to your question at the reliable sources noticeboard, this is not a reliable source. Please do not use it again. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]