User talk:Contaldo80/Archive 3

We're on Twitter!

Hello Contaldo80!
Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk)

For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.

Improvements for LGBT in the Middle East

Hi, Contaldo! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for contributing!

I appreciate your desire to work on LGBT in the Middle East. If you don't mind, I took a look at your submitted paragraph and I am going to ask you to do the following:

Say who determined/decided the Middle East was the "worst" area to be LGBT - That is an opinion statement and it needs to be qualified by a verified statement from an NGO or a notable expert. If is your personal opinion it is Wikipedia:Original research which is not allowed on here
How and why is it the worst? How is that determined? The reasons must come straight from the sources. Trying to do Wikipedia:Synthesis (taking contents of two sources and making an original interpretation not supported by either source) is also considered Original Research

I also took the liberty of restoring the Klauda paragraph. You did not give a reason why it should be removed. I believe it should stay because of the sourced commentary on how Middle Eastern LGBT attitudes were influenced by late 19th/early 20th century European attitudes.

If you have any questions, contact me by typing {{ping|WhisperToMe}.

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I didn't add the material you mention above. I just moved it around, so if you think it can't be substantiated then take it out. I took out the Klauda sentence as it didn't really seem to make much sense. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from LGBT in Islam into Mehmed the Conqueror. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't distort sources to make someone look more gay

Please, don't distort sources, that you add yourself, to make Kobylianska look more lesbian than she really was. You add words that are not in the source (there is no claim the correspondence was "romantic", and there is no claim about "preventing living openly together", etc.). You also write that Ihor Kostetsky believed that "Kobylianska was lesbian", while the source that you added just said that he only "suggested" that their "relationship was lesbian". It's not quite the same. Moreover, you totally ignored the fact that same book also states that "there was probably little or no physical contact between the two women".
Also, please don't delete sources that prove that Kobylyanska was not quite lesbian and actually fell in love with multiple men (even if the sources are in Ukrainian). Unless you can show me the rule that prevents using Ukrainian sources.
Don't delete my {{fact}} request for sources. It's still unclear which personal experiences became the basis for Valse melancolique. (It could not be her relationship with Lesia, since the two only met three years later.)

In general, it's quite strange that you, apparently, don't know any of the writer's biography, but you go as far as to add words from your head that totally distort the writer's life and her tender friendly relationship with Lesia Ukrainka. It's like the only thing that interests you is to make her look more lesbian. --Amakuha (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not retract your comments then I will issue a formal complaint against you. Specifically claims that I have deliberately distorted the sources to promote a personal agenda. And frankly who are you to say that the picture is "too lesbian" - did you personally know the woman? I've explained why english sources are preferred - so make the effort to find them. Kostetsky's "suggestion" of lesbianism is semantics. I haven't ignored the additional material that suggests no physical contact - I wasn't aware of it. So don't accuse me of totally ignoring anything. Besides which this is point is made elsewhere in the paragraph. "Personal experiences" refer in general - they aren't linked to any one specific moment in time. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

By this edit you deleted all information that I added, even from your own sources. What's the point? --Amakuha (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a platform for revisionist political activism

In regards to a number of articles, but especially Áed Dub mac Suibni, you need to stop trying to promote the revisionist agenda that these people were somehow "LGBT". All you have provided as proof is a polemic account of one of his opponents Adomnán of Iona in his Life of Saint Columba, where he is attacking the King and the rival religious institution he was connected to at Tiree, by claiming he is a "bloody murderer" and attempting to cast him as immoral. It is pure synthesis to start adding LGBT categories to such articles. Any claims made by Adomnán (who was born decades after Aodh's death) need to be contained within quotation marks, not presented as objective fact. Claíomh Solais (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get lost you irritating little nobody. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I imagine that little old thing called accountability is irritating to a single-issue editor, but I suggest you remain civil. Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accountability? To who? To you? I've come across loads of poor editors over the years. Congratulations - you've already made the top ten!Your shining sword is pretty blunt. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accountability to basic standards such as referencing and the attribution of controversial claims to specific people in quotation marks where appropriate, rather than just presenting them as fact. You're not very good at this whole civility thing as you? I don't find such snipes very constructive. Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Attribution of controversial claims to specific people in quotation marks". I don't think you have a clue what you're talk about. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Herbert Ganado. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply going to the talk page to discuss a dispute isn't enough, you also need to stop edit warring yourself. In particular, calling your opponent's edits vandalism is a sure-fire way to get blocked as it gives us little confidence you understand the edit-warring policies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How long have I temporarily been blocked for? It's not clear. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours. However, if you can convince me that the block is superfluous and no longer required, I'll unblock. The closest scenario I can think of from my own experience is Talk:Graham Chapman/Archive 1#Categories, which I eventually just threw my hands up in the air and thought "you know what, it's just a category, nobody really cares". That seems to work well. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I hope you realise that the other editor that you just blocked has circumvented you by using IP 5.170.197.116 and has just made some edits to Robert Sarah. You will see that they are based in Venice. I think this is an editor that is deliberately tracking my edit history to amend my edits on the grounds they present too positive a view of homosexuality (hence the edits to Walter Kasper, Benvenuto Cellini and Herbert Ganado). Note the change from "LGBT rights" to "LGBT ideology" and you will see that I'm not being that paranoid about my earlier concerns on neutrality and failure to act in good faith. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well personally I don't think "rights" vs "ideology" prevents me from understanding what the article is talking about, so I would leave it be for the minute, and see if anyone else reverts. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll take your advice and be hands off for the time-being. Although "ideology" is a very loaded term and intended to suggest that LGBT people are not automatically entitled to human rights. There isn't really such a thing a LGBT ideology and none of the sources refer to it. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Contaldo80 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you. Please can I have this temporary block re-considered. I acknowledge that I exceeded the 3RR and apologise for that but was conscious of trying to avoid edit-warring - hence the appeal to adminsitrators. In my defence I was responding to an editor that is (i) unregistered (ii) has edited this article and others (Benvenuto Cellini) in the same way using different IP addresses based in Venice (iii) failed to engage reasonably on talk or justify the removal of the categories beyond a superficial and cursory justification. That's why frankly I viewed the edits as pretty close to vandalism. Having dealt with the issue of homosexuality on many article pages I have also come across many instances of where editors remove material with no justification because the subject is seen by many as a contentious one. If the editor has made the case first that the category were problematic (for whatever reason) then that would have given me more confidence that the edits were intended to be constructive. However, I accept that on occasions it's good for me to learn a lesson and be careful about 3RR - so will abide by the decision if that's what's needed. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Fine by me; I accept this was a one-off and things got a bit over-heated. Happens to us all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but the same editor (still in Venice) has then gone under IP 5.170.193.229 as well as 5.170.197.116 (as above) to amend articles on Walter Kasper, Godfred Danneels, and Cormac Murphy-O'Connor to link them to the highly dubious St. Gallen Group. I think they're making a mockery of wikipedia. I'd welcome your advice as if I revert the amendments then it's going to end in another edit-war.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 5.170.193.229 for 48 hours as blatant block evasion. 5.170.197.116 has only got the one edit at the moment, so I will leave that be for the minute. If they jump IPs again, I'll consider a range block. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dark-World25. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to John Chrysostom have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dark-World25 (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass. Hello Contaldo80. As one of the most prolific editors of the Edward II of England article, would you mind leaving a comment or a !vote as to whether King who died with a hot poker up the ass should be deleted? Thanks. --Nevé –selbert 13:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aelred of Rievaulx, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint John (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Sarah article

I think you may have been under the impression that I added the word "legalization" to the title of the section for Sarah. I actually removed it. Please check back to make sure you didn't misunderstand. Display name 99 (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mistake. I thought it was legislation anyway. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...surely wrong

I'm such a plonker! There goes what little credibility I had... Haploidavey (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. I'm afraid I've been a bit heavy-handed in my criticisms. Mainly because I'm annoyed at editors such as Clive Sweeting who are pushing some sort of political agenda. Thanks for your help and suggestions! It's good now. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Contaldo80. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raymond Leo Burke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northern League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

If you make such comments as "You need to see a therapist" again I will be forced to report you for breaching WP:CIVILITY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael O'hara (talk • contribs) 14:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 24 hours. You are welcome to resume editing in a respectful manner, once your block expires. --Yamla (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear if you were informed of the discussion at WP:ANI. It's currently available here. I mention this because you should have been informed. Also, because a number of other editors noted that you were somewhat baited, here. --Yamla (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging - no, I wasn't aware. Looking at the guidance on blocking for incivility - it suggests it should rarely be used, but I'll leave you to judge whether you've been a bit quick off the mark. "Blocking for incivility is possible when incivility causes serious disruption. However, the civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon and blocking should not be the first option in most cases....his is not to say that blocking for incivility should not or cannot happen, but immediate blocking is generally reserved for cases of major incivility, where incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing" To be honest I'm happy to endure the block if it means I don't have to stand down from my earlier comments. I have dealt with Claimh Solais on a number of different articles and his editing is extremely polemical and non constructive. In many cases his descriptions of individuals/ groups (particularly LGBT) is deliberately offensive. He is playing out his personal issues and prejudices and I am serious that he needs to deal with them rather than mess about with wikipedia. I didn't think Michael O'hara was likewise acting in good faith in censuring me- he's an editor with a history suggesting an interest in the religious right (an interest in creationism). If he regards me as an editor pushing a "pro-LGBT agenda" then he'll want to make me look unreasonable as far as he can. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what being blocked means. Yes, you do still have to 'stand down' from your earlier comments. They are completely unacceptable and you will be blocked if you make them again. Civility is key here, and if you can't abide by that, the door is that way. --Tarage (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tarage - I'm afraid I don't know who you are and I really don't care. Any further discussion on this issue I will have only with an administrator. I find you coming to my talk page and posting your comments extremely impertinent. Keep your advice on doors to yourself. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the poster child for WP:ICANTHEARYOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.9.139 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to you I'm also the "poster child" for WP:I'MNOTLISTENINGTOYOU Contaldo80 (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carlo Carafa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained revert in Gay concentration camps in Chechnya

Hi Contaldo80, if for some reason you don't agree with this edit, please explain why in the article's talk page. Some statements in the article were attributed to Novaya Gazeta, but they were actually sourced by unrelated websites (advocate.com), which is against policy. WP:SWYRT says that a statement should be attributed to a source only if the reference can directly verify its origin.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let's maybe discuss this issue on the article talk page rather than my personal talk-page. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need, seems like it was a case of a misleading edit summary ('Undid revision 815934517 by Underlying lk'), I have nothing against attributing a source if the correct reference is used, the current version is fine. Cheers,--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No actually - I find it really quite irritating when editors to come to my personal talk-page to discuss an article edit. This creates a problem in terms of transparency as other editors won't be easily able to follow the thread. Such discussions are most sensibly done on the article talk-page. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Celsus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eclectic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KofC

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

WP:3RR

Reverting two people won't work see WP:3RR this is a required warning. -- GreenC 14:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christel von Zinzendorf

Are you aware of the history and rehabilitated reputation of the Austro-Saxon nobleman, Count Christel von Zinzendorf, aka "the wife of the Sidewound of Christ"? Fascinating! Despite the deliberate campaign to efface him from history for centuries, he deserves a closer look than my Wikipedia interests allow: Whatever other contemporaries and subsequent generations thought of him, he seems to have been deeply loved by his family, adored by his community, and followed like the Pied Piper into exploration of the spirituality of sexuality by devout adherents. But careful, to find him one must wade deep into turbulent religious waters... FactStraight (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Clap

I just noticed that you directly copied the last two sentences of the Introduction without attribution. This makes it a copyright violation. I've fixed it up but do you know of any others you may have done? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruskewitz

I would encourage you to set out your arguments on the talk page relating to this arti cle - rather than intervening ad-hoc in an ongoing debate. Thank you. 32.218.32.56 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks are you returning my comments to you? Somewhat amateurish. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?

Please be more careful about insulting the intelligence of other editors by expecting them to believe that you obviously intended to say is somehow not really what you meant. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church and homosexuality

Regarding the Catholic Church and homosexuality article, please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, where it states, "At minimum, this means providing an edit summary at the destination page – that is, the page into which the material is copied – stating that content was copied, together with a link to the source (copied-from) page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution." Your edit here did not provide such attribution. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll remember it for future. But it looked fairly obvious to me as the main article was cited in the body of the text form which the material was moved. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your consideration. This is important because the text of Wikipedia is copyrighted. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - noted. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it compulsory? Contaldo80 (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you blank content within articles without providing an edit summary, users typically have the right to revert those edits as unexplained blanking and/or changes. It is not compulsory, but it is good form to leave edit summaries, which also serve to explain what you are doing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, my last edit to Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues does have an edit summary. It said "We need to find a better way to handle this material as it's simply apologetics as it's currently presented. Not specific to the article"?! Contaldo80 (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five of your edits on 6 July 2018 that involved content removal had no edit summaries. The edit summary you state above does not appear to be about these other edits at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear you're messaging me today about "recent edits" that actually occurred on 6 July? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes. Also, I am concerned that you could theoretically be attempting to limit content in these types of articles per your own preferences, and without edit summaries, this is what others may also think. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I can't yet see that you're posted the same reminder on editor User:Briancua's talk page for the same thing. Is it just me that needs the intervention? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See diff. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great - thanks. Wouldn't want to think I'd been singled out for any particular reason. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also: link. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link rot

When you add sources, can you please use one of the appropriate templates, or at least provide a full citation? Just pasting a URL leads to WP:LINKROT. Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scare quotes edit warring

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BrianCUA (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this section of the noticeboard as "Warned". The talk page discussion at Knights of Columbus does show consensus against the quotation marks and so they should not be re-added (at either article) until consensus changes. DrKay (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well the "consensus" would do wouldn't it. It's an article monitored and contributed to be conservative catholics! Contaldo80 (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not ...

... I don't remove anything a second time. But you should never add anything a second time, to avoid edit warring. I only tried to help. It's called WP:BRD as you probably know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't help at all. You came in ill-informed. Try harder next time. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's work together

I'd like to work collaboratively with you to improve articles that are of mutual interest to us. However, you have a very aggressive editing style. Could I ask you to please WP:AGF, and to discuss content rather than contributors? Making comments like accusing me of having difficulty with reading comprehension, or accusing me of being deliberately obfuscative are not helpful. I will try to do better as well. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. Ok - can you point to any edits you have made which can be regarded as critical in any way of the Catholic church or its teachings? If you can then we can proceed on the basis of good faith. I'm quite happy to be collaborative. But I won't tolerate any editing that I think is a lazy excuse for religious apologetics. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not to be critical or praising. The point is to write in an NPOV manner. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which you do not do. You went to great pains to claim that Ratzinger is against "gay-bashing" but then did not put in any of the language where he suggested that violence was sometimes inevitable. You are not approaching the subject neutrally. You think I have seen scores of Catholic apologist editors over the years? Each one as tiresome as the next. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Westminster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Contaldo80. You have new messages at WP:ANI.
Message added 19:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Swarm ♠ 19:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate whether you're willing to be agreeable to a voluntary resolution. If you don't, you will likely be issued a formal warning. Swarm ♠ 19:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I point of clarification I have committed to "toning down the incivility, refraining from personal commentary, refraining from deleting sourced content when doing so is controversial, relying more on consensus-building and dispute resolution, reporting problematic behavior to administrators, assuming good faith even with those you disagree with, being receptive to criticisms and feedback without becoming hostile." This seems sensible and reasonable, and while I have generally tried to take this approach (as the vast bulk of edits demonstrate), I accept that on occasion I have not met the standards expected and therefore commit to endeavor to try harder going forward. For the benefit of other editors, however, it is important to note that I have not received a block or a formal warning. I hope nevertheless that editors keep me to the high standards expected. But at the same time I will ensure that other editors are likewise held to those same high standards. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Catholic Church and homosexuality. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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.

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. Those were not punctuation. Those were WP:SCAREQUOTES and you have been warned about this before. Meters (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meters - looking at the edit history of this article on 30 August you reverted the edits of another editor simply stating "scare quotes". I restored the previous version and set out the argument above on the article talk page and asking for thoughts to agree a constructive way forward. On 31 August you reverted these changes again simply giving the justification "This is not punctuation. There are WP:SCAREQUOTES". You left no comments on the article talk-page responding to my concerns. However, you did leave a note on my personal talk-page warning me about making disruptive edits, needing to seek consensus, and suggesting that I would be blocked if I persisted. I note that you the quotation marks have now been restored by a third editor. Guidance in relation to WP:SCAREQUOTES states that "Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing herself or himself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. The use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be considered carefully." I have set out the argument that the term "acts" is not an obvious term and has an interpretation specific to Church teaching. The emphasis is therefore important. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to post the same thing on both your talk page and the article page. I've responded there. As for why I didn't respond on the talk page, it was because you failed to add header. I saw your summary, looked at the talk page, but missed the new thread. buried int he old one.

I stand by my warning. Implying that homosexuals are not people by using emphasis on the word "people" in "Catholic teaching condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral, while holding that gay people..." is unacceptable. Meters (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meters - I suggest you take a step back please and resist from being so confrontational. You are not an administrator and so you will not give me a warning thank you. I am free to post the same response on the article talk page and the article page. I did this because frankly there was no need for you to post on my talk-page in the first place when you could have addressed the issue on the article page. I guess you missed the conversation and decided to come direct to me. My fault for not including a heading. I must confess that I missed the fact that quotation marks had been added by an editor around "people". I agree this is not appropriate, and it's clear from my edit history that I have never implied that homosexual (gay?) people are not people. My argument instead relates to "acts". Can I suggest that we could have resolved this more quickly if you had expressed your argument at the start in a less defensive way. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And may I suggest that you reread your recent 3RR and ANI threads?

I do not have to be an admin to post a warning to your page for a clearly inappropriate edit, one which even you now admit was inappropriate. It is not appropriate for you to tell me that I "will not give you a warning" because I am not an admin. You free to delete it, but clearly I have given you the warning.

I do not agree that the italics on "acts" serve any useful purpose either. Meters (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well why not argue the case in a cool and reasoned way on the article talk-page rather than trying to intimidate me with warnings. I did not make an inappropriate edit and have not admitted as much. The recent 3RR warning you refer to is on an unrelated subject area and the ANI you mention did not lead to a warning or a block. Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scare quotes were definitely mentioned, and homosexuality, and your tendentious editing. Meters (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of tendentious editing was not upheld in the ANI. There was no claim of tendentious editing in the 3RR case. The claim of scare-quotes was made on the 3RR in relation to "culture of life" and not "homosexuality". I'm afraid I find your editing style somewhat confrontational. Can I ask you again to take a step back and debate the issues in a reasoned way on the relevant article talk-page. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, I am discussing the article issue on the article's talk page.You're the one who started discussing this on both pages. I'm done discussing your behavior here. I stand by my removal of the material, I stand by my right to leave a warning on your talk page, and I stand by the content of my warning. Meters (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have found your style hostile, aggressive and confrontational. It is also clear that you are on the border-line of EDIT-WARRING (reverting material three times and giving cursory justification for doing so). If you don't take a more collaborative approach and assume WP:GOODFAITH then it will be me making the next warning. Thanks again. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]