User talk:Cr7777777

This Wikipedia entry is slander: "He has been outspoken on the threat posed to Christianity by ... those seeking equal rights for those that are gay."

In fact, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (Point 2358 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm)

This slander against Cardinal Sarah should be replaced with an unbiased description, such as "He has been outspoken on the threat posed to Christianity by ... those redefining marriage."

CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE: "He has been outspoken on the threat posed to Christianity by ... those destroying real marriage."
UNBIASED: "He has been outspoken on the threat posed to Christianity by ... those redefining marriage."
ANTI-CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE: "He has been outspoken on the threat posed to Christianity by ... those seeking equal rights for those that are gay."

The use of the term "threat" suggests serious bias. And even Sarah hasn't claimed the threat is posed to Christianity but rather tha family. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, How do we fix this page?

Cr7777777, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Cr7777777!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Robert Sarah because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Robert Sarah, you may be blocked from editing. GAB^Hello! 01:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop misrepresenting Cardinal Sarah's position. The projection of your opinion into the cardinal's description amounts to slander.Cr7777777 (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Slander" isn't really a term we use on wikipedia. If there is certain wiki guidance that hasn't been followed then more helpful to highlight that. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia entry misrepresents Cardinal Sarah's position: "He is also a critic of... growth of LGBT rights" The term "growth of LGBT rights" is not used by Cardinal Sarah, but is projected by the editor. This misrepresentation betrays a bias that violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and amounts to slander. I corrected the misrepresentation by replacing it with the Cardinal Sarah's direct quote in question, and provided a source.

It is also worth noting that editor who insists on rephrasing the cardinal's words admits to not understanding the quote to begin with.

Please note that you have now been referred to the Administrator's noticeboard for violating the 3:RR rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Contaldo80 (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article about a person from a neutral point of view does not mean writing it to reflect the view that that person would prefer, as you seem to think.
Adding the words "LGBT's deconstruction of marriage and attack on chastity" to an article is a not writing from a neutral point of view: it is promoting an opinion, and a highly contentious one at that.
I suggest you check what the United States law on slander actually says before accusing other editors of infringing that law.
Wikipedia works by collaboration, and when editors disagree they should try to seek consensus by discussion, not try to force their own preferred version through. Simply repeating your preferred edits over and over again in the face of other editors reverting them, known as "edit-warring", is regarded as disruptive, and if continued can lead to being blocked from editing, to prevent further disruption. You may like to read Wikipedia's edit-warring policy. In particular, please note that being convinced that you are right does not grant exemption from that policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is describing a person's point of view, using the person's actual words is appropriate, especially when the meaning of the words is contested. Rewording the speaker's quote in a contentious way by someone who admittedly does not understand the quote is clearly inappropriate.
As I suggested in the talk pages, rather than using the words "LGBT's deconstruction of marriage and attack on chastity" or the words "He is also a critic of... growth of LGBT rights" (which is a biased misrepresentation), the most neutral point of view in describing the cardinal's position would be to use his own words.
I used "slander" in the general sense of making false and damaging statements about someone.
Regarding Wikipedia's edit-warring policy, it should also be noted that Ezium23 and Mean as custard had also attributed the direct quote before Contaldo80 repeatedly modified it with his own wording.

Cr7777777 (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting a person's views in their own words is not presenting them from an unbiased or neutral point of view: it is presenting them from that person's point of view. Very often, people's own presentation of themselves is heavily biased, especially in the case of people who express contentious and controversial points of view. Wikipedia does not exist in order to publicise people's own way of viewing themselves: that is what people's own web sites, Facebook pages, etc etc are for. Wikipedia policy is that we present them as they are shown in most reliable third party, independent sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia sentence in question is attempting to describe the position Cardinal Sarah staked out in his speech at the recent Synod. The most neutral way to inform readers of Cardinal Sarah's position is to quote him directly on the matter. A biased editor should not reword the cardinal's quote in a contentious way that misrepresents the cardinal's view. Cr7777777 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you set out here nice and clearly what a "western homosexual ideology" is. Assume a reader doesn't know what this term means - what do you understand by it? Here's your chance to enlighten us. If Sarah's comments are so easy to understand then the task shouldn't be hard. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nutshell

In a nutshell, Cardinal Sarah is critical of the threats to family and chastity.

Your words that Cardinal Sarah "is also a critic of ... the growth of LGBT rights" is a biased misrepresentation. In fact, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (Point 2358 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm)

Summary and Full Text

If you want a translation of original text along with a short summary of the remarks, see here: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-sarahs-intervention-isis-and-gender-ideology-are-like-apocalyptic-/

In Depth / Background

If you want an in depth understanding of the cardinal's remarks, familiarize yourself with the Catholic Catechism found here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM Cr7777777 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the language of the catechism thanks. What I've asked you to do is explain in your own words what is emant by a "Western homosexual ideology". You've avoided doing that again and again and again. Because you really can't say, can you? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in a nutshell, Cardinal Sarah is critical of the threats to family and chastity. One of the threats to family and chastity could be understood as the ideology in the West to willfully define oneself by one's hostility to chasity. One way this ideology may manifest itself for example may be through a gay activist who slanders religious leaders who promote chastity. I suggest revisiting the Cathechism to get a better understanding of Cardinal Sarah's address. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM Cr7777777 (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cr7777777. You have new messages at GeneralizationsAreBad's talk page.
Message added 15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

GAB^Hello! 15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether I will be able to explain this point in a way that you will understand, since you seem to have failed to understand it in the past, but I will try. An "unbiased" account of a person's position does not mean "an account which reflects the view that person wishes to convey": that is an account which is biased towards that person's preferred view. Wikipedia's policy is to convey accounts in accordance with what mainstream independent sources say. If you disagree with that policy, you are free to propose that we change it, so that instead Wikipedia will in future serve as a medium for publicising the views that people wish to have publicised about themselves. That will, of course, radically change the whole nature of Wikipedia. Unless and until the policy is changed, however, your attempts to get Wikipedia to reflect Robert Sarah's own view of what he does is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, since you were warned about edit-warring, you have edited the article on which you were edit-warring without logging in, using a proxy server. Edit-warring is no more acceptable if you don't use your account to do it than if you do, so you have been blocked from editing for three days. When the block is over, you are welcome to contribute to the encyclopaedia, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you believe there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Cr7777777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First, I have not edited anything but the talk page since I've been warned. Second, I am always logged in before editing. The couple of times that I hit save before adding my signature, I followed up within a minute or two by adding my signature. Finally, what are you talking about using a proxy server? I always go directly to Wikipedia. Cr7777777 (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Regardless of our sockpuppetry policy regarding multiple accounts, you appear to have a highly vested, single-purpose intention of advancing a single point of view on Robert Sarah that has persisted for several weeks. We're mainly looking for reassurance that you understand our various policies and guidelines, including those related to edit warring and neutral point of view. --slakr^\ talk / 03:13, 6 November 2015 (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.

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).

Cr7777777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The accusation that I made edits after being warned was false. The sockpuppetry accusation was false. I'm not sure where the "highly vested" accusation comes from but I now see accusations need no merit here! The only other edit I ever made to Wikipedia in the past was to the TLS page with a work account. Finally the real reason comes out that I am being blocked because I am attempting to weed out an edit-warrior's poitical commentary from an article. Please unblock so I can help to restore the Robert Sarah page to a neutral point of view. Cr7777777 (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request makes it clear that you don't understand why you were blocked and would likely continue making the same edits if unblocked. If those edits continue after this block expires, the next block will be for a significantly longer duration. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:51, 6 November 2015 (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.

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).

Cr7777777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I assumed that I was being blocked for the clear and explicit reason stated by the administrator, namely "you have edited the article on which you were edit-warring without logging in, using a proxy server... so you have been blocked from editing for three days."

If that stated reason is not the real reason, can you help me understand why I am being blocked? Are you actually saying that Gay Star is a mainstream publication that provides neutral commentary about spiritual leaders promoting chastity? Cr7777777 (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The stated reason is the real reason. POV-pushing doesn't help. Huon (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2015 (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.

You were edit-warring: you were warned that continuing to do so would lead to being blocked. You then stopped editing the article, and someone starts editing it without logging into an account, using a proxy server. That person posts content to the article pushing the same view as you were pushing. In the five years that the article has existed, nobody has pushed the same point before, as far as I can see. Funny coincidence that someone should start doing so immediately after you were warned about a likely block. Funny that he or she used a proxy server to do so. The probability that this would happen by chance is negligible.
A word of advice: in the nearly five and a half years that I have been a Wikipedia administrator, I doubt that I have ever seen an unblock request succeed which accuses the blocking administrator of secretly blocking for a different reason than stated. You may therefore like to consider editing the unblock request to remove that: it's up to you.
To ask to be unblocked so that you can continue with the edit-warring to impose your version of the article is extremely unlikely to get you unblocked. In fact, continuing to show that your purpose here is to impose your preferred point of view on an article, against consensus, far from being likely to get you unblocked, is likely to lead to an indefinite block.
Can you clarify what you mean by editing "with a work account"? Do you mean you have two accounts, one of which you use at work? Do you mean that the place where you work has a shared account? Either way, can you please tell us what the account's username is? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my end, I mean that I edited the TLS page with an account that is no longer active because it was not linked to my current personal email address. After that account went away, I created this account with my current personal email. You can understand why I'm hesitant now to trust Wikipedia administrators and give out more info. You almost sound like you're bullying me.

Just to clarify your end, are you saying that Gay Star is a mainstream publication that provides neutral commentary about spiritual leaders promoting chastity? Cr7777777 (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Gay Star News is a reliable source is an arguable point, but essentially the same quote also occurs in the National Catholic Register (your ref no.3) which is unquestionably reliable. Your point therefore fails. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The National Catholic Register does not say or imply that Cardinal Sarah is "a critic of the growth of LGBT rights". That line is biased political commentary and judgmental language that violates the neutral point of view policy.Cr7777777 (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

If you want to make a complaint about my editing and argue that I have broken the rules of wikipedia in some way then you should do this via the right channels - administrators pages etc. It is not, however, appropriate to set out your complaint in great detail on a specific article page as that is going significantly off-topic. I have therefore removed your latest set of comments from Robert Sarah article. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to talk this out on the talk page before restoring the article to a neutral point of view. Please stop your disruptive editing by deleting the points I raise or I will report you to the administrators. Contaldo80, do you consider your following commentary to be neutral language? "He played a lead role in rejecting attempts to ensure more welcoming language toward people that are gay or divorced."Cr7777777 (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Go ahead and please report. (2) Yes. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Robert Sarah with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oshwah. I had been explaining why I keep re-adding my edit. [1][2]. Please do not hide the well documented fact that Charamsa is a fired Vatican official without citing your sources that this well documented fact is incorrect. Thanks. Cr7777777 (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. 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 appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. slakr^\ talk / 02:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Cr7777777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The cited source is mostly known for being a fired Vatican official. Wikipedia should not censor that information. Cr7777777 (talk) 10:42 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

You should not edit war NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 3 December 2015 (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.

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).

Cr7777777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Calling out biased censorship. I tried to resolve the dispute [3] [4] [5] [6] rather than engage in edit-warring but whenever a cited source is identified as a fire Vatican official the information is censored. [7] [8] [9] [10]

The fact remains that any edits identifying Charamsa as a fired Vatican official, which is a well documented fact, is censored by a few political activists on Wikipedia.

Cr7777777 (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That isn't an excuse to edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2015 (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.

Biased editing

Dear Cr7777777, I am sorry that your experience on Wikipedia has been so bad. One of the challenges for editors here is to learn the rules and abide by them while editing collaboratively. This is unfortunately a challenge too great for many good-faith editors and they are blocked, or even give up and drift away. It is clear to me after years of editing here that it is better to be persistent and play by the unwritten rules than to stick your neck out and fight the wrong battles with the wrong weapons. Yes, unwritten rules. Wikipedia has a large roster of supposed policy and guidelines, but some of the most important ones are subverted by a systemic bias and agenda-driven alliances of editors. Even if you were to stay here, and constructively contribute to many articles, you would be unlikely to make a tiny drop of difference in the face of overwhelming opposition by the most adept long-term POV-pushers. After years of hoping that justice would be served, I finally "got the hint" about what Wikipedia really stands for and what it simply won't support. That signal was sent loud and clear by the ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Esoglou had thousands of edits over six years and had contributed to Catholic topic areas in good faith, and often did his work quietly in undisturbed corners of the site, but where he found opposition he was unwilling to back down or compromise, and his opponents pushed his buttons appropriately and caused him to act out in unsavory ways, and these shortcomings were the ones that earned him a site ban. The lesson of this story is illegitimi non carborundum. If you intend to make a difference, play nicely, learn all the rules (not just the ones written down) and choose your battles wisely. God bless. Elizium23 (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. For the record, I did not act out in unsavory ways as you say Esoglou did. I simply attempted to make modest edits to make an unfair article more neutral and had no luck. I'll look for ways to make a difference, but I think the cards are stacked here for these kinds of issues. Cr7777777 (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]