User talk:Cyrus Grisham

Hi, Cyrus Grisham, and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
To post an image try Wikipedia:Image tutorial, but remember to look out for copyright violations
Stay away from common mistakes
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or on my user talk page
Explore, be bold, and, most importantly, have fun!
Oh, and don't forget to tell something about yourself on your user page!

Good luck! Renata3 20:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

You haven't done anything wrong. I've unblocked the IP address you were using earlier. Unfortunately, it seems that someone else, probably at your university, was vandalizing Wikipedia by removing text from articles for no reason, and he/she appeared to have some sort of agenda, and had been committing the same kind of vandalism without reprieve for some time, so I blocked the address for a week.

Since you are using a more-or-less open network, you will probably run into this problem again. Unfortunately, there is no way in the current version of the software to block an IP address without also blocking the usernames that end up using the address after it's been blocked. This is usually referred to as "collateral damage". This problem is currently being worked on, as far as I know.

If you are blocked again in this way, your best course of action is to contact the blocking administrator by email. If the turnaround is too slow for you (as it probably was today – my apoologies, I have been very busy!) you can contact any administrator that has their email enabled. Explain the situation calmly and clearly and, if that particular admin is online, I'm sure they can help you out.

I hope this doesn't discourage you from editing too much. Vandalism is a serious problem on Wikipedia, and sometimes it's hard to tell if we will be blocking legitimate users from editing if we block a vandal's address.

Let me know if you have any questions, and happy editing! android 79 23:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work so far!

I wanted to thank you for your recent contributions (i.e. marker assisted selection). One pertinent comment would be that titles and subheadings should adhere to the following guideline, taken verbatim from the Wikipedia style manual: only the first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of proper nouns are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects) (see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles.2C_headings_and_sections for more info.). Thanks again. --Seans Potato Business 17:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THX. I "just" merged two articels together and searched for some wikilinks. OK, took me quite a while and yes as a German I sometimes use Capital letters (for me it looks just better, but I'll work on it :-) and just look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style :-) I'll never understand this... :-) ). Time to go to bed here. Talk to you. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Sapienza

I think your edit is slightly irrelevant, Ratzinger was going to give a speech as a religious, not a state leader. And that's what University staff opposed to. Abdullais4u (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS

There is evidence for providing condoms in decreasing transmission, but there is not evidence for abstinence education.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a new study about the effectiveness called Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Young Adolescents published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. The article Abstinence-only programs might work, study says in The Washington Post also quotes Nicholas Papas, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services: "No one study determines funding decisions, but the findings from the research paper suggest that this kind of project could be competitive for grants if there's promise that it achieves the goal of teen pregnancy prevention". And more importantly: "Kids receiving abstinence instruction did not use condoms less often than other kids, a possibility that critics occasionally raise. They also showed slightly better knowledge about the prevention of sexually transmitted disease.". MSNBC also has an article Abstinence ed, minus the morals, may work: Study finds long-term success in experimental abstinence-only approach about the abstinence-until-ready approach (!), not the abstinence-only-until-marriage thing. So there is some evidence that abstinence-until-ready might work a bit. Just telling people to use condoms alone is also a "failed" approch (if you cannot "force" them to use condoms, e.g. for prostitution), because there are to many who do not care about AIDS and other STIs (which is a real problem!) or problems which are mainly related to Africa :The Pope May Be Right. Anyway, I do support the distribution of condoms, however they will not solve the problem alone (high-risk sex, long-term partner or partners...) or did they in Arica or the District of Columbia [1]?. But this is not answering my question about "Prevention strategies". Any idea? --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: The Article "The pope may be right" is from Edward C. Green. I Also found an article in The EastAfrican called UNAids and myth of condoms efficacy against Aids which support my point that distribution of condomes alone won't do it. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the theological basis of the Catholic Church's opposition to condom use (and indeed any artifical contraception) and to underline its completely different reasoning to those scientists who argue that condom use on its own might not be the most effective means of combatting AIDS, you should read this: http://www.catholicsagainstcontraception.com/contraception_vs_abortion2.htm Haldraper (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Catholic Church and AIDS

This article is very poor at the moment, merely being a list of statements rather than covering or tackling the issues involved. Xandar 01:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. The article should be topic based rather than organized around individual Catholic personalities who have made statements on the topic. --Richard S (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is poor logic, I find. If we want to know about Jewish views on anything, we would cite a list of responsas from rabbis, and that would presumably correspond to the sect's views. These Cardinals are no different from chief rabbis, in that they present the opinions or philosophies of their peculiar religious group, which tend to build a type of consensus. It is a type of collegiality or conciliarity, if you like. Cf concept of ordinary magisterium. ADM (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well ADM, I'm not so sure that there is no difference between a Cardinal (Catholicism) and a Chief Rabbi. It's also new that there is something like a democracy in the Vatican. Have you ever read Petrine doctrine here in wikipedia? Here is a quote:The Petrine Doctrine is based upon Catholic tradition, which proclaims the legitimacy and supremacy of the Pope over all other bishops of the Catholic Church.. Maybe you should also read about the history of Humanae Vitae... This says it all. So, I think, the views of the cardinals are "not very important" and should be moved to another article or deleted. Anyway, I agree with Xandar and Richard. Richard edits were a step in the right direction and I strongly disagree with your revert. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your views on the papacy are inaccurate or exaggerated. Nothing in the Vatican can ever really occur without a consensus of Cardinals, and this is also true for things like Humanae Vitae, since Paul VI had initially consulted with a large number of senior Churchmen in the Curia. Vatican II proclaimed and observed collegiality, and this is what continues to prevail in the Church's teachings about birth control. The Catholic Church is nothing like a monarchy, this is a bleak caricature, it is more like an ancient aristocracy, like the American Senate, where conservative Senators can easily block changes even when a majority supports them. ADM (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Richards

Thanks for correcting and improving David Richards (British Army officer). I knew something was amiss but had to be quick, b/c of real-life pressure. Maybe you could update the Operation ?Palliser article too. cheers Earthlyreason (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's what wikipedia is about. Well, I would update the Operation Palliser, if I could (information and real-life pressure). Maybe someday... Best greetings from Germany --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2010 (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) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]