User talk:Invocante

May 2008

I'm writing you know to try to explain some basic concepts regarding wikipedia, and try to steer you towards a more productive path. It appears you have engaged in what we call edit warring. This is a form of disruptive editing where you continually try to force your preferred edits into an article. Doing so repetitively (or reverting the work of others) can result in loosing your editing privileges (see WP:3RR). According to WP:BRD, it is fine to make one bold edit. However, if another editor, in good faith, disagrees with your bold edit, the next step is not to re-insert the material you want in the article, but instead, go to the talk page and make a more in depth proposal which will hopefully generate thoughtful discussion which will lead to a consensus. On wikipedia, we work together as a community. Therefore, it is never appropriate to try to force you edits into articles when other editors disagree with you.

On top of that, on wikipedia, we take matters of copyright and verifiability very seriously. In order for the public to trust wikipedia (which anyone can edit), you must provide citations to reliable sources in order to make sure all content is verifiable by wikipedia standards. We also cannot accept text that is taken verbatim from a source. As an encyclopedia, we should strive to be concise and avoid long quotes from primary sources. We should also avoid stealing the work of others, always making sure we either quote text that isn't ours, or that we summarize and paraphrase our sources to avoid stealing.

If you have any more questions about any of this, feel free to ask at WP:HELP, or contact me. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew c has asked me to use your Talk page, not just edit summaries, to draw your attention to what seem to be copyright violations by you. Apart from printed sources that indicate that ICEL strongly opposes any publication of its copyright draft texts for a revised English translation of the Roman Missal, there indications also on the Internet. I have already drawn your attention to this site. You could also look at this and this. And you could read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but without getting it into trouble. Lima (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, and this is very important, what is the source for the text you would like to insert into the article? How can I verify that the text you are adding is from the ICEL.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You and I may fail to see what harm it does to publish these texts, but the copyright holder apparently does see harm in it and has the legal right to prevent publication. I have drawn your attention to three Websites that found they were obliged by law to cease presenting the texts. What holds for them surely holds for Wikipedia also. And if some other site continues to flout the law, that does not mean that Wikipedia can do the same.

I took the Gloria text down as soon as I found it. Yes, I did notice that it had been in Wikipedia for almost a year, but I think Wikipedia cannot be said to have thereby acquired any rights over it.

All I have found on the World Youth Day site is a sung refrain to accompany whatever version of the Gloria will be used. I must have missed the place where you say the new text is given. I would be grateful if you would kindly direct me to it. In any case, if the copyright holder has given someone permission to use the text, but objects to anyone else using it, Wikipedia still cannot use it. All Wikipedia can do is to give a link to the site that does have permission. Lima (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire text of the Gloria (and of the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei as well) can be found in the WYD08 Mass Parish Setting - Keyboard on that web page. You seem to misunderstand how copyright works it is perfectly legitimate to quote passages from any material that is in the public domain and provided authorship is acknowledged. For example, if I want to quote "Yesterday" by the Beatles or a passage from JK Rowling I am free to do so and they cannot stop me, you or Wikiipedia. Anyway if I were to apply the same logic to on what basis do you quote the existing 1973 ICEL or other liturgical texts? Have you obtained permission? I doubt it. I rpeat once material is public in can never be made private again. Coyright is not about restricting the freedom to quote (else there would be no scholarship about modern writings) about acknowledging authorship and, where appropriate making payments. But quoting in Wikkipedia is not for profit and my quoting fall within legitimate use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invocante (talk • contribs)

Thanks for indicating which of the links on the page you pointed me to is the one that provides (with some elaborations) the text of the Gloria that you put in Wikipedia. But in view of the opposition of ICEL to its general publication, I still doubt its legitimacy on Wikipedia. Lima (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I made my point strong enough. STOP EDIT WARRING. Unless you have talk page consensus to add the new content, it is entirely inappropriate to re-add disputed text to an article. If you continue, the article may be locked from editing, or you could even loose your editing privileges. Please continue discussing the matter on the article's talk page, and stop undoing the edits of others. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to make this remark as quietly as possible, so I am posting it here only. You know that the article is about English translations in current liturgical use. There is no certainty whatever that the text as voted by the US bishops in 2006 will ever be in current liturgical use anywhere, even in that country. It is at least possible that all English-speaking countries will have a uniform text, and that the US preferences will have failed to get support in other countries, clearance from the Vox Clara commission, and confirmation from the Holy See. I suspect you know this already. Lima (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Aberdeen in Ancient Universities of Scotland

Got a source for that recent addition? --Breadandcheese (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes the words of the Papal Bull of 1495. I know the history of Aberdeen Univeristy inside out.

Motives and actions

Once again I see you have suppresed the new ICEL translation. This translation is clearly something you must hate very much given the zeal with which you supress it. You are not the only Catholic contibutor to Wikkipedia but you see dettermined to purge any other person's contributions. Invocante (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is about versions "in current liturgical use", not about drafts for future use. Lima (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are now resting on a techicality. The article could just as easily include future use. I tried to esatblish an entry on future use but you supressed that too. You have entirely failed to answer the arguments I made above. Indeed the very concept of diadlogue seems to be alien to your nature.Invocante (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Invocante stopped making off-topic allegations about other editors' motives and actions. See here for the decision, in which I played no part, by which that article was deleted as a copyright violation. Lima (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lima, it would be helpful if you would answer my objections to your objections, but this you repeatedly fail to do. Instead you persistently and unilaterally delete my entry without addressing my arguments. If you paid me the courtesy of replying to my arguments then perhaps I would not doubt your motives. But basically your modus operandi is never apologise, never explain, delete at will, write what you want. And to repeat if copyright violation is the issue you should remove the various modern translations which you have quoted without permission, failure to do so can be seen as at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical. Invocante (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)