User talk:Juddhoward

Juddhoward, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Juddhoward! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block Notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 21:20, 13 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I plead to your compassionate and charitable soul to release me from this hellish chastity belt that restricts my urges, and allow me, a sincere penitent, to once more participate in the great wikipedian enterprise and create and develop articles in the image of God. I hereby commit to subduing my rebellious senses and allowing the Pope Francis artice to serve as a vehicle for Christian advertising and proselytising. Though I know the ways of the Lord are mysterious and wonderful, I was not aware that removing unsourced material constituted a heretic infringment. Wikipedian dogma is as convoluted as that of the Christian Church and I hope that it similarly extends forgiveness to the depraved sinner. I have sinned. I have repented. Juddhoward (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While very droll, this does not address the reason for your block. Please note that wikipedia has no sense of humour.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:59, 13 March 2013 (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.

"Me miserable! Which way shall I fly

Infinite wrath and infinite despair?

Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell;

And in the lowest deep a lower deep,

Still threat'ning to devour me, opens wide,

To which the hell I suffer seems a heaven."

Don't user {{helpme}} if you don't need help gwickwire^talk_editing 22:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he does (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:44, 13 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I spoke the truth but did not have a source to substantiate my words. Thus, I became a false prophet and challenged the divinity of the Almighty, for it is He alone that is in possession of the truth. Tainted by Adam's original sin, I too dared to consume the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge, unaware of the limitations of my mortal mind. I am a simpleton who claims to be descended from a monkey! Is it fair to mete out the stern justice of God to one so obviously deficient of critical faculties? I shall fortify my mind against such diabolical temptations and will refrain from sharing my insignificant views. I shall only express, in a measured tone, that what is already enshrined in the Book of Sources, and will accede to the wisdom of the Wikipedian theologians. Juddhoward (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is nothing here that is remotely WP:GAB-compliant. In order to prevent similar abuses of the unblock process, I will be locking this talkpage for the duration of the block (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:44, 13 March 2013 (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.

Thank you

I am so glad you retitled the Francis article with the section name "Homosexuality and same sex marriage". You beat me to it! This is what the section is about. The previous title was too "narrow". Thanks — Ludopedia^(Talk) 17:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version would have you think that the Church positively embraces homosexuality, just it's opposed to same-sex marriage and the militant "fag agenda", while in fact their position tends to be: "We love the homosexuals - God told us to love everyone so we do. Just stop being aroused by men because it's a sin. Don't publicise your orientation; it corrupts the morals of society and turns our youth into gays. Abstain from the abominable act of anal sex - even animals know better than that - and don't dare upset the natural order by emulating the civil partnerships that God-fearing heterosexuals enjoy." If you are lucky enough, you might even encounter the irrefutable and astonishingly witty aphorism: God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Juddhoward (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your summary of the church's position is basically correct, I think, so I wonder why you try to pick on the pope for being a "homophobe" when he has just been doing his job as a Catholic priest. I do not think the church would say "we love the homosexuals" though, because it doesn't recognize the existence of "homosexuals" as a species. It recognizes human beings, and it recognizes or claims that all human beings are tempted to sin, but not all individuals suffer from the same temptations. But they would probably not categorize the manner temptation you are exposed to as "orientation". What counts for them is whether you succumb to temptation. If you suffer from temptation and do not succumb, your "orientation" does not matter and you lead a saintly life. Since nearly everyone will succumb to some sort of temptation sooner or later, they have their whole "absolution" machinery in place. It is only if you scoff at their system of "absolution"/"forgiveness" and dispute that you sinned in the first place that they sort of give up on you and commend you to higher judgement as they feel there is nothing else they can do for you. If you aren't interested in hanging out in their churches and participating in their rituals to begin with, there is no reason to be more concerned about any of this than with the biblical prohibition against mixing wool and linen.

I am saying this, if you don't want to play football, you don't have to be aware of the offside rule, and you can stand on your lawn wherever you please. But if you insist you want to play in a FIFA match and invite a FIFA referee to judge your match, you cannot rant at the referee if he insists you were in the offside. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He presides over a vast organisation that has been spewing out hatred for centuries. His continuance of this by merely "doing his job" does not mitigate this. Christian teachings continue to torment people unfortunate enough to be born in a way that offends the Church's delicate sensitivities. I don't just refer to psychopathic African priests that advocate cleansing society of the gay plague. Even in 'liberal' America, thousands of people are depressed, suicidal, and enroll in bogus gay conversion programs to "cure" themselves of their attractions, for the Church's sanctimonious, sophistical distinction between experiencing temptation and succumbing to it, rings hollow in their ears. The casuistic nuances deceive nobody; the Church regards gay people with distaste, even if it avoids expressly saying so. Nor is the theological abstraction representative of how ordinary people interpret and act upon these ideas. Are other antiquated religions any better? Certainly not, but as the dominant religion which discharged hateful teachings which have embedded themselves in the psyche of society, it bears the lion's share of the blame and the burden of rectification.

I am not a regular participant in football games. I am usually the passionate parent watching his child play from the sidelines, so I haven't bothered to familiarize myself with the intricacies of the offside rules. However, should I witness an ugly foul that leaves a player writhing on the ground in agony, I will not hesitate to remonstrate with the offender and vociferously inform the referee of the offence. Juddhoward (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the needless insults

Your clearly bigotted attacks on people who disagree with you at the talk page on Pope Francis are clearly unacceptable and out of line. Please refrain from using such inflamatory and insulting language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me on an article talk page. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me on my talk page; indeed that is why I indulge you here by responding to your wrathful babble, though you appear to be a religious fruitcake. What I object to is people distorting sources to present false material in an article read by thousands.

Incidentally, repeatedly describing something as "clearly" does not improve upon the obscurity of your comment.

Seeing as I am tempted to tell you to "go forth and multiply" - but not in those words - do not comment here again. Juddhoward (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Francis section heading have been achieved through consensus

If you want to change a section heading, you should discuss it first. You should also avoid insulting people you disagree with in edit summaries. The current name was achieved through discussion, and same-sex marriage is clearly a topic of concern to Pope Francis. We are reporting his views, not the views of others, and his views center around marriage as an institution and should be respected in how we name sections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should also refrain from accusing people of "lieing" because they feel that not all quotes are neccesary. We do not quote everything that Pope Francis ever said. Thus the question of what is and is not included is a question of importance and relevance. You should assume good faith on the part of other editors, and not make blanket accusations of trying to decieve. Such behavior is not proper behavior in wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the talk page of Pope Francis is all about you (counted 41 comments on this page alone (no archives counted))... so obviously anything that is not your views/what you agree for is automatically crucified. Monopoly ? Page becoming yours ? — Ludopedia^(Talk) 06:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are the place to discuss major changes, and such changes should be discussed in a respectful way. I am responding to clearly inaprpriate attacks on other editos. For the record the people Juddhoward insulted in those revision summaries were not me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are a fool and a liar too. Marauder40's reason for removing Pope Francis's distasteful remark was not because "not all quotes are neccesary [sic]"; the explanation he provided was: "actual quote is already in article with proper translation from a RS". This was manifestly wrong. The article made no mention of PF describing same-sex marriage as the "work of the devil", despite numerous sources reporting so.

Secondly, your vexatious stalking of me has got to stop. Had I not reached the age of majority, I would be most alarmed at this intense Christian attention. I am familiar with the gulf between Christian advice and practice - Cardinal O'Brien's public gay-bashing while privately barebacking his long-term partner springs to mind - and your presumptuous preaching on how to behave, while disregarding my instructions to you to stop commenting here, evinces this typical hypocrisy.

Finally, I make enough genuine spelling errors without you having to falsely ascribe one to me. I told your religious cohort that he was "lying", not "lieing". Juddhoward (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please discuss your changes on the talk page so we can get consensus. stop attacking John Pack Lambert, and focus on content. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of disruptive behavior

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing, BLP violations, personal attacks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made more insults than edits, I think, including a couple addressed to John Pack Lambert--and I just deleted a pretty egregious BLP violation from an edit summary in Pope Francis. If you can't figure out how Wikipedia works and don't with to play by the rules, you can't play here. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, only a paltry 8 minutes passed between the complaint being made, and the verdict being reached and carried out. With such efficiency and a vacuous life, I am sure you would make an excellent MacDonald's employee. ~~I notice I was not informed of the complaint so not given an opportunity to respond.~~ (My apologies. This formality was complied with so the block that followed it 5 minutes later was obviously well-considered and took into account the positions of both parties.) This is understandable I suppose; I am sure you dislike it when the customers start to examine the contents of the beef burgers or order food not written on your simplistic and limiting menu. Juddhoward (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I undertake to avoid commenting on the deficiencies of other users and instead to focus solely on content Juddhoward (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We can read your edit summaries too. The block is appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:53, 28 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I undertake to avoid commenting on the deficiencies of other users at all and instead to focus solely on content, even if it entails maintaining my equanimity whatever the provocation, and attempting to have a rationale discussion about the contents of a paragraph about Pope Francis' views on homosexuality with a person that previously declared on the talk page that "letting other than married man/women couples participate in adoption lessens the chances of children having the most positive set of rearing going on." Juddhoward (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clearly you still haven't read WP:NOTTHEM. This isn't about other users. Full stop, period, end of line. This is about your behavior, and from the comment above you still haven't grasped that that sort of attitude is wholly inappropriate on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 28 March 2013 (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.