User talk:NancyHeise/Archive 7

Thanks

Thank you for correcting the article on the ten commandments.- BennyK95 - Talk 18:14, October 9 2009 (UTC)

My Leg

To answer your question, I was diagnosed with Ewing's sarcoma (A rare type of Bone cancer, Male teenagers are the most common "recipients" of this cancer). This june I had a limb salvage surgery on my femur(thigh bone). I am almost done with my chemotherapy. Lucky I did not need radiation. You are not being nosey, to answer your question about how I got the picture, I asked the surgeon if he could take pictures, so he had his assistant take the pictures. I have acquired much medical knowledge over the past year. Hope that answered your question, if you have any more question be free to ask them.- BennyK95 - Talk 18:15, October 10 2009 (UTC)

Wow - gosh! You are a survivor - my hat is off to you. I have several friends who have survived different types of cancer. We pray for people in hospitals and those suffering through illness all the time. We often pray for the doctor to know just what to do. I have a story to tell you on that note:

• My husband was having eye surgery at Rand Eye Institute [1] one day. He told me the procedure was something simple and that he would be in and out the same day, not to worry he said. He wanted me to pick him up from this place after his surgery. I went there to do so and as I entered the lobby, there were several very large television screens showing actual surgeries going on at that momment. I saw my husband's eye on one of the screens and he was in mid-surgery. I found this hard to take so I sat down and began to pray a Rosary for him and his doctor. A very nice woman came up to me and asked if I was alright, I told her "Yes, that is my husband in surgery, I am just praying for him and his doctor." She told me "Good, doctors don't work alone." Later, I saw the woman in the office and asked the receptionist who she was. The receptionist told me that the woman was Mrs. Rand, her husband was the one operating on my husband. NancyHeise ^talk 01:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a neat story. Is your husbands eye okay? When I had my surgery back in june my brother and my parents were in the waiting room(for seven hours) and all they could do is pray pray pray. At first my prognosis was poor, but people had masses said for me and lot of other prayers and I started doing better. The surgeon even said "Your case is an example of the power of prayer". Many of the cancer paitients on the cancer ward at the hospital have very spiritual experiences. Please pray for me and I will to pray for you (If I can remember :) ). God bless - BennyK95 - Talk 12 October 2009(UTC)

Thanks! My husband's eye is OK and I appreciate your offer of prayer. Yes, I am keeping you in my prayers, thank you for sharing your story. God bless you. NancyHeise ^talk 19:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Trolls and civility

Nancy, everyone who follows the Catholic Church articles is aware that you largely disagree with Soidi. This does not make him a troll, and I strongly encourage you to read WP:TROLL. He has been willing to participate in mediation and to offer alternative solutions to issues that he has raised. He compromises and generally does not edit war on the page. He provides reasoned arguments to back up his position (no, you don't agree with those arguments, but you don't have to). This is the antithesis of a troll. There are numerous other editors who agree with at least some of Soidi's points and have attempted to raise the same issues. Your throwing out labels like "troll" and "disruptive editors" hinders discussion of those points and puts the focus on editors rather than content. This leads to a battleground mentality. You do not have to agree with Soidi; you do not have to take his advice or implement his suggestions, but you are supposed to be civil, and namecalling is not civil. Please assume good faith and focus on content. Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, the "battleground mentality" is invented by Trolls like Soidi who are not addressed by admins. I completely disagree with you on your statements "He compromises and generally does not edit war on the page. He provides reasoned arguments to back up his position" He backs his arguments up with nothing and when he does it is some far fetched source that does not meet WP:RS. I do not think you have followed what we have been through on the page for the past year. The reason why this has not progressed is because of Soidi and our wasted time addressing his unreasoned, unsourced arguments that seem to me to have only one objective - halting advancement of the page - which he has been very successful at doing with the help of those who are supposed to be doing a different job than what they are presently doing. It would be nice if admins asked him to support his positions with reliable sources instead of attacking me for pointing out the obvious. NancyHeise ^talk 20:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Karanacs I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a "(insert your preferred expletive) shovel". The petty bickering that's taken place on this article over the past year or so has been astonishing. Time that stopped. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that the bickering ought to stop, but I do not believe that Soidi and those who agree with him should hold full blame. Both sides hold a pretty strong POV and appear to be doing their best to make the article reflect that. Namecalling won't make the situation any better. Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask again - admins need to help me advance the page by asking Soidi to provide reliable sources to support his positions instead of helping him attack me. I am the only one providing solid sources to support article text. Soidi disagrees and provides zero sources and all I get from admins is zero help. This encourages Soidi to persist in his troll activities and is successfully resulting in page obstruction. I am not going to suggest a peer review right now as I had planned to do because I do not have support from Wikipedia, I have the opposite and that is not a good atmosphere to encourage page advancement. NancyHeise ^talk 21:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that nothing is ever fault on one side alone, but I disagree that calling a spade a very self-evident spade comes under the category of "name calling". --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC

So, when is the next FAC? The article has clearly improved since last FAC. Maybe it will pass this time... 131.111.216.174 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how to answer your question because I just posted a notice on two articles suggesting they be improved and advanced to FAC. Are you asking me about Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II High School (Boca Raton, Florida) or Christopher Columbus High School (Miami, Florida)? Catholic Church will not advance to FAC unless we can establish a better atmosphere for editors to work together to improve the page which would require those who object to article text that is supported by sources to provide opposing sources. The other two articles need to be improved by adding WP:RS reliable sources and some expansion. After that, they would need to go through a WP:peer review and then be submitted to WP:FAC. Please let me know which article you are asking about. Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 21:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Historians and apologists

Nancy, thank you for your kind words on the Catholic Church discussion page. Catholics and LDS will act together in word in deed and that is ecumenical spirit that will continue to grow. The doctrinal differences are significant, but they will never deter my abiding appreciation for the lives of the Saints, the work of the Catholic Church in the world at large, the examples of true Christian discipleship I see so often in Catholics, and the truly great leaders such as John Paul II.

Frankly, I am uncomfortable discussing this issue because I view it as sacred history. I strive to never offend others that hold something so dearly. However, when we move from scared history and attempt to portray it as historical fact we will inevitably run the risk of becoming POV. Wilken, Derrett, and Norman are all qualified historians; however, they are each also apologists. This is a common position for historians of faith and particularly for those who write about the history of their own faith. The challenge is for the reader to acknowledge when they speak as a historian or when they are speaking as apologists. As I review the references you have used, I conclude that they are not speaking from a position of historical fact, but from the position of their faith or as apologists.

Apostolic succession is fundamental to an understanding of Catholicism and without it, the Church does not exist or at least has lost the validity of its claim. Faith in Catholicism requires a belief in the actual, historical tracing of authority from Pope Benedict XVI back to Peter. However, it is the more important point that Peter nor Paul created Christianity, but Jesus himself was the founder of his holy church. That is the context from which I believe these authors, Derrett in particular, are speaking. There is no church except for the one created by Jesus himself.

I will not attempt further discussion on this issue on the discussion page; however, I would ask you to reconsider the manner in which the information is presented. Please review the references with a critical eye to determine the context from which each author is speaking. In doing so, I think you will find their statements are the fruit of faith and not that of historians. If it is not changed, I think it may become an issue in the future when others review the article. --^StormRider 21:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I have considered your argument seriously and I think you misunderstand that these authors are writing these comments in peer reviewed scholarly works of history, not theology. The scholars and their works are highly respected historians, not Catholic Apologists, I am not even sure that Wilken and Derrett are Catholic. Do you have a link to a source that suggests they are? There is a problem with hiding information that is readily found in several respected scholarly works, that is really unencyclopedic and I think that the sentence in question has now had mention of apostolic succession removed. Can you please read the sentence in the lead again? It reflects exactly what the historians are saying - that the Church believes it was founded by Jesus - something that many historians also agree with. I can not in good conscience omit this referenced fact because some are offended by it. Their argument should be made with the scholars who write it, not with me. I am just putting the facts on the page as they appear in scholarly works. I also would point out that National Geographic is not a Catholic organization and does not have any history of taking sides with the Catholic Church, perhaps they have a reputation of just the opposite. I can not agree that their book is the work of a Catholic apologist. NancyHeise ^talk 02:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing it again; however, I remain convinced that these references do not strongly support the phrase being used and the context of their writing is not as secular historians. I acknowledge that we need not agree in all things and I will continue to respect your position. As I indicated above, I will not comment further on the discussion page. I feel strongly that sacred history can be approached well, but that Wikipedia does not offer the best environment for such a discussion. I would rather keep quiet than cause bad feelings or cause others to doubt my sincere respect for their church. It simply is too easy to become contentious and none of us needs that.

As an aside, Wilken was a Lutheran, but came into full communion with the Catholic Church in 1994. Derrett's religious affiliation is something that I cannot verify at the moment. Again, thank you for all your work and your patience in perfecting the article. --^StormRider 09:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wilken's article is aided by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, an Anglican. Edward Norman was an Anglican who recently converted to the Catholic Church. I am not sure if his book and quote were written before or after his conversion. Since Wikipedia does not require us to take note of an author's personal beliefs and these books do not have bad reviews - none are called Catholic Apologists - I don't think I can just dispose of them. I think that we should all consider that we are here to put the facts on the page as they appear in scholarly works otherwise we are not really writing an encyclopedia article but rather propaganda. I am surprised by your concern for this sentence in the lead, I do not understand how anyone can find it offensive, its just history that traces the roots of the Roman Catholic Church back to Saint Peter and Jesus, an event described in the Gospel. How is that offensive? When do you think the Catholic Church began? Does the LDS teach something different? Do you have any scholarly sources we can use to improve our article with other POVs? NancyHeise ^talk 02:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sensitive to the beliefs of all Christian churches; maybe overly so, which I freely admit. What I interpret this statement to say is not something of faith, i.e. Catholics believe and the Holy Church teaches that it is the literal church founded by Christ, but it is historical fact supported by many historians that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus Christ. It is moving from faith to sure knowledge. I think this poses too many problems. No historian can say with any degree of accuracy that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus Christ. The moment he does, he has moved from being a historian to being a faithful member of the Church. How could anyone not be Catholic and make that statement? How could anyone be a member of any other Church and believe that statement? It is for the simple fact that people don't believe that statement that allows them to belong to other churches.

You pose some excellent questions. Nancy, this is a difficult medium to discuss such sacred topics. Would that we could be face to face; it is a time where prayer would be of great import to plead that the Spirit guide our words and that Peace would reign during our discussion. It is too easy to offend others when beliefs conflict. On the other hand, when respectfully done, it is an enlightening experience for all. As far as what the LDS Church teaches...I am not aware of any declaration regarding the beginnings of the Catholic Church; however, I would also say that we recognize that the vast majority of all Christian churches are splinter groups of it. In saying that the LDS Church would also say those churches have no authority to act in the name of God; their existence has more to do with the acts of man than the direction of God. However, the LDS Church teaches that between the crucification of Jesus and the Council of Nicea, an apostasy occurred where the authority (the priesthood) to act in the name of God was lost. The LDS Church also teaches that the this apostasy was prophesied in the Bible. More importantly, that apostasy required that a future restoration of the Jesus' church occur. LDS believe that was the importance of Joseph Smith as a fourteen year old boy praying for guidance and God the Father and His Son appeared to him and then in the eventual restoration of the priesthood and the authority to act in God's name or to seal things on earth and in heaven.

The LDS Church does not teach that truth was absent after the apostasy, only that the priesthood was absent. For this reason and others, the LDS Church teaches that all churches teach some degree of truth, some more than others, and we should be students of all truth; God is the source of all truth on the earth. It is for this reason that I so enjoy studying the Patristic Fathers, the writings of John Paul II, or even the holy books known to man. It is the reason I get so excited to walk the Camino de Santiago de Compostela next year during a Holy Year. This is an exchange of ideas or beliefs in an attempt to respond to your questions and nothing more. It has no bearing on the article.

Any scholarly source I could provide would only describe what the Catholic Church teaches, but none that I have would be so bold as to move from a position of faith to a position of historical fact. I again submit that any person who would make such a statement would necessarily be Catholic and necessarily be speaking from a position of faith. I still think that the wording should reflect or discuss beliefs only. I acknowledge that this is only my opinion and I will not comment further in the article. The current language when read by others will rub some badly while adherents will only be reassured of the reality of their faith. It is not so significant to me that I feel like I need to comment more in the article. Thank you for being so open as to ask questions of me. I yearn for that day when the lamb lies with the lion and that we all stand together to praise the return of our Savior. I will support you whatever your decision. --^StormRider 06:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that all that matters to God, in the end, is whether or not the professed Christian kept Jesus' words or not - whether that person is an LDS or Catholic or otherwise. May God help us all in that endeavor! NancyHeise ^talk 01:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely and that is the joy of finding disciples of Jesus Christ. Church affiliation falls by the wayside and we become seekers of truth instead; we cherish truth where ever we find it. The interest of the disciple is to follow Christ and rejoice in Him in all places and in all times good or bad. Disciples can belong to any Christian church and can respect the choice of church affiliation from others. We might wish that others would find the beauty and faith that we find in our personal church, but that does not negate the value or love we have for the individual.

In the context of being a source of peace in the world, this medium of the internet where we only see typed words which lack the nuances we have in speech, individuals can easily be offended. I already have a caustic personality, but with editors I care about, it is best to share my opinion and then stop. This issue is not so important that we lose sight of what we are about. It makes me think of the end of the great prayer, Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. May we all pray for one another as we follow our Master. His Peace be yours always. I look forward to working more on the article with you, -^StormRider 23:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I can't believe that you describe yourself as "caustic". Honestly, you have the most mild and kind personality of anyone on Wikipedia - I really have always thought that. You are very conscientious and make great effort to speak respectfully even when you disagree - a trait I admire and wish I had some of! : ) By the way, the Mormons I know helped my family very much in a time of great need. They will always be in my heart and I truly believe they were the hands and feet of Christ on Earth.NancyHeise ^talk 04:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In the Catholic church article says "The Catholic Church traces its foundation to the gathering of the twelve Apostles by Jesus and the selection of Peter as their head.[35][36][37][38] It sees the bishops of the Church as the successors of the apostles and the pope (the bishop of Rome), in particular, as the successor of Peter, the leader of the apostles.[39][40] Catholics cite Jesus' words, in the Gospel according to Matthew, to support this view: "... you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, .... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." So I take it the vote carried through? Regards- BennyK95 - Talk 16:30, October 25 2009 (UTC)

May I ask a favour of you?

I'm involved in the GA Sweeps project, looking at all GAs promoted before August 2007, when there were really no objective criteria in place at all. One of those articles is Catholic social teaching. Would you mind taking a quick look through it and letting me know what you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Old Dixie Seafood

A tag has been placed on Old Dixie Seafood requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. PorkHeart (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I created the article because the business is notable in Boca Raton area and I used a picture of the market to enhance the page Boca Raton, Florida. I disagree that it is not notable, the page has references to support notability. NancyHeise ^talk 02:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's really no trouble. I decided to patrol newly created pages and happened to notice the tag. Your article seemed well written and well cited, and the sources you had gave the article a good level of notability for the article. I hope the speedy delete tag comes down. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 02:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I would not have created it if I didn't think it was notable. I guess since it is more of a local notability others might feel otherwise. I understand. I appreciate your diligence and I enjoyed reading WP:Chance. Wikipedia is a neat place, I am always finding interesting new things here. NancyHeise ^talk 02:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, despite my best efforts, the article may still get deleted. I apologize. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 04:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Old Dixie Seafood

I have nominated Old Dixie Seafood, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Dixie Seafood. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ttonyb (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The community has decided on guidelines for what subjects are notable and which aren't. Substantial independent coverage that's more than just local restaurant coverage is usually needed for eateries. You can still have the article moved to your userspace if it's deleted, and if more coverage develops you can recreate it. Let me know if I can be of any help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. Just a note though, it is not an eaterie nor a restaurant. It is a hub of Boca culture. NancyHeise ^talk 04:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church lead and historian opinions

Hi Nancy. Since the talk page is so involved, I thought a message placed here would be easier for you to notice. I have removed your addition of "some historians agree, and some disagree" from the lead per Talk:Catholic_Church#being_bold. Consensus on the talk page appears to be that the sources do not support the "some historians agree" without quite a bit of qualification, and this is inappropriate in the lead. Also, the paragraph in the lead is dealing with Catholic belief; information about historians - especially a sentence like this that says essentially nothing - is inappropriate in the lead. If you disagree, please discuss on the talk page in the section I linked above, or you can create a new section. Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Nancy, do you understand the objections to the sources that you've used to back up this point? There has been so much text on that page, it can be hard to figure out who is saying what. If you're confused, I can try to outline the objections for you. Right now there appears to be a consensus that the sources aren't being used properly in this respect, and I want to make sure you understand why. Karanacs (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs, I disagree with those who say the sources do not support it and I have already expressed why several times now. My position has not changed even though those who disagree already have re expressed themselves and I do not see the value of arguing a point over and over again with the same people. I suggest we have a vote and recall those people who have been interested in the page in the past. I would also suggest that we do a check to see if Hamerakhu is someone's sock. It would be helpful to me if admins used their tools to make sure we are not being inundated by editors who have been abusive of the system in the past. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 00:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, admins don't have any ability that normal editors don't have to check if someone is a sock. Checkusers have the ability to run special checks, but they will only do so if there is good evidence that there might be a socking issue. You can request a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI. I've seen no evidence that Hamerakhu is a sock, and his contributions so far have not been abusive or disruptive. Karanacs (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting

Nancy, I'm not clear on what we're voting on, I'm only reading bits and pieces of what's going on and frankly only because i saw all the edit warring and wasn't sure if it was legit or vandalism. I agree with what you're saying in the article, but if it's sources or the way it's worded I can't agree 100%. Remember, I'm kind of a dummy and need things spelled out for me. I have huge problems with "usually", "primarily", "some" and "most" in these types of articles. You can end up in a sand trap like that!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. NancyHeise ^talk 04:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks...like I said, I agree with the substance, but think the style is not up to par. I'll abstain for now...only because I think we can do better than "some" or "many".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

PS...I lived in Boca when Old Dixie Seafood first opened! (I used to eat sushi every Friday night at Kansai, next to the pancake house)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What were you doing in Boca? Are you from this area or were you working or going to school? NancyHeise ^talk 04:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it, and again...I hate quibbling over verbiage like that...any way we can parse it out and specify who said what? That's the only way I think you can logically make the point. Otherwise it comes across as grasping at straws. I'll do some research this weekend and see if I can help out. As for Boca...long story...I ended up there for a year or 2...95-97...I worked for a Firearms importer and did construction...I put in alot of floors between there and North Miami! I'm actually from NYC, but never went back after I joined the Corps (can't own any guns in the city!) I miss Boca sometimes...not the attitude of course it was hard being a single blue color Irish guy in that town who drove a Ford and not a Porsche!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I drive a Chevy and everyone like me !  : ) NancyHeise ^talk 05:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

HA! It was a different mindset back then!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal story time: I used to go to Florida State University but I met my future husband who lived in Boca, I left Florida State and transferred to Florida Atlantic University to finish my degree and go to grad school. After living here for six months (in the dorms), I had lunch with my then boyfriend, now husband of 20 years. I broke down crying at lunch telling him how much I hated it here, everyone was so mean! I am not from New York and we have a lot of New Yorkers here, I was not used this but now I love it here and I love New Yorkers - they aren't mean so much, they are just painfully honest - a quality that is actually not so bad. NancyHeise ^talk 05:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello long time no talk

Hey Nancy, I'm really busy right now. Please see if the link I posted in the Catholic Church talk page is of any help. I promise to get back to you about how I'm doing soon! God Bless you and your family and take care!Gabr-el 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Gabr-el, I am very busy too. I have not been able to give Catholic Church article the attention it needs but I have tried. My efforts have been unappreciated and an editor who is persistently abusive to Catholic editors on the page is being encouraged by Wikipedia's admins. I am trying not to be too upset about it and look forward to editing the page when the rest of you can come help again. NancyHeise ^talk 19:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Nancy, can you please explain why you are repeatedly pointing out that I encouraged Harmakheru to continue to contribute to the Catholic Church article? For over a year, you have requested that editors who disagreed with the article provide sources to back up their opinions. Harmarkheru has done considerable research and is presenting that on the talk page. This is the type of editor that everyone should welcome to articles - one who does not unilaterally change the article but provides sources for a discussion on how the article might be improved. Why are you so upset about his participation, and why do you feel it necessary to bring my encouragement to everyone else's attention? I am not sure what you are trying to accuse me of, but I request that you stop it. Karanacs (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your input Karanacs, when it is so obviously one sided. Harmarkheru is one of the most unfriendly, unkind, rude editors we have had on the page for a very long time. You encouraged him in his efforts. Many of his arguments are far fetched. I have engaged him and disagreed with him in a friendly manner even though he has not done the same. I suggest that if you want editors to participate, like me, you could encourage a more friendly debate instead of those who are viciously anti-Catholic. NancyHeise ^talk 19:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, can you please provide diffs of "anti-Catholic" behavior? I will review them and see if a warning is necessary. Karanacs (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] Also, this person claims to be a professor at a major university - one of my dear friends owns and operates a very expensive resort, he takes his clients on expensive special expeditions and has hosted in the past, National Geographic writers and photographers and the like from time to time. I once asked him about his clientele, he went on to tell me that the ones he hated to take on expedition the most were university professors. I asked him why and he said "Because you can't discuss anything with them they are so pompous and proud and they are convinced they know it all and you don't know anything." I believe this person is a university professor because he certainly fits into this category. However, his argument did not change the fact that some scholars agree with the Church POV and some disagree, a fact that is still in the article even after all of his efforts to show us all of those who disagree. I am just a simple Wikipedia editor trying to put facts on the page as they appear in works written by modern scholars. I would appreciate some admin help when assaulted by these types who admins rather seem to (what we called when I worked as an auditor for Ernst & Young) "brown nose". NancyHeise ^talk 18:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anti-Catholic comments here (the "Catholic fundamentalists" edit summary is questionable, but it is not directed at the church as a whole). I do see disagreement over interpretations of the sources, as well as two sentences verging on personal attacks in your reply here. If you think I'm wrong and biased, you should take these diffs to WP:ANI and see if an uninvolved administrator agrees with you. If you choose not to take this to ANI in the hopes of attracting an uninvolved administrator, I am very curious as to why not. Karanacs (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not complained to ANI and would not have complained about these diffs except that you asked me to provide evidence of my description of this editors demeanor, that you seem to have glossed over in your hurry to reward him with a barnstar when some instruction on WP:civil might have been more helpful to those of us on the page. I do not intend to complain to ANI about you Karanacs, I was just trying to help you be a better admin. NancyHeise ^talk 00:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy early feast day!

Hello I won't be on wikipedia 10/30-11/04 so I just wanted to wish you an early Happy all Saints and all Souls day! May you have a blessed feast and God bless! - BennyK95 - Talk 17:02, October 25 1009 (UTC)

Benny, I hope all is well with you and your leg. I hope the reason why you are not on Wikipedia is because you are out doing a 10K instead! God bless you! NancyHeise ^talk 19:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats...kind of.

I've noticed that the deletion discussion was closed on Old Dixie Seafood per no consensus. While I personally think it's good that the deletion discussion was closed, I'm unhappy with the "no consensus" result. Anyway, best of luck with your article and all of your future editing. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 00:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Great - and thanks for your help. NancyHeise ^talk 01:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Acts 4

So what you wrote becomes consensus overnight, before anyone else has a chance to look at it? That's a violation of WP:OWN (and of the advice of Scripture); you have given in to the common pot, and the rest of us can edit mercilessly; when we cease changing, it's consensus.

Please stay off my talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not done anything but what consensus has arrived. All references and points made by those references are kept. I have a running discussion going on the talk page, one that you never came and discussed before you changed everything on your own with no consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please try to be intellectually honest with yourself at least. What you wrote is not consensus; if it were, we would not have been discussing and modifying the analogous statements in the header. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sept, you are really very unkind and cruel in your posts, it is difficult to have a level headed discussion with someone who has so much emotion coming out on the issue. I posted on the talk page what the article looked like before my edits and after. [12] This showed that I did not eliminate any refs but reorganized the sentences that were already there - written by others - and reworded a sentence to use more of the actual words used by the source putting this in quotes. Without discussion, you not only eliminated my work but that of other people. NancyHeise ^talk 20:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help!

Not to worry; I seem to remember doing the exact same thing myself.  :) Nice article, BTW! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User Request for Comment

Nancy, I have just opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise. I believe you have contributed to the battleground mentality at Talk:Catholic Church, and I would like to get the opinion of a wider range of users. I don't know if you have followed user RfCs before, so I will give you a brief overview.

User RfCs are a step in dispute resolution. They are usually open 30 days and allow involved and uninvolved parties the opportunity to comment on a particular editor's behavior. There is generally a space to describe the dispute (which I have done), and a space for the subject of the RfC to enter a response. I highly encourage you to enter a response here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NancyHeise#Response. Any editor may endorse the description of the dispute or your response, meaning that editor agrees with the points that were made. Editors may also give their own statement, and others can endorse those alternative statements too. User RfCs are not binding, although the results can be very useful to all parties in helping to recognize when behavior might need to be changed.

I would like to point out that I do highly respect most of the work that you have done, but I think you are making it difficult for others to continue to improve the article. Karanacs (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs, the feeling is mutual. NancyHeise ^talk 17:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't fret. Don't be anxious. Don't get worked up. Don't let it get to you. Don't worry. Remember to breathe. Remember if anything happens, you can walk away, get something to drink, watch tv, and whatever else. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Where have YOU been? Don't worry - I never get worked up - except maybe when I eat chocolate. Actually, I am very busy for the next few days so I won't be able to participate. I trust my edit history and the fact that there are a fair number of kind editors on Wikipedia who have worked with me before. NancyHeise ^talk 18:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm always here, its just that I try to keep my distance from such articles. When the discussion on the treatment of women began, I left a little note about my feelings on Karanac's talk page, but I can't really involve myself with the issues. Probably for the best. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, if you don't intend to participate, would you mind leaving a note to that effect in the response section? That way watchers who might be waiting for a statement from you know that one won't be coming. Even if you leave a note like that, you can always post a detailed response later if you change your mind. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK Karanacs. I left a response. Thank you. I am sorry I can't offer you the same in depth analysis of your unworthy behavoir for lack of time. However, please consider my comments made in the section above [13] NancyHeise ^talk 19:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I am available for recall, and that you are always welcome to take concerns about my behavior to WP:ANI or to open a user RfC at a later date. Karanacs (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is distressing to witness. It's sad that wikipedia's only dispute resolution process focuses on the behaviour of individuals, and that there is no effective forum for content disputes. If I were in Nancy's position I too would decline to take part in this RfC, but if it results in breaking the logjam without unnecessary acrimony on either side then perhaps the end will have justified the means. Nancy, you've done a fantastic job with the article, but it may possibly now be better for you to take a less hands-on role. See how it develops and comment from the sidelines as others have done. There are many, many, more articles that need your expertise; don't exhaust yourself with this one. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added my comment. I hope this can be resolved as soon as possible, and that we can all return to editing in a civil, orderly way. In the meantime, I offer you this:

Hello NancyHeise, Delta1989 (talk/contributions) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

All of your constructive edits are valued. So, take care, and best of luck! :D --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. I seriously think that this is all over the top too much attention. I have my reservations about what happened on the talk page but I am just in awe of the amount of effort Karanacs is willing to go through to correct me while being so blind to provocations that I do not respond to on the CC talk page on a regular basis. It was another editor, not Karanacs, who kindly left a message on Harmarakheru's talk page asking him to be a bit more civil [14]. If anyone took the time to read the edits of Septentrionalis and Hesperian you will see that these are some of the most disrespectful and unkind editors to work with. They presently continue to go at it on CC talk as I speak. Yet, for some reason, I get slapped with the Rfc for making a complaint about Karanac's encouraging one of our talk page provacateurs. I am not upset at getting an Rfc - but if you are going to start analyzing CC talk page for violations, you might want to at least be fair and open them for others who need correction. This is my main complaint about Karanacs. She only sees me, for some reason. I think that is bias and I think that is unfair and unhelpful to the page. NancyHeise ^talk 03:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you told them this? --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 10:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I am by no means saying that you are the only one whose behavior has been questionable. At this time, though, I find yours most egregious, especially as multiple editors have brought these points to your attention and no changes have been made. That (the lack of change after repeated warnings) is why I opened the RfC. You are welcome to open RfCs on any other editor who you think is causing issues, provided that you have made some effort to resolve their issues. So far, I primarily see you complaining about users without engaging them to try to explain what you think is objectionable about their behavior. This is why I suggested that you could bring your diffs of Harmakheru's behavior to ANI, as others might see his posts in a different light than I did. Some effort must be made to try to resolve the behavior before an RfC can be filed, and you've not done that (that I have seen). Karanacs (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, please see this post [15]. That was my apology posted on the Catholic Church talk page two days before you opened this Rfc. I don't see that listed on my Rfc. I have acknowledged my failings - I am the only person on the CC talk page who has done that even though I am not the only person who has failed. Yet you dont seem to see the continued antagonism by the others on the page even after my apology. Neither do you see their antagonism prior to my few testy edits. You only seem to see me - that does not help the page. I want you to know that you posted several inaccurate things on my Rfc. I took a look and found that you are accusing me of wanting to use 1840's book. If you read the whole conversation you will see that I posted that book in an effort to prove a point that there were some historians in other centuries that agreed with the Church POV of its own origins. I posted it in response to Harmakerus request. You also have a post that is not my edit, its Yorkshirians but you are hammering me for what he/she said. You bring up Soidi, Lima's sock.[16] That has nothing to do with this conversation with present editors. Soidi dogged our page over the name issue for a year, I tried to side with him after the last FAC but consensus overruled me - repeatedly. After that point, I defended consensus and personally opened and actively participated in the mediation that was ultimately successful and led to renaming the article "Catholic Church". Soidi was still arguing against consensus and that is why I called him a troll. See the Wikipedia definition of a troll, I can call someone a troll if they fit the description. Perhaps Richard disagreed with me at that momment but that does not make my opinion invalid if it is based on a long experience with that editor. Regarding bringing Harmakheru's behaviour to ANI - Karanacs, I am not on Wikipedia to spend hours nit picking other people's edits so I can create a smear campaign against the person. I just tell them when they have screwed up and hope they stop - as in my effort to tell you. NancyHeise ^talk 14:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This latest post from you would be very appropriate as your response to the RfC - explaining your perspective of the issues. You do not necessarily need to include diffs. Iwould be happy to remove any links that are inappropriately attributed to you. Could you please point me to the one that is Yorkshirian's so that I can correct the statement? I could not find the diff. Thank you. Karanacs (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have spent ten minutes beginning to go through - I am not sure I want to spend the rest of my day trying to find it among your hundreds of links. If you are interested in being fair, maybe you have the time to do so since you seem to have more time for Wikipedia than me. NancyHeise ^talk 14:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through the links but did not find it. That is why I asked for clarification - in case I accidentally missed clicking on that particular one. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Do admins have some ability to go through links faster and regular editors? Because I could not go through all those links the two minutes that you say you have just done that. NancyHeise ^talk 15:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I had already checked before posting my initial comment (at 14:14). Admins don't have special tools, just the ability to delete pages, protect pages, block users, and grant/remove some lower-level user permissions (like rollback). You may be interested in reading Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools, which provide more detail about what is expected of administrators. Karanacs (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also copied your comments on the RfC talk page to the Response section, so that it would be more easily visible to anyone who visits that page. If you feel this is inappropriate, please revert that change. Karanacs (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Nancy. I've found you to be responsive and considerate of other editors. I appreciate your good faith contributions and your willingness to discuss and resolve issues as they arise. Don't sweat the small stuff and have fun. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. NancyHeise ^talk 16:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I've realized it was unwise of me to attempt to "coach" you on RfC procedures; this was inappropriate as I was the filer and has likely resulted in making this a more stressful time for you. My apologies that I did not realize sooner that this would be/was a problem. I do recommend that you consult with an editor you trust who has experience with RfCs to guide you through the process. I am going to disengage with you, here and at the RfC talk page, in the hopes that it will reduce stress levels all around. Karanacs (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, I think it was unwise of you to open an Rfc in the first place. You opened this Rfc after I had apologized to the parties involved - who still owe me an apology. You opened this RFC after I responded to your request asking Why? in a section of this talk page above. You did not like my honest answer and responded to my honest criticism of your adminship by slapping me with an Rfc. I think you abuse your power and I feel uncomfortable that you are hovering over my work, glossing over others abusiveness while nit picking and misrepresenting my efforts to deal with abusive editors on the Catholic Church page. NancyHeise ^talk 16:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Re. Catholic Church

(copied over from my talk page:) As it happens, I do disagree with you about the McBrien book (your attitude to it was a good example of the way in which you do not understand how scholarship works, and the way in which you misread book reviews, for instance). But I wasn't thinking about that at all; that particular dispute is long water under the bridge. The issue here is not the specific sources: as I said at your RfC, this is not a content dispute. This is about how you react to content disputes. You need to understand that.

Let me simply repeat the point I made to you before, and also pointed out at the RfC, but which for some reason you consistently ignore. Wikipedia is a place for collaborative editing. There are a number of knowledgeable and well-intentioned editors--Hamarkheru is merely the most recent--with whom you have chosen to have a scrap rather than work constructively. This does not help you, and certainly does not help the chances of Catholic Church becoming a Featured Article.

I have once again taken Catholic Church (and indeed your RfC) off my watchlist. It becomes draining and counterproductive to continue on in the battleground atmosphere for which, I believe, you are very much (if not solely) responsible. I admire the patience of someone like Karanacs--I know you believe for some reason that she is your enemy; she is absolutely not. And, as I have consistently said for months if not years now, I wish you and the article all the best. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

JB, you accused me of arguing with people over sources. I stated that I remember arguing with you over the use of Richard McBrien's Catholicism. You wanted us to use that book in the article. You insisted that it is a good source. I showed you that the book has been condemned not only by the USCCB [17] but other scholarly peers of Richard McBrien.[18] They all condemned the book as containing inaccuracies. Yet somehow I am wrong to argue with you or anyone else about sources when you are suggesting these? I posted a note on your talk page a short while ago because you have made a very unkind accusation about me on my Rfc instituted by Karanacs. If I am so difficult to work with as you describe, then how do we have such a great article at Catholic Church? What sources listed in its bibliography do you think are not good enough to be there? I think you are not addressing my question because there is no way to support your accusation. NancyHeise ^talk 21:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

NancyHeise, would you consider using softer language? I apologize, but quotes such as "I think you are not addressing my question because there is no way to support your accusation" are probably what fueled the RfC in the first place. Even if it is true, you should still avoid that kind of language. I've personally seen users blocked - indefinately - for uncivil language, and while your intent is probably not the same, it's difficult for others to guage simply by reading your posts. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 21:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps your right. Comment struck. Thank you. NancyHeise ^talk 21:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, let me put this as simply as I can. The issue is not your arguing over sources. Of course, there are going to be differences of opinion and point of view. I continue to differ with you about McBrien. But I am not going to argue that now. That is a content dispute, and it is not what concerns us at your RfC. The problem is the way in which you react to content disputes. And yes, you are doing it again right now by presenting yourself as the victim of so-called "unkind accusation[s]." Again, look at the comment to which I repeatedly try to draw your attention. That comment is not about sources so much as it is about the way in which you deal with editors with whom you disagree. Specifically, that comment is a response to your statement to Hamarkheru that "you have to try to convince us you are correct by giving us decent quotes and sources to oppose ours." You immediately set things up as "you" against "us," "your sources" against "our sources." And your sources have to "oppose" our sources. This is confrontational, unhelpful, uncollaborative, and is what helps contribute (as per the RfC) to this "battlefield mentality." Please stop it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

JB, I don't know if you realize this but if I don't challenge newcomers who disagree with article text, we don't get any work out of them. It is hearty disagreements that ultimately build the article into something worthwhile because it challenges people to go to the library and do some research. If you go over to the Catholic Church page and read the rest of the discussion on that topic you will see that many new sources were produced to help improve the page and we have almost reached a new agreed article text. I think that this same scenario is what has happened throughout the whole article over the past two years. We all learn new things by going and getting our best sources and placing the scholar's quotes on the page - then we hash out which ones are the best sources and come to an agreed text. I don't know of anyone who has not participated because we argued with them. If you look at the list of article contributors, there are almost none who have very few edits and the ones who do, are new and still on the page. NancyHeise ^talk 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I'll say this one more time: the problem is not the fact that you disagree. The problem is the way in which you disagree. Go back to the RfC, look at the various points that Karanacs makes and the diffs that she includes. Think about them. And (I would suggest) respond thoughtfully and seriously to them. That would be rather more impressive than your current response, which combines a somewhat disingenuous "mea culpa" (on the page itself) and sustained defensiveness and even aggression elsewhere (on that talk page and others). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are some guidelines that we have for dealing with those who are new to Wikipedia. Have a look at it, if you're not too busy. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 02:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I've generally kept out of this RFC because I figured there'd be plenty of other editors with an ax to grind and there wasn't any need for me to jump onto the dogpile. However, I find that I would like to share my perspective. While I generally agree with what Karanacs and jbmurray have said, I do agree with you that the article is (or will soon be) in much better condition because of the long drawn-out discussion.

What I think Karanacs and jbmurray are trying to say is that you are coming across too contentious, too confrontational, too obstinate and too unwilling to consider other opinions. Now, you may argue that this is because the "other side" didn't provide adequate sources and it's true that, as better sources have been presented, you have shown a willingness to consider them and incorporate them (more so than Xandar, for instance).

However, I agree with jbmurray that a "us vs. them" mentality is unhelpful. What's really needed is a more collegial approach. I acknowledge that this has been darn hard to do in practice on this particular issue. I know because I've been trying to do it and I find it maddeningly frustrating to work with you and Xandar on one side and PMAnderson on the other. Nonetheless, the point is that the RFC isn't about whether or not you're right on content or whether or not you should insist on adequate sourcing. It's about the way you interact with people who have an opposing viewpoint. Except that User RFCs are supposed to be focused on only one dispute, I would have added mention of a number of other content disputes wrt this article where similar attitudes on your part have been unhelpful.

And yeah, you do have a point that you are being singled out in a situation where you are not the only offender. I would have added Xandar to the RFC but that's not the way user RFCs work. Would I have opened an RFC on Harmakheru and/or PMAnderson? Perhaps. I don't think they've been as bad as you (not as obstinate) but they have been much nastier than was necessary or appropriate for Wikipedia. I have to admit that, at one point, I started to join the "feeding frenzy" and took a couple swipes at you myself, perhaps because I "smelled blood". For this, I apologize. It was inappropriate to be sarcastic and biting although I still feel you were being overly obstinate at the time.

--Richard (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I have a bit of a soft spot for Xandar. (I have a bit of a soft spot for Nancy, too, of course, but she consistently prevents it from coming out ;) ). Perhaps it's just that I'm really not involved enough to interact with him very much, but I remember finding him quite helpful during the great "what do we call the Catholic Church" debate. To be honest, I find him more straightforward and more straight up than Nancy. He'll argue his piece, but there's nothing wrong with a good argument and I respect that. Again, personally I haven't had much interaction with him. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, comparing the behavior of editors is probably as productive as comparing the behavior of children... However, if we are going to engage in this, I think the difference is that Nancy tends to be more actively engaged in discussions and thus tends to get more frustrated when the discussion gets heavy unleashing that frustration by attacking the editors rather than the sources and, at the same time, taking on a persecution complex.

I think both Xandar and Nancy have used the phrase "anti-Catholic" in referring to editors with opposing views. I'm sure some "drive-by" editors are, in fact, anti-Catholic but I'm not convinced that any of the editors who have stuck around long enough to engage in serious debate are anti-Catholic. They may not be as "pro-Catholic" as Xandar and Nancy are but that doesn't make them anti-Catholic and using the epithet shows a lack of civility and a failure to assume good faith. --Richard (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"as productive as comparing the behavior of children." Indeed. We love them all equally, however badly they behave!  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments JB and Richard. I do have a tendency to argue with editors on the page and they do get upset with me when I don't readily agree that they are right about something. However, quite often, I find them to be incorrect or more than a little bit "off" in their assessment of the article topic. It seems that the debate (what you call arguing) ultimately brings about the desired article text most approved by consensus in every situation I have been involved with. That seems to leave those who are not part of the consensus uptight and angry with me. In this latest endeavor by Harmakheru, our article text has changed somewhat but the heart of the issue has not - some scholars agree with the Church's POV on its origins and others disagree. If you will recall, Harmakheru was suggesting that there were no scholars who agreed with Church POV - even calling this a "fringe" theory. I argued with him/her and I supplied more sources. I do not agree that my arguments were anything other than healthy Wikipedia debate and I do believe that too much softness is thrown at PMAnderson and Harmakheru and too much prickliness at myself and Xandar. If Xandar were not helping me, I would probably leave Wikipedia for lack of decent help on that page and too much animosity from those who would like to push controversial authors onto the page and eliminate any that support the Catholic position. NancyHeise ^talk 16:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This diff [19] (the whole thing, not just what is highlighted) may provide some insight into the different POV's of editors on the CC talk page. I think that the article would be lopsided if we did not have such variety and I believe that it is not in the best interest of the article for Karanacs to focus on a set of editors who she disapproves of when the behaviour of the other editors on the page are as bad or worse. As you can see, I invited this editor's help.[20] I welcome newcomers. I may subsequently disagree with them but I always provide sources and if I do not like their sources, I provide evidence why - ie bad scholarly reviews and such. NancyHeise ^talk 16:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween

Richard (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard - it really was happy! Hope yours was too. NancyHeise ^talk 16:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Note

Nancy, re your characterizations on this list, you might want to review this ArbCom ruling. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, do you think my listing of the RFC is a violation of any of those rules? Do I say anything bad about anyone in my listing of that RFC as an incident of humiliation for myself? Do you consider this a divisive act on my part? That was not my intention. I have seen links to these kinds of pages on other user's pages before. It is an attempt to show Reader that Wikipedia has its bumpy side. If anyone listed on that RFC complains to me about it being listed on my user page, I will certainly take it down. NancyHeise ^talk 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

While you are here, can you tell me if this [21] is considered WP:canvassing? Karanacs accused me of canvassing when I conducted the recent poll on the Catholic Church talk page - a charge that several editors, including opposing ones disagreed with her about in defense of me.[22] How can she go around asking opposing CC talk editors to comment on the RFC she opened for me while not offering the same opportunity to those editors she knows will defend my efforts? This is why I consider her biased and unfair in her actions regarding me. If you think I am wrong to see her actions this way, I invite you to share your thoughts. NancyHeise ^talk 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions, Nancy, but I don't want to get further involved. Your edit (with the "humiliating" edit summary) popped on my watchlist, so I pointed out the ArbCom ruling for your reflection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I would like to point you to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/NancyHeise#Question:_notifications, where I asked for input on whether to notify other editors who may see your point of view. Given the response, I don't know that it is appropriate for me to list this anywhere else. If you feel that the RfC should have wider notification, I encourage you to post a neutral comment on Talk:Catholic Church. Alternatively, with your permission I would be willing to post this there. Karanacs (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs, I think that would have helped my case but would probably not have helped CC talk page. Richard advised you, before you opened this Rfc that it would lead to hard feelings and division [23] - it certainly has. I do not wish for other editors to become embroiled in this spider web you have created by misrepresenting my posts to the Catholic Church talk page.[24] My reason for commenting on your violation of WP:canvassing was to point out your obvious bias since you did not ask about notifications before you had already notified those whom you knew would agree with you.[25]. NancyHeise ^talk 22:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My posts were not canvassing, and were made at the behest of Richard. My choice of who to notify was validated

by uninvolved Ncmvocalist. Please note also that I did not include allegations of canvassing in the RfC as consensus had determined that you had not canvassed inappropriately. Karanacs (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard's post [26] advises you against a user Rfc and recommends a content Rfc - advice you ignored. Your uninvolved Ncmvocalist says its a grey area, he is not endorsing you either but offering some guidance - guidance you sought only after you had already canvassed for supporters for your Rfc which includes your discussion with Richard in the link above. NancyHeise ^talk 15:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

New message at Richard's talk page

Hello, NancyHeise. You have new messages at Richard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

More Rfc, I'm afraid

Nancy, I know you don't want to participate further in the Rfc, but in case you hadn't seen the question has been raised as to whether it should be mentioned by notice on the Catholic Church talk page - [27]. Karanacs does not want to do so without your "express permission". Or I suppose significant contributors who might not be aware of it could be messaged individually. Obviously that includes several editors, including some you have disagreed with in the past. Do you want to give Karanacs that permission? E-mail me if you want to discuss. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod, I do not want to put this on Catholic Church talk page for the reasons I specify here [28]. Her RFC is in error in many of its accusations as I pointed out to her on the RFC talk page[29] - errors she is in no hurry to correct it seems. Her RFC has resulted in misrepresentation of my edits and was brought about by her simply because I criticized her actions that harmed the atmosphere of the CC talk page. Posting of this RFC on CC talk page will further inflame editors and cause further division - something we are trying to prevent. The issue on that page is the article, not me. If I were of the same mind as Karanacs, I would spend my time today opening an ANI on her and listing all the accusations she is making against me in error - specifically that she accuses me of wanting to use 1840's books, accuses me of canassing (all of the editors on CC talk page disagreed with her[30]) when she herself canvassed both before[31] and after [32] she opened her RFC against me and ignores the fact that there are many disrespectful editors on the CC talk page who were provacative and demeaning long before I ever said anything to her about it[33][34] - and then when I do - she opens an RFC against only me - for simply answering her question to me in an honest manner.[35] Now Haldraper is proposing using .coms for sources and making changes to the article with no discussion [36]because he and his friends have been encouraged once again by Karanacs actions - her RFC against me. NancyHeise ^talk 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good

I am finally done! How have you been? Now I am back to fixing non-bias articles on wikipedia. I wonder why some users here on wiki try so hard to have non-bias content and they seem to destroy the truth. I geuss we just put up with it. - BennyK95 - Talk 17:47, November 06 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nancy do you think you could get a bigger picture of the coat of arms of the Miami archdiocese? And maybe a picture of the Archbishop? - BennyK95 - Talk 19:23, November 06 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I can do that. However, if the opportunity presents itself, I'll ask him. Glad to hear you are doing well. NancyHeise ^talk 00:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

please don't delete POV tags

Nancy, please read the POV tag. It says, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." You and I come to this topic from different perspectives, so it's important that we humbly follow the rules rather than putting ourselves above them. The rule here is, don't remove the tag until the dispute is resolved. Leadwind (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Leadwind, a single editor who opposes a consensus does not make a dispute especially when you bring no sources to support your view. NancyHeise ^talk 14:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Catholic Church. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am participating on the article talk page by providing sources and links supporting article text and discussion related to it. I did not know I was edit warring by eliminating obvious vandalism to the article by Leadwind who has persistently removed referenced text against consensus. I was in the process of discussing this with him on the article talk page when this block was issued. I am curious to understand how I can be blocked but Leadwind is not when he clearly has been removing our text without consensus or providing reliable sources to support his position. Thanks.

Decline reason:

I will not unblock on the basis that another user should have been blocked, and your edit warring clearly crossed the 3RR line. The fact that you were engaging in discussion is laudable, but continued edit warring is unacceptable Fritzpoll (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Administrators, please see edit-warring report; this block occurred as I was filing the request. Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I note that LeadWind has been blocked for 3RR as well. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for edit warring. I guess that was not the best idea. I am glad to discover that there is something else I can do, until now, I did not know there was a page for reporting it [37]. Wikipedia, in this instance, has proven to be an ultimately fair and interesting place! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A request

Hi Nancy. It has been awhile since I regularly edited (I am still on semi-retirement). I logon to occasionally check on vandalism. While looking at my watchlist, I came across the Rfc. This led me to the CC talk archives (I read 35-38). I just wanted to mention to you that you might have made a mistake in rejecting Harmakheru. Looking at his statements and the sources he has brought forward, he really has the potential to bring solid contributions and to help to make CC better. Please take a look at his response to Xandar. His language is unfortunately strong, but what he says is essentially correct in my opinion. Unfortunately, he is withdrawing from the article and I am afraid that your and Xandar's attitudes will drive other valuable contributors away. Please consider inviting Harmakheru back. Also you may remember on a previous FAC drive, Awadewit also volunteered to help you on the early history of the Church. I hope you would reconsider and invite her to help you as well. Wish you the best. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi RelHistBuff,

• I have invited Awadewit to come help since then. [38] I also willingly and happily participated in a Skype conversation she recorded on Wikipedia's controversial articles. She is very welcome to come back and help anytime.
• I also apologized to Harmakheru and acknowledged his contributions to the discussion. (see first post in this section [39] - I am the only person besides Richard to apologize on the page even though many editors got heated over the discussions)
• Harmakheru contributed more sources to supplement Duffy's point of view which was a point of view we already had prominently presented on the page.
• I disagreed with him because he was asserting that was the only point of view that needed to be presented and I subsequently put forth additional sources from scholars holding points of view in agreement with the Catholic Church - the POV he wished to exclude. [40], [41]
• The other editors agreed with me that there are scholars who are in agreement with the Church regarding its origins.[42] (see also links to quotes of all of the many sources we examined halfway through this section here [43]), even Karanacs [44].
• I believe we all left on good terms and in agreement on article text.
• The present dispute is not with Harmakheru but with PMAnderson and Leadwind who continue to assert that there is only one as opposed to three scholarly viewpoints.
• Xandar and I and others are in favor of making the article meet the requirements of WP:NPOV which includes all three viewpoints. PMAnderson and Leadwind, like Harmakheru, want us to exclude the scholars who agree with the Catholic Church's point of view and they (PMAnderson and Leadwind) want us to eliminate the Church's point of view as well.[45] Leadwind has suggested as his premier source a link to an online encyclopedia.[46]
• Even though we have listed for them all of our many sources, including Harmakheru's, they continue to reject the fact that there are differing scholarly points of view. Here's Leadwind's proposal at the top of this section [47]. NancyHeise ^talk 02:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe Harmakheru was stating his contribution was, in fact, the Catholic Church's point-of-view and there was a disagreement between you and him on whether that was correct or not. But in any case, although you say that all of you left on good terms, that does not seem to be the case as seen in Harmakheru's statement in response to Xandar. I guess the point is that it is not enough to leave messages asking editors to come back; the attitude has to be such that one should never feel to be driven away. What is happening to the CC article is similar to what occurred with the Martin Luther article back in 2006-2007 up to now (we talked a bit about that on my talk page); valuable contributors no longer touch the article because of the atmosphere. The Rfc does have a lot of good comments (from Richard, Johnbod, and Jbmurray) so I hope things will turn out better. All the best. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw Harmakheru's response to Xandar after I had already posted my response to you. The Catholic Church's point of view is cited to the Church's own official Consitution, Lumen Gentium. He was not correct, his sources opposed the Church's position and we already had a prominent scholar and article text giving Reader that point of view, Eamon Duffy. I think it would help if admins used their good training to place a WP:civil note on editor's talk pages when things get heated. Maybe even some links to relevant Wikipedia pages like WP:NPOV so that they know that we are required to have the Catholic point of view on the page as well. That seems to be the most surprising thing to other editors who only know one point of view and then are surprised to find out that there are other scholarly viewpoints out there as well. If they don't like those viewpoints, they attack us for being POV. I think the fact that I have listed on my userpage that I am a convert to the Catholic Church does not help but I am unwilling to remove that important part of my self description. Thanks for visiting me. I hope all is well with you and I hope you contact me again if you do another article. You are a good editor - although you had your momments on the Catholic Church page as well : ) NancyHeise ^talk 03:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Congratulations! I´m catholic too. Do you sepeak Sapanich?-- RubensCatholicus (Hic et Nunc) 23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hablo muy poco! Welcome to Wikipedia! Sabo muchos Cubanos aqui, ellos son muy intellegente y lograrse. NancyHeise ^talk 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If I can interject, I think you mean "Conozco muchos Cubanos" (conocer vs. saber) Also "inteligente" rather than "intellegente". I don't know what "lograrse" is intended to mean. Perhaps you meant "accomplished"? Unfortunately, I'm at a loss to translate "accomplished" into Spanish. My Spanish is not that strong. If I might, I would also comment that I've met quite a number of Americans in my life and have also found them to be quite intelligent and accomplished. Curious that Americans and Cubans should share these traits, eh? --Richard S (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In South Florida, there is a very large community of Cubans who are very well respected as entrepreneurs and professionals. They have a good reputation as a people who work hard, go on to higher education, spend quite a lot of money educating their kids and keeping them out of trouble. In this sense they are much like the Jewish community who also shares these traits. All of the very expensive private schools here are full of Jewish kids (and some Catholics!) The private schools in Miami are full of rich Cubans. I know Cubans who escaped Castro with nothing but the shirts on their backs, came here, had to wash cars to feed their families, updated their education to be able to sit for the CPA exam and became very successful accountants, lawyers and business owners. I have great respect for the Cuban immigrants here. The Archdiocese has a number of Cuban priests and very influential and active Cuban parishioners in all areas of State and Federal government. NancyHeise ^talk 15:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

On another note, I just came by my user page to post a link for future reference [48] pp 34-37. I wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving, God bless you all. NancyHeise ^talk 15:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lumen Gentium

Nancy, I saw your questions on my talk page, and I have replied to them there. Harmakheru ✍ 23:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I have replied to your followup on my talk page with some questions of my own. Harmakheru ✍ 04:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, round three. Harmakheru ✍ 06:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Christmas

Hello Nancy. As a bit of a respite from the arguments elsewhere I've been doing a little work on the Christmas article, which used to be FA a couple of years ago, but got demoted. It's probably too late to make it FA this year, but if you have a few moments your ideas and contributions on further improving the article would be appreciated. Xandar 00:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sophie Burns

Hi Nancy, I'm pretty sure that Sophie Burns is as much a saint as I am, but I wonder if you or one of your TPS's has a list of catholic saints. ϢereSpielChequers 22:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a pretty good listing at Catholic Online. But it looks like quite a clever joke. The festival at Benicassim is a music festival. I'm fairly certain there aren't female Jesuits, and why would jesuits establish missions in Spain? Xandar 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's Sophie Burns? NancyHeise ^talk 17:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nancy and Xandar. She was the subject of a hoax article that got deleted PDQ. I thought this page would know whether or not to light a candle for her. I wouldn't have known that anything was odd about a female Jesuit in Spain, but there were a few other things about the article that had me doubt her beatification. ϢereSpielChequers 22:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Consensus and (archived) FACs

Nancy, I archived the off-topic portion of the discussion at the above FAC talk thread. Just to clarify, I don't have a horse in this race, but the back-and-forth discussion between you and others was escalating at an alarming pace, and was largely unproductive. I want to assure you that I am neutral, do not hold a grudge or any ill feelings against you, and have no opinion on the subject of discussion. Hopefully the issue can be resolved, but perhaps the article's talk page or a user talk page is a better place. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe you could let Karanacs know too. I never thought someone would use the FAC page for a discussion that more appropriately belonged on an article talk page or the Wikiproject page. NancyHeise ^talk 19:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am mistaken, I see that you only archived the part beginning with my comments. I think that is unhelpful and very biased in favor of Karanacs who should have been directed to ask the question in a more appropriate and fair venue than in a place where editors are beholden to her decisions. I think that is an abuse of her position. Sandy feels otherwise but I disagree with her. I would not describe the disagreement as anything other than that and it did not appear to be escalating as it ended immediately afterward. NancyHeise ^talk 20:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Thanks for the heads up. But what happened to that article is totally unacceptable. The issue in question has no place in the article at all, as has most of the "Present" section (Present section are a bad idea anyway). I cannot understand why you argue about this sentence or that sentence - the whole paragraph has to go. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Str, we never had a Present section until someone at the last FAC asked for it. I added it in response to that suggestion which was supported by other editors. If you want to eliminate the whole section then let us know on the talk page. NancyHeise ^talk 19:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And what's your comment on the "abuse" section? Str1977 ^(talk) 11:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And PS. I have raised my objection on the talk page. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Str, I invited you to the page so you could help us discover what editors want. I appreciate your help. My comments in the various sections are to be found on the CC talk page. NancyHeise ^talk 01:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Thank you, Nancy, for spreading your personal attacks to Raul's talk page.[49] I posted my official recusal from all articles you nominate on Sandy's talk page immediately after I filed the user RfC for your behavior (not weeks later). I have also previously mentioned on the Catholic Church talk page that I don't close articles I review (and I reiterated this there hours before you posted on WT:FAC accusing me of abusing my position). The notice on Sandy's talk page was simply a courtesy; neither she nor I close articles that we are extensively involved in or that we have reviewed as that would not be ethical. You have been told by me, by SandyGeorgia, and by Dabomb87 that my post to WT:FAC was perfectly valid. Richard has seconded the question. No one else has raised any questions about my participation at WT:FAC, and no one else has assumed or implied (at least not publicly) that Sandy or I would close articles with which we have a conflict of interest.

I will note that you have taken no dispute resolution measures, instead complaining and spreading attacks on me in multiple venues. I am fed up with your attacks on my motives and my integrity as well as your misrepresentation of events. It's time for you to make a choice - either file an RfC on my behavior/take me to WP:ANI or stop making these offensive remarks about my motives. If you choose to continue making these attacks (already documented and endorsed at the RfC), I will bring the matter to Arbcom after the holidays and let them decide whether to implement sanctions. Enough. Karanacs (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, you are the one who opened an RFC, one that targeted only me in a very biased way and completely ignored the abuse that was going on at the Catholic Church page - abuse that you encouraged by your barnstar to Harmakheru and your RFC against me. If you want to go to Arbcom, that is your decision, the Catholic Church talk page archives tell the story already. I have not opened an ANI against you and do not intend to do so because I still think the best way to deal with such a situation is to tell the person when they have done something wrong, even if they persistently call that a personal attack when it is not meant to be. I will just tell you when I think you have done something wrong and hope that you stop. NancyHeise ^talk 03:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to post on my talk page any incidents in which you feel I have acted inappropriately. It would also be appropriate to give this type of feedback on your talk page if I have already initiated a conversation here, or on any dispute resolution page (for example, RFC/U, WP:Wikiquette or ANI). However, I will consider your posting of these types of comments on any other page a personal attack, as the location implies you are more interested in smearing my character than working to solve a dispute. Dispute resolution procedures have been explained to you - repeatedly. Your refusal to understand basic wikipedia concepts such as this is not becoming. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, you know that your interventions on the Catholic Church page, along with your position with respect to Admin Actions and FAC, are likely to raise questions of Conflict of Interest. Knowing these dangers, it's probably best not to be overly sensitive to criticism. You will have to walk a very narrow tightrope in order to do these two things at the same time. If you want to contribute to the debate on Catholic Church, you will need to refrain from intervention on FAC and in admin actions and referrals with reference to fellow contributors to that page. Xandar 23:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you saying, Xandar? Karanacs is recused from the FAC, and has not used any admin tools on the article. There is no conflict of interest; she is working on the article like any other editor. Please stop spreading these stories alleging some kind of improper actions by Karanacs; they are simply wrong, and show a fundamental lack of understanding of how anything works on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am just saying we have an editor in Karanacs, who has been involved in the page before, and who is now taking a more active role on the page. Quite fine. However the same editor has launched an RFC against Nancy, related to disputes Karanacs is involved with on the page, and is an admin involved in the FA process. She has made statements in the course of discussions on the page that unless the page moves further towards her opinion of what it should be, it is unlikely to get FA. As I said, these moves raise concern regarding Conflict of Interest. These would be better defrayed by less personalisation of issues, less talk about ANIs etc., and more attempts at collegial editing, without the presumption - that often seems to come across - that the long-term editors of the page are POV-pushers. If we start with "assume good faith", we will all get a lot further. Xandar 01:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Exhorations to "assume good faith" are just bullshit and irrelevant. The issue now is that the article as presently constituted will not get through FAC for a number of reasons, and so it needs to be approached in a different way. There's nothing that requires an assumption of any faith at all, just common sense. And let's please just drop all these threats of WQA/AN/I/ArbCom/Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, that's just boring and childish. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Nancy, I hope you accept me saying this, as I've had problems with Karanacs in the past and have been strongly in your camp on many issues - I am concerned with the above and I hope you can drop it. If you have any other concerns, please email them to me and we will discuss the matter. I am not saying Karanacs is right, nor am I saying you are right. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia, no one told Catholic Church editors that Karanacs was recused. Xandar's concerns are all of our concerns - he is correct in his assertions and should not be made to feel as if he has done anything wrong for voicing them - here on my talk page. Why did you or Karanacs feel that posting the recusal on your talk page was informative to the editors who most needed to know that information? It was alarming to us to have Karanacs suddenly become very involved in the page, open an RFC against only me while taking sides in an ongoing dispute that Richard advised a content RFC not a user RFC?
• Karanacs, I consider your posting on the FAC talk page a smearing of my character and a serious conflict of interest and abuse of your position. Xandar has clearly stated why your involvement is disruptive and I agree with him. You are asking for a double standard when you require that I post my complaint on your talk page. You already smeared my character on the CC talk page by accusing me of canvassing. I am used to this from you - you once even accused me of plagiarism at a Catholic Church FAC. I consider this smearing my character but I didn't complain or retaliate against you. I think it is ridiculous that you think we can not dare criticize you but you can go on and on whatever page you please and threatening us with Rfc's and Arbcom's if we point out your errors. Sandy's defense of you is absolutely unacceptable and that is why I complained to Raul. I thought that it was the most kind way I could have complained. Would you have preferred that I opened an WP:ANI? NancyHeise ^talk 02:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I would prefer that you open a discussion at ANI, or a Wikiquette alert, or an RFC/U. That is at least a form of dispute resolution, and it allows a broader discussion among a range of editors. I have been involved in this article since its first FA nomination - long before I became an FAC delegate. It is standard practice for editors to recuse themselves from certain activities if they are involved. ArbCom members recuse from cases where they are involved; admins don't close deletion discussions when they've been involved in the article; and, naturally, FAC delegates don't close nominations for articles in which they've been involved. I left a message for Sandy only as a professional courtesy because she does not always know which articles I am involved in editing (as I do not always know which articles she is involved in editing). It is not standard practice to leave notices on the article pages themselves, because, well, my editing history on that page should make it incredibly obvious to anyone else involved on the page. I have repeatedly informed you that I am working on this article as an editor, not as an administrator. Let me state that once more for the record. I am working on this article as an editor, just like any other editor on this project. And, to reiterate once more as you seem to have trouble understanding this, I would prefer that you follow official dispute resolution procedures and post complaints at ANI, Wikiquette, or RFC/U. Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Can you please all just drop it? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hear, hear. Let's have no more talk of WQA or AN/I; they're both just a waste of time and effort. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• I spent one Christmas in an Arb case, and that's now way to spend one's Christmas season; it is considerate of Karanacs to hold off until after Christmas. I hope NancyHeise will take the time off, enjoy her holidays, reflect on the seriousness of the RFC/U findings, learn more about WP:CONSENSUS and WP:Dispute resolution and WP:NPOV, and that all will hold off on any further steps in dispute resolution until the New Year. Perhaps reason will prevail in 2010! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, could you please take a break from this in general (and not just postpone it but a complete break)? I hope you can realize that Nancy is currently forced into an entrenched situation and that nothing good can come of it. She pursued something. Going after her for it will only bring about unnecessary strife. That page brings a lot of tension and stress with it. Please keep that in mind and hopefully give some more slack. I hope that Nancy too can do the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, Wikipedia is supposed to be my fun hobby. This is not fun. I'm going Christmas shopping : ) NancyHeise ^talk 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a great idea... while I have expressed my own opinions on this spat between Karanacs and Nancy, I have always felt that it was better to discuss content than personality and conduct. I second Ottava and Malleus in suggesting that this dispute be given a long, long rest. Maybe Christmas and New Year's will give us all new resolutions to be civil towards each other and the threatened ARBCOM case will prove unnecessary. If we cannot assume Good Faith, can we give each other the opportunity to turn over a new leaf, bury the hatchet and let bygones be bygones? (and any other cliches that you can think of...)

My mother's house had a major fire, incurring hundreds of thousands of damage. No one was injured but, if it had gone differently, I could have lost her and my brother. In light of that kind of real-life drama, Wikispats like this seem really quite silly and unimportant.

--Richard S (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Richard, I am very glad your mom and brother are all right. NancyHeise ^talk 16:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved from your user space--hope that's OK with you

Hello Nancy,

i don't know who the "we" are who insist on calling Catholics a name we do not call ourselves, but it is not a matter of majority but a matter of faith. It is our right to choose to call ourselves whatever we choose, and we as a church identify ourselves as "Catholic"--not "Roman" Catholic, although we may be known as such by Protestants, in which case your edit should refelct this. Even though we Catholics are also baptized, we don't object to Baptists latching on to their name to the exclusion of ourselves. i like to think we are as pentecostal as the next church, but we don't object to Pentecostals calling themselves such. Similarly, if Anglicans and Episcopalians want to call themselves "English" Catholics or some other modifying term, it is not our place to stop them. And, what's more, it is not their place to stop us from refusing to call ourselves "Roman" Catholics. Comprende? ~Rev. James T. Burtchaell, csc

) Comprende! You are preaching to the choir here Rev James! However, on Wikipedia we have to work together with others to come up with an agreed article text. The first sentence of the CC article was in mediation for several months and resulted in what we have now. I am not too eager to hash it out all over again. If you look at the end of the sentence we have a note explaining the name issue and I think our references are pretty good there. If you want to help us improve the page we could certainly use your help. NancyHeise ^talk 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding RfC

Good news and bad news. The good news, as you've probably already heard, is that your RfC as closed on December 2 of this year.

The bad news is that a week later (today, December 9,) this was posted in the talk section of the RfC. I suggest that you take another look at how you respond to user comments, as this is what triggered the original RfC in the first place. True, this RfC was closed, but another could be opened. I know other users personally who have been banned - and still are - for lesser things, despite good intentions. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Delta, I think if you take a look at PMAnderson's edits on the Catholic Church talk page you will see an abundance of edits that could comprise a pretty good RFC. We are allowed to point readers back to the last consensus if a new one has not been formed. NancyHeise ^talk 23:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Hopefully, you understand the situation and the attitudes of other users. You're not new to Wikipedia, so I probably do not need to explain such avenues of approach as WP:RFC and WP:ARBCOM. While I do believe that the RfC recently conducted - and closed - gave favorable results, I'm concerned that any future misunderstanting could re-open old wounds. Like I've said before, Wikipedia is a tough place, as you and I have experienced, and when there's text on a screen in place of a human being, things can get misunderstood very easily. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 23:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Thanks for the comment. :) I have fairy thick skin, so I'm not particularly disauded. Though it seems like it will take a giant effort to get this thing up to FA, mostly due to the beuracratic machinations rather than issues to do with quality, perhaps unique to this article. It does seem a bit much that any contributor who dares to contribute information, which does not present the Church as a fabled "Whore of Babylon" is derided as a chauvanist or "ultramontane" (!). Part of the course I guess. - Yorkshirian (talk)

LifeSiteNews.com

Hello, are you the person who wrote this essay for LifeSiteNews.com ? I have read some of your contributions on Wikipedia, and I found that the tone of the writing is similar to the material found on the pro-life website. [50] ADM (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I submitted that article for an op-ed. This was my first ever submission to that news organization. I have had three or four op-eds and many letters to the editor published in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel since 1995 [51] and one op-ed "Swartz left out sugar's role in Lake O pollution" 8/15/2005 and one letter to the editor "Benedict uniquely qualified to speak on radical Islam" 9/24/2006 in the Palm Beach Post (the link didn't work so I provided the dates and names of the articles if you are going to perform a search). Some of them discuss Church-related issues but as you can see, most of them are on other topics that are not Church related. I did not know this article was published yet. Thanks for the link! NancyHeise ^talk 08:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Note on vandalism

Hi Nancy. I wanted to point you to the page WP:VANDALISM that describes what is and is not vandalism. To quote from this policy (note: not a guideline, not an essay, a policy):

• Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism.
• Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism
• Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see the dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such.
• Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism.

You frequently mischaracterize edits of people who are actually engaging in discussion ont he issues as vandalism. This is an assumption of bad faith (because good-faith edits are not vandalism) and can be considered a personal attack. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Karanacs. I think point number three in your list above describes PMAndersons edits to the Catholic Church page that I have considered to be "vandalism". However, per your advice, I will avoid the use of the word "vandal". I hope that some good admin could help us deal with PMAnderson's edits that change article text still under consideration with no new consensus reached. Until a new consensus is arrived, the old one should stand and be respected until a replacement is agreed - otherwise it makes discussion difficult. NancyHeise ^talk 16:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh

Nancy, I think it is time for you to give up on the Catholic Church page as a lost cause for right now. There are millions of neglected pages that deal with Catholic issues that would allow you to put forth info on important Catholic issues that wont have the controversy and allow you to do far more good work. The Rosary page, for example, could be fixed up. Immaculate Conception is another. There are also many famous shrines, cathedrals, and basilicas that need more work on their pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ottava, you aren't any help at all. : ) Actually, I am much too busy to delve too much into the present discussion right now. I am offering my advice as a participant. I think that the editors there haven't read the introduction of the Catholic Church article in Encyclopedia Brittanica otherwise they would see that the cultural influence of the Church is an important topic that extends beyond the Roman Empire era to the present day. NancyHeise ^talk 16:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My next topic of interest is the Theology of the body article. I have been researching that since this past summer but I need to read a couple more sources before I can delve into that article. I've read Christopher West and am presently reading John Paul II's actual text put forth in a book compiled and forwarded by Michael Waldstein. I invite you to help me when I get started which may not be for a couple of months - I have to read JPII slowly as he takes about two pages to say what could be said in about a paragraph! NancyHeise ^talk 16:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your invited!

Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami 3 is coming up in the near future, you are invited to participate. Thanks Secret ^account 17:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation! I responded on the meetup page. NancyHeise ^talk 16:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)