User talk:NancyHeise/Archive 9

Worth taking a look

http://www.catholicplanet.org/articles/wikipedia-errors.htm

Hi there Nancy. As if you weren't busy enough, but someone showed me this. Gabr-el 01:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother, it's too vague, and it's probably nothing new. How's life? I'm sorry I don't keep in touch too much...Gabr-el 01:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I found you on facebook! Gabr-el 01:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Neat article Gabr-el - I am very glad that someone is making an effort to point out the unreliability of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge for Catholic doctrine and issues. However, I think Wikipedia is still a fun way for editors to learn about the subjects they edit and in that way, if they take the time to rummage through the sources, people can learn more about the Catholic Church as well. If they are atheists or Protestants doing the editing and rummaging - well that's OK if they walk away having learned something. Re: facebook - yes, I had to do it. Now I am keeping in touch with people I haven't seen in years - too fun! NancyHeise ^talk 02:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What a nice gift! I'll try to tinker with my new toy as time permits. Hope everyone is having a nice summer. NancyHeise ^talk 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, I realize that this is a two month experiment and I appreciate that you wished for me to be involved in this project. I am spending a lot of time doing some other "fun" things lately (deep house-cleaning and yard projects : ) and am not too excited about Wikipedia at the present moment. I am still on my "break" I guess. I hate to dissappoint but I may not be very involved in reviewing right now. (I still haven't written my Alaska article either). Thanks anyway. I hope the experiment works out well for Wikipedia though. NancyHeise ^talk 04:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, no pressure was meant, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I knew that Ten Commandments was one of the first articles in the test, and I wasn't sure whether they'd extend it into any other religious articles. Since you do a lot of work in that area, I wanted to make sure that you had the same editing rights you did before the trial in case you chose to look at those articles now. It's more to cover all the bases so you aren't locked out of any article you are interested in rather than a push to get you to take on new tasks. Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I just glanced at Ten Commandments, not too much activity there. Thanks for including me though. Sorry I can't put in more Wikipedia time at present. All my kids are off from school as I am sure yours are too. Hope you have a nice summer. NancyHeise ^talk 03:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This new "right" is mis-named really Nancy, as it's got nothing to do with reviewing. It's just a minor extension to the new changes patrol in reality. Anyway, enjoy your summer. Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malleus! I was just thinking of you yesterday when my husband and I were watching a Mel Gibson movie called "Maverick". NancyHeise ^talk 03:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NancyHeise/Catholic_Church_medium_version is absolutely stunning. I've seen the Catholic Church page today and I can't believe the condition it is in. There's a suggestion on the talk page to put it back to 'start class' or 'c-class.' That surprised me.

I take it you've not implemented your version, or significant parts of it, because of opposition?, but right now the article is in such poor condition. Also, I think it might be a good idea to suggest to the Wiki 1.0 people that your version here be used if they plan to send out the article on disk. The condition the article is in right now is not representative of the Church and would not do a service to the readers. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke 2010, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church, where the community soundly rejected Nancy's proposed version. The article is currently being worked on, albeit sporadically this summer, and more help is welcome, preferably with reading scholarly sources. So far the reading has concentrated on the history section; if you (or anyone else) are/is interested in reading scholarly sources for the other sections we'd welcome your involvement. Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malke. Thanks for your suggestion. I agree with you, that the version on my userpage - the one that incorporates the comments of the four FACs is better than what exists today. Karanacs and SandyGeorgia worked very hard together to eliminate the better version. They did so with the help of several editors who don't seem to know very much about the Church and who left the page after successfully eliminating it's Good Article status. I did not see much point in working to improve the article in such an adversarial atmosphere, one that was/is nurtured and encouraged by the two FAC assistants - SandyGeorgia and Karanacs. NancyHeise ^talk 23:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. The article was already at GA? What version was that?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The "Article Milestones" on the Discussion page show you each stage of the article. If you click on the date next to each milestone, you will be able to see what the article looked like when it reached that milestone. The most advanced stage of the article was in October 2008 after it had been re-reviewed for Good Article and its Good Article Status was "Kept" and then it was "Peer Reviewed". I went to the CC talk page and suggested using that version, see my comment here [1]. NancyHeise ^talk 01:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, when the article lost its GA status, it was not the better version that caused it to lose its status but the present version which came along after a group of editors completely tossed out the GA version. NancyHeise ^talk 01:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom findings

NancyHeise, regarding your disparaging remarks aimed at others above, and your furthering of a battleground mentality on CC editing, please review the following ArbCom findings in another case:

1. Casting apsersions: It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.
2. Neutrality and conflicts of interest: Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings or interests, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Your remarks above are untrue, ungrounded, and further a battleground mentality on Wikipedia. The version you promote was solidly rejected at FAC and by the community because it had numerous errors, and the facts of the matter wrt Karanacs and myself are that I became involved because of your sustained and unfounded attacks on both of us. You continue to say that the version you promote reflects comments of four FACs, which is inaccurate-- it was rejected by four FACs. Cease the battleground and disparaging of other editors. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this an ArbCom finding about this editor?Malke 2010 (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this is a general arb finding, that Nancy should be aware of, as she continues to run afoul of Wiki policies. She might want to review the remedies applied in that case to editors who violate these policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to know, because the post seems to be saying this is something ArbCom decided about her. I've only seen the RfC on the article, so I went looking for a link to an ArbCom decision on this editor. You might want to change it to show that isn't what is meant. I don't know all of this situation and don't want to. And I'm just letting you know that other editors taking a quick look at this might also get this impression.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point: on re-reading, I see it wasn't clear. I've added "in another case". Here is the Catholic Church arb, which the arbs declined in hopes that further dispute resolution would be helpful prior to an arb hearing. It appears that NancyHeise doesn't hear or accept the results of other necessary steps in dispute resolution, so I want to assure she is aware of the topic bans that occur of editors in other cases who edit Wiki as COI advocates for a non-neutral POV, as well as the consequences of continually maligning and disparaging other editors. Here is the RFC on Nancy's behaviors; hopefully these behaviors will not continue, so the case won't again end up before ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia and Malke. After reading Sandy's post here I thought it might be appropriate to respond that I have already documented my complaint against SandyGeorgia and Karanacs in the last archive of this talk page, specifically here: [2]. The only difference between myself and them is that I did not open an ARBCOM against them. I thought it was just enough to tell them their faults and hope that they would do better next time. NancyHeise ^talk 12:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Accusations have gone both ways on this. Things got pretty devisive and some controversial stuff went on. An RfC eventually went the way of the shorter version, supported by Sandy and Karanacs, so that has stayed, but, as I said in detail at the time, it is sub-standard in its comprehensiveness and treatment of many elements, which hopefully can be improved. Xandar 22:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

This is the best CD - The Songs of Distant Earth (album). NancyHeise ^talk 00:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article on the Catholic Church and the Nazi's by Zenit referencing Professor [3] Derek Hastings new Oxford University Press source on the subject [4] . Distinguishes between the pro-Catholic early Nazi movement and the murderously anti-Catholic Nazi party of Hitler during WWII. NancyHeise ^talk 17:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo Credits

Hi Nancy,

I used your photo here: http://adrawingeachday.blogspot.com/2010/11/halibut.html

Let me know if you want me to credit the photo differently.

Thanks!76.218.127.35 (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, maybe you should credit it as "Nancy Heise before she lost 20 pounds" (BTW, I really did!) NancyHeise ^talk 18:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for help with Christianity and violence

Hi Nancy, How've you been? I confess that I am disappointed and frustrated with the lack of progress on the Catholic Church article. Apparently, it's one thing to blow up an article and promise to rewrite it and another thing to deliver on that promise. Grrrr...

In the meantime, I've been working on other Wikipedia articles. The one that I have been spending the most time on recently is Christianity and violence. I'd like to ask you for some help with this one if you have the time and inclination.

This article used to be a coatrack of every incident where Christians committed violence in the name of God or in the name of the Church. It went through two AFD's. One reason that it survived the second AFD is I went through and cleaned out most of the coatrack.

I have since turned the article into a more NPOV survey of scholarly debate over the question of whether Christianity is a violent religion. I'm actually kind of proud of the section "Christianity as a violent religion" because I think it does a good job of presenting both sides of the debate.

The problem I'm having is in presenting an equally NPOV perspective throughout the article. At the moment, one of the weaker areas in the article is the section on "Colonialism". Right now, the article presents mostly a negative view of Christian missionaries and colonialism. That's my fault. Those are the sources I found via Google search. There are, of course, sources that defend the Christian missionaries but the ones that I saw in my online search are not as reliable (per WP:RS) as the ones I found attacking their work.

That's when I thought of you. It seems you have access to a bunch of sources over and above what's available online. I was hoping you could provide me with some sources that provide the pro-Christian missionary side of the colonialism question i.e. the positive impact that Christian missionaries had on indigenous peoples in colonial territories.

If you are in the mood to edit the article directly, please do so. If not, please deposit any sources at Talk:Christianity and violence. Of course, if you find other parts of the article that you can contribute to, you are welcome to do that as well.

I should probably let you know that there is a running dispute on the Talk Page between myself and User:Noleander. Besides his partially legitimate criticism of the lack of sources in some of my contributions, Noleander seems to view the Christianity and violence article as primarily having the scope of listing and describing incidents in which the Christian church has incited or supported violence. This is the POV approach taken by Judaism and violence, Islam and violence and Mormonism and violence. I gather he has not been too happy with the approach that I have taken which I think is more NPOV and rests on scholarly debate on the topic. I'm not asking you to weigh in on that debate although you are free to do so if you like. I just thought it would be useful for you to be aware of what was going on on the Talk Page without having to read through the archive.

Thanx in advance for your help.

--Richard S (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a very interesting article. Thanks for the invite! However, I must decline right now, very busy with year end work at the office. You may want to use some of the sources listed at the Role of the Catholic Church in Western civilization page. The first three sources I can see on that page are very good ones to use on your article, I am sure there are more you can use there as well. There is a Nigerian Episcopal Bishop whose name I can not remember, I think his first name is Peter, who has written his life story about how he was to be sacrificed to pagan gods by his uncle but escaped somehow. He is a very vocal proponent of Christian missionaries and how they literally save thousands of lives like his from weird cultural practices like child sacrifice, and the other many horrible things people do to each other in Africa. Good luck, wish I was editing Wikipedia instead of doing my books at the office! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Here he is, see Peter Akinola. Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah! NancyHeise ^talk 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic dioceses

Want to help me elevate this page? I'd love for it to get there. I'm not sure about the whole assessment process, but I think it's worthy now of consideration. Thank you for your time. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ben! Gosh its been ages since I've been on Wikipedia. I might get some time next week and I'll try to have a look. NancyHeise ^talk 17:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Church and women

Hi Nancy, I wonder if you would take a look at this article: Catholic Church and women. The first draft of the article has languished in my userspace for a year and a half.

Frankly, I'd sort of forgotten about it until my attention was drawn back to it a few days ago. I decided to push the draft into article mainspace so that other editors could help improve it. I admit that article is unbalanced in that it focuses more on criticisms of the Church and doesn't present the positive impact that the Catholic Church has had on women's rights and their role in the family and in society. If you can help correct this imbalance, I would much appreciate it.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi PR, Thanks for the invite. I just glanced over the article and it appears that someone has inserted some of the necessary language you requested. Yes, it could be expanded with more sources. I would recommend some discussion on what life was like for women in virtually all pre-Christian societies to help round it all out. A good source for this is Peter Stark's "The Rise of Christianity" and Alvin Schmidt's "Under the Influence". Good luck! NancyHeise ^talk 15:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Former Archbishop Favalore Need Help

Nancy can you update this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop_John_Favalora - It is terrible out of date and due to the recent news about this guy don't want to mislead people about your Archdioese - this guy is OUT. Thanks--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the invite. I just looked at the page and am not sure if I can add anything helpful there. I haven't heard any news about Favalora at all since he retired. He must be enjoying it I hope. He was a very good Archbishop. He was a Good Shepherd to me. I wish him well. NancyHeise ^talk 15:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Father and Daughter Alaska Sea Fishing.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Father and Daughter Alaska Sea Fishing.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I'm too late - link is already red! Sorry. NancyHeise ^talk 20:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible religion books

You had actually been in the past named to me as one of the better editors around who deal extensively with Catholicism conent, if not maybe the best. I have been thinking recently about how a lot of the most important content regarding a lot of religious groups is kind of stable, and unlikely to be improved without a bit of a prompt, as it were. This includes Catholicism related articles. I was wondering what you might think of maybe, as a WikiBook, helping to put together a general overview book about Catholicism. This might be, basically, made from content in existing relevant articles. There was a highly regarded series of books some years ago about numerous faiths on the general topic of "Why I Am a (fill in the blank)", but, so far as I know, not a lot of more recent books of that type. Maybe as one proposal it could be a kind of Platonic dialogue format, with an adherent or two presenting the bulk of the content about beliefs, history, etc., of the group, with occasional questions/comments from others about questions regarding the points raised, disagreements, etc. It might also use a more conservational tone than encyclopedic tone, which might make it more appealing and useful to potential readers.

I have a feeling that Catholicsm might be among the easier such books to put together, considering, with the exception of some recent issues, most of it is pretty much a matter of basic consensus among both Catholics and non-Catholics. If it can be made to work there, it might be easier to get others interested in doing similar works elsewhere.

I would welcome your opinions. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, I wanted to help Wikipedia have a decent article on the Catholic Church because I think it is important for them to have one. I found it very difficult to do because every time I would put the article up for FA, it got slammed with so many people commenting on this and that with terrible arguments about things I thought wouldn't even be controversial - like the name Catholic Church. In the end, I wasn't even allowed to have a section of the article devoted to Catholic institutions that actually told readers what the Church does every day at all these institutions it owns and operates.

I am hoping that maybe your idea will provide a way to circumvent the difficulties I faced with trying to get the article to FA. I would be willing to help in that effort but I might need you to email me through the link on my user page because I do not check my Wikipedia page very much anymore. (I have a real job! ) NancyHeise ^talk 20:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi Nancy, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in this -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Pius XII talk and edits

Hello Nancy, not sure how often you check up on this page, but could you take a look at the talk section and recent edits and help us discern whether or not these edits are justified. I come to you because you have a great deal more experience than I and I could use your advice. Thank you. Scout of truth (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh gawd Sayerslle (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello NancyHeise. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)