User talk:Padresfan94

Welcome!

Hello, Padresfan94, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Padresfan94 - we need another gung-ho Vatican apologist on the article Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism like we need a bullet in the head. I see the article has been protected for the time-being. But going forward can I suggest you take a deep breath and try and see this about improving Wikipedia content, rather than protecting the interests of the Roman Catholic church. It's a big organization and it can look after itself. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FREE STRAW! GET YOUR STAW HERE! As much as you can carry, free to a good home! Padresfan94 (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? Can I suggest that if you're going to use sarcasm, then you make it at least intelligable. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be called an Aunt Sally where you are from? Padresfan94 (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from England. Where are you from? Fine, then just make that point directly rather than making cryptical allusions. I don't think there is any aunt sally or straw man in the points I'm making. I just don't want to see anymore partisanship in the editing of the homosexuality and catholicism article. Your contributions to date have all been one-side. Please demonstrate that you can take an even-handed approach. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.Contaldo80 (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not from England, and I'll be plain. I just don't want to see anymore partisanship in the editing of the homosexuality and catholicism article. Your contributions to date have all been one-side. Please demonstrate that you can take an even-handed approach. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Padresfan94 (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. So clever! "I'll be plain" - rest assured, I expected nothing else from you. As a new editor I suggest you might want to think carefully about my advice. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two days for returning to edit war immediately on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism after protection expired. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Will attempt in the future. Sorry for this. Padresfan94 (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Padresfan94 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked for the same reasons, and under the same conditions that User:Roscelese was unblocked, specifically that I was restoring a previous consensus version of the article and that I won't revert anything on the article for the duration of this block Padresfan94 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC) :What do you say, User:TParis, can I get te same deal that Roscelese got? Padresfan94 (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per agreement not to revert the article in question for the remainder of the block duration. v/r - T P 00:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell why you had changed Dissent from official Church position to Dissent from Church teaching? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Bladesmulti, thanks for reaching out to me on my talk page. "official Church" is redundant and it implies that there are other ones (other Catholic Churches, there are certainly other Churches), its like saying she opposed the "official Laws of her State" when you could just say she opposed the "Laws of her State". "Official" implies that her state has another "unofficial" set of laws. Padresfan94 (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admins might take or leave "won't revert for remainder of duration" as an appeal, but you weren't restoring any kind of stable or consensus version. There was never consensus to include that nonsense. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So says you. Shouting over and over again that your version = consensus doesn't make it so. (nor would my similar claims) Padresfan94 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would interpret "official Church position" as "official position of the Church". Minor errors of syntax should not, in my opinion, become reasons for dissent. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Just as a friendly note, it's really obvious that you're someone's sockpuppet or meatpuppet, so I would suggest that you cut your losses now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be very disappointing to see sockpuppetry. Like Roscelese I have my suspicions. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am happy to relieve you of them! Ros already wasted everyone's time with one fishing trip and nothing came of it Padresfan94 (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Texas

Even if it were true that Texas law at the time allowed abortion in cases of rape - which it's not - it would be a ban with exceptions. Please stop being childish. Additionally, adding hounding on to single-purpose editing is not helping your case. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but you don't have the consensus to implement your wording Padresfan94 (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Padresfan94 are you editing these articles simply as a Roman Catholic or as a neutral and impartial editor? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo are you editing these articles simply as a homosexual or as a neutral and impartial editor? Padresfan94 (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Crisis pregnancy center. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis pregnancy center

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously...

...quit stalking me. Whatever grudge you have against me from whatever previous name you went under, drop it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones...Padresfan94 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things clear...

... it is very clear that you are (a) not a new editor, and (b) are stalking Roscelese. Of the 111 edits you have made, 84 are to articles that she has edited [1]. The next time you do so, you will be blocked. Go and do something else, please. Black Kite (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: The problem with that statistic is that it includes content disputes that Roscelese followed me to. Will you make the same offer going the other way? Will you block her if she stalks me to another page? Padresfan94 (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BAN, a ban can be authorized in one of five ways. It is explicit that lone administrators may not enact bans on their own authority. Therefore I would like to know by what authority Black Kite has enacted this de facto IBAN. Elizium23 (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy to follow a breadcrumb trail in one direction or the other. And that is why (for Elizium23) this is not a threat of an IBAN. It is merely a reminder about WP:HOUND, which is of course blockable. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, no, Roscelese is immune to sanctions despite the same type of behavior. Thanks for clearing that up. Elizium23 (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put words into my mouth that I have not said. The persistent hounding of Roscelese by multiple IPs and accounts is well documented, and at least two of those accounts have been blocked. Should you have evidence for the reverse, feel free to present it. Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: you're telling me that two people were mean to Roscelese in the past and I'm sorry to hear that that happened to her but I don't know what that has to do with me.

You said that if I edit an page that Roscelse edits that you'll ban me. So again I'm asking you: what happens the next time that Roscelse follows me to another page? Padresfan94 (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Another" page? Below is a list of all seven articles that both you and Roscelese have edited. In every single case, she had edited them before you. On the articles marked with an asterisk, you directly arrived at them to dispute or revert her edits shortly after they were made.

Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's bull! Roscelse has not edited Archbishop Cordilenoe's article in a year and a half, she only showed up there to "dispute or revert my edits shortly after they were made", and the website that you linked to counts edits to ANI and my own talk page. You can't surely be proposing to hold edits to my own talk page against me! Padresfan94 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. That's why I only listed the articles. I note that you protest the Cordileone article, but do not mention the four articles which you clearly did follow Roscelese to. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, can you prove that Padresfan94 is doing it "with the apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor" and "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason" and not for "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles"? Elizium23 (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's something that only Padresfan94 can answer. However, when I see a pretty new editor who has followed an established editor to pretty much all of the articles they have edited (and, as posted above, directly to revert them in four out of seven cases), I can only work on the basis of the available evidence. The fact that this editor appeared just after a previous editor who displayed precisely the same behaviour was indefinitely blocked for such is something else I have to consider. As an experienced editor yourself, what would you surmise? Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know who you are talking about. It's a bit unfair of you to always hold the accusation of me being a sockpuppet over me, but never actually say who. Padresfan94 (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC) And while your at it, @Black Kite: could you or someone else please discipline Roscelese for blatantly violating WP:CANVASS? Padresfan94 (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Something that she apparently has a history of and, you guessed, was let of with a warning about after promising not to do it again. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned you before, and I'm losing my patience with you. You need to find interests other than reverting my edits. Existing solely to harass another user is a blockable offense on its own, regardless of how much you gloat over the fact that admins haven't yet connected this account to its sockmaster. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're losing your patience with discussion and reliable sourcing? Well I do wholeheartedly apologize for your frustration. I'm not a sock, I'm just someone who doesn't buy your POV and who can reads souring material matter than you can and you just can't stand it. Padresfan94 (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

I don't know what the issue about this article is here. This article has been fully protected several times this year. If it will have been continually fully protected in the next year, I will see the point that the article is close to unstable. ~~If one involved editor is your concern,~~ perhaps file a sanction request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. --George Ho (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that requesting arbitration is the last resort. Therefore, I'll recommend requesting mediation instead. --George Ho (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion! I'll see if I can pursue that. Padresfan94 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month, and I have seen edit-warring. Can you perhaps file a request for mediation or arbitration? The warring has reached its peak and harmed the article far enough. Time for someone to handle this. --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed Padresfan94 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to file either yourself? You are involved in this. --George Ho (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need. I've already filed the request on your behalf. The link is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Articles related to Roman Catholicism and/or homosexuality. To reply to other statements, do so at your own section, not anyone else's or mine. --George Ho (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PA photos

Padresfan, would you be able/willing to help with something Pennsylvania-related? We have articles on all 2,581 municipalities statewide, but about 1,000 of them have no photograph; if it's convenient for you, would you be able/willing to start taking and uploading pictures? I'm not trying to take you away from what you're currently editing (I've not looked at the homosexuality and the Catholic Church article, or any others on Catholic-related topics that you've edited, so I can't agree or disagree with your edits), but I know that when I've been in stressful editing situations, it's good to be able to work on something completely unrelated that won't generate controversy. Some areas of the state are well illustrated, but others aren't at all; here in Beaver County, everything's done, but Allegheny and Butler Counties are two of the least illustrated. If you're able and interested in helping, you can find a list of unillustrated municipalities at User:Nyttend/Pennsylvania. I'll be happy to make suggestions if you're interested. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: this might be the nicest thing that anyone has ever said to me on Wikipedia. Thank you so much for your invite, I would love to participate! Padresfan94 (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you. "Participation" isn't hard; just find a good rural scene for a township article, or a typical street scene for a borough or a township village, or a historic site, or a municipal building or other significant building, or something like that. Essentially, all that you need to find is something that represents the municipality well; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are examples (some better than others) of what we're seeking. Nyttend (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: is there a way to see a list of localities that don't currently have photos? Padresfan94 (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nyttend/Pennsylvania has such a list and basically nothing else. We're maintaining it manually, so it might include a few illustrated municipalities, but we began checking a couple of months ago, and it's not as if these things change frequently. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hope that you have a merry Christmas Padresfan94 (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a reminder, the evidence phase of the case is now open, and as a listed party you are encouraged to add evidence. Evidence that is not brought to the attention of the arbitrators risks not being considered, and the evidence phase will close on the 2nd of February.. If you do not wish to contribute evidence to the case, the committee may consider your response in the initial case request as your evidence; if you wish to take this option please let me know and I will convey it back to the committeee. If there is anything else I can do to assist on this case, please let me know. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Dougweller: could I get an 8 hour extension? Padresfan94 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've more or less had that by now, so hopefully you'll have your information in very soon. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: all in now, thank you for the opportunity. Padresfan94 (talk)

Christianity and Sexuality case: workshop phase extended

Dear Padresfan94, this is a quick notice to advise that the workshop phase for the Christianity and Sexuality case has been extended until 15 February. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the proposals being offered in the workshop, and feel free to participate either in the workshop itself, or in discussion on the talk page. Please also take note of the other dates on the case, with the proposed decision due on 22 February. Please feel free to drop by my talk page if you've any questions. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitration proposed decision

Hi Padresfan94, in the open Christianity and Sexuality arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality closed

An arbitration request regarding actions of some editors in the Christianity and Sexuality topic has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following remedies have been put in place:

User:Esoglou and User:Padresfan94 have been site banned. Both users may appeal their bans after one year.
User:Roscelese is indefinitely restricted from making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. They are also prohibited from making rollback-style reverts without providing an explanation, and from engaging in conduct that casts aspersions or personalises disputes.
User:Dominus Vobisdu is admonished for edit warring. In addition, they are restricted to one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss content reversions on the article talk page. This restriction may be appealed after twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]