User talk:Sandylouise

Welcome!

Hello, Sandylouise, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and sexuality

I changed the wording specifically because it was incorrect. Reverting the change was not appropriate in my opinion. If there is some subtle difference that needed to be fixed, or if you wanted to add a reference, rather than just reverting something that did not agree with your view, that would have been preferable.

Specifically: "However the Church does teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is a capital sin because it violates the purpose of human sexuality to participate in the "conjugal act" before one is actually married."

was changed because the quoted reference, catechism 1643 and 1617 do not, in fact say that sexual activity outside of marriage is a capital sin. Probably because it is not considered a capital sin by the Catholic Church. Adultery may be a capital sin, but premarital sex, although dissaproved by Catholic theology does not make it a capital sin. This section is speaking about that, and not adultery. The Cathecism does say that it is contrary to its purpose, which is why I phrased it that way, rather than injecting an opinion.

I change "The Church teaches" to "Catholics Teach" as an editorial issue. Since the previous paragraph begins "The Catholic Church..." I wanted something that kept the meaning but was not repetitive. This is relatively minor, and could remain, even if it seems clumsy. Or, you could offer a better alternative.

Clearly it is appropriate to change the misleading "sexual activity outside of marriage is a capital sin" since it is not true.

Thanks! Atom (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex outside of marriage is in fact a sin, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I have added a footnote. If you didn't like the word "capital" (which i don't) you could have just changed that (which i did) but instead you changed the entire message the original writer was trying to get across.

Sending me 10 lines of text to explain why you changed one sentence is a bit much. Now I have already invested way more time on this than I ever wanted to. And all for changing one word (originally). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandylouise (talk • contribs) 19:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I followed your footnote, and it points to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That would be their current formal policy and dogma on matters. In this case, 2331-2400 relates to the sixth commandement (Adultery), and generally, human sexuality. At no place in that text does it suggest that "sexual interaction" is a sin. In fact "sin" is not used in even one place within the catechisms you referenced. It does use a variety of phrases and offers guidance to the followers of the cathecism.

It was, indeed, my very purpose to change the message the orginal writer (or a succession of edits) conveyed. It was trying to suggest that there was something wrong, or sinful in pre-marital sex. That is not factually supported by the reference given, or your references. If you want to convey that the Catholic Church values chastity, that's fine, but you haven't done that. the act of pre-marital sexual interaction, whether fairly innocuous, or to the point if intercourse is not, inherently in itself sinful. The state of mind and intention of the people involved is what is or is not sinful. The Catechism does not use the word sin for a reason. My edit was to make the tone of the article as close, and accurate to the citation as possible. Some people may desire to believe that pre-marital sex is inherently sinful regardless of the circumstances. That's fine by me, but they may not state their perspective as fact within wikipedia unless they can cite it with a reliable source. The reliable source that you offered does not say that.

The closest the Cathecism comes is "Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young." If you want to say that in the article, and then quote it, that's fine. Atom (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks interesting. "It depends whom you ask."

And this...Premarital Sex/Fornication: An Interview With Jesus

Atom (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sandylouise. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Your recent editing history at ER (TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Your edit has been reverted multiple times, and a discussion opened on the talk page, yet you persist in forcing your edit. Please self-revert, and discuss on the talk page, per WP:BRD. Your editing is becoming disruptive, something an editor with your experience should know to avoid. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at ER (TV series).

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Once your edit is reverted, the burden to gain consensus for the edit is solely with you. Until you gain that, policy (WP:CONSENSUS, WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD) require that the article stay as it was before you made the edit. STOP removing the picture only you want out. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]