User talk:Thecatholicguy

ULC Seminary is a fictitious name, it is not an authorized or official website for any Universal Life Church.Thecatholicguy (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Not appropriate for the lead) The paragraph if not appropriate for lead, simply drop it down from the lead. This paragraph is not a disclaimer as much as it is clarification, as there has been a great deal of confusion. This will alleviate confusion. The ULC in Modesto I'm sure doesn't want to be be confused with the ULC World HQ, and I'm sure that feeling is mutual. The paragraph is not an advertisement, it is factual and it provides only for more understanding and is that not the objective?Thecatholicguy (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact there are not separate article pages for each of the Universal Life Churches, is more of a reason to make such clarifications to avoid confusion. This article is about Universal Life Church, Kirby Hensley founded Life Church. This article is not a ULC Modesto Church exclusive. Thecatholicguy (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can post on your own talk page all you want, but only you know it is there. I suggest using the article's talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't allow disclaimers. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Universal Life Church shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by this edit summary: "The article is about Universal Life Church, it is not about doctrine or the belief system as the overview discusses." Why, then, are you adding text about an unrelated entity and its doctrine to the Universal Life Church article? —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Thecatholicguy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Universal Life Church have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I'm reporting you for violating the 3 revert rule. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hrs for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I do understand the reasoning and I will not violate the 3vert rule rule again Thecatholicguy (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It looks like you were clearly informed about the three-revert rule, and that it would lead to a block. You decided to revert, which means you decided that your edit was important enough to be blocked for a little while for. I totally respect that. I'm sorry that you changed your mind about being blocked afterward; I've changed my mind after making decisions, too. This one time, I drove 16 hours to see a girl, then left after two hours because I realized the whole trip had been a terrible mistake. Actually, that trip lasted about as long as your block. At least you don't have to spend the whole two days in a car. Don't worry; 48 hours isn't very long, and the article will still be there when your block expires. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Non-administrator comment) Promising to not edit-war isn't a reason good enough to be unblocked. I suggest acknowledging that you did a mistake and come to an agreeable solution. Ab hijay ☎ 08:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Life Church

I suggest that you stop with the reverting. The second time the block is longer. That said, when content is in dispute, it's best to discuss it on the talk page and come to a consensus. Right now the consensus is that your changes aren't helpful. Please keep that in mind. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Universal Life Church. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Universal Life Church. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Universal Life Church shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reported you for violating the 3 revert rule. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a week for edit warring, as you did at Universal Life Church. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

This other editor claimed consensus, but he was actually making claims degrees were not honorary issued by this Universal Life Church, he further stated they had a department of education. These are false. The Universal Life Church is a degree mill. This other editor is only looking to solicit business and to turn this article into an advertisement. I understand I am wrong for the 3 vert rule, but it was not without just cause. You cannot permit someone to attempt to pass off worthless degrees a degree mill for the real thing. I was only reverting because he was violating statute. I would ask for clemency on this violation. The other editors on this page are looking to use it as a promotional tool, not one of facts. I'm only trying to be honest in accord with what this Church offers and what the law allows. This guy will get unblocked tomorrow and go right back to changing. He doesn't research anything. He has a mission to sell bogus degrees through the Universal Life Church. Thecatholicguy (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were well aware of the 3RR rule, and you deliberately broke it - just as you deliberately broke it before and were blocked. This means that you knowingly chose the consequences, and now you have to live with them. And as you clearly don't appear to believe that the 3RR and edit-warring rules should apply to you, I cannot possibly trust that you won't do it again, and so I cannot unblock you. When you are involved in a content dispute, you should discuss it on the article Talk page, and if that doesn't work, then follow the steps outlined in WP:DR -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

'Becareful of This Other Editor He Has a Hidden Agenda'

Again I apologize, however many people have been victimized by this Universal Life Church buying bogus degrees and titles. They are are Honorary and for anyone to indicate to the contrary it is because they have a personal agenda. I believe this other editor has just that. He claims consensus, that is nonsense. No other editor would support publishing a scam such as a Department of Education or attempt to make these degrees appear to be valid degrees. That is criminal. Thecatholicguy (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right about the validity of the Universal Life Church degrees. It's a shame that you're also so invested in adding the disclaimer about other organizations with similar names, and that you keep getting blocked for edit-warring, because that makes it hard to get useful changes into the article in a stable way. You might find WP:DISPUTE useful reading about some of the ways you can deal with challenging editing situations in a way that is effective. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Universal Life Church. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed ULC4me (talk · contribs)'s edits. I regret that I had missed them. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the next block for violating 3RR will likely be over a week. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for returning to the same behaviour on the ULC article as has led to previous blocks. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

this block is unfair, I simply was removing solicitations, they are promoting degrees, they are adding websites with links to webstores that are not on dmoz. This whole is being used as a solicitation, one of the contributor editors goes by ULC4me. It is not vandalism or disruptive attempting to maintain rules set by Wikipedia to respect to editing. I changed nothing, I removed solicitations.

Decline reason:

I've reviewed your edits to the article, and that doesn't seem at all correct: the material you removed in edits such as this was a balanced discussion of what this organisation does. If you had concerns with the material, you should have discussed in on the talk page; I note that a RfC is currently underway. Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thecatholicguy (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to comments that have already been made - you have been told to stop your edit-war on this article, and you have been blocked several times for doing it now. In fact, you have repeatedly and knowingly edited against Wikipedia edit-warring policy, apparently in the belief that as long as you consider yourself to be right, such policy does not apply to you. Well, it does, and you have been told that you must discuss your dispute on the article Talk page and get a consensus to support your version of it - and NOT edit-war to keep reverting it to your preferred version. But if you choose to ignore that, as you have done, and are insistent on refusing to follow Wikipedia's editing policies, then you simply cannot edit here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to differ, the Universal Life Church is a rip off. This article only makes the credibility of Wikipedia look bad. You are allowing this Church, just like the Church of Scientology to use Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle. I'm done with this. But you should include the CBS News Reports, 60 Minutes, and the articles that point to this entity being a scam. This Church is being permitted to portray themselves in a very unrealistic fashion on Wikipedia. Thecatholicguy (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a content dispute, and still must be resolved by discussion and consensus on the appropriate Talk page - it has been explained to you a number of times that you must not edit-war even if you are right. And you cannot be unblocked while you are still arguing that your personal opinion gets to trump Wikipedia's policies -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has attempted to have been spoken of on the talk page. Secondly it is not my personal opinion that is trumping Wikipedia policies, but Wikipedia policies do not permit such solicitations or listings of websites. It is these policies that are being ignored, this is not an article, it has become an infomercial for the Universal Life Church and their degree mill, bogus degrees and titles. I understand Wikipedia policies, but they are not all being enforced. What Wikipedia says about the Universal Life Church is contrary to reality. If Wikipedia wants to continue permitting them to use it like the Church of Scientology did, so be-it. But precedence was set than with blocking those who were editing by the Church. Not blocking those like me trying to publish the truth.Thecatholicguy (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have constructive conversation on a talk page when the editors are all from within the Universal Life Church itself, or ministers thereof and only one or two are unbiased, bipartial editors. This is what is happening, this page is overrun by editors with an agenda to promote. Read the article. It is not an article, it is a commercial. Thecatholicguy (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly true. So why did you decide to get blocked? Now you aren't available to help. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you or I can do here, it is a lost cause. As long as Wikipedia permits an infomercial in place of an article, what is the sense. We are fighting a losing battle. One of these days Wikipedia will step in as they did with the Church of Scientology and/or they will enforce their policies. I don't have time for the games or the amateurism as being presented to the public eye of Wikipedia by articles as such. I've attempted to discuss this as you have, we are being ignored. This ULC page looks and sounds like it was written by a child in grade school. My best to you. Thecatholicguy (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the moment you say "they're a rip off" you're immediately not using a neutral point of view. The organization exists. Wikipedia role is to neutrality portray the topic, which may include their methods. By doing wholesale removal, you got yourself blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you are still going to request unblock again, or whether you are going to accept this indefinite block and stop editing. But if you are planning to make another request, please know that no administrator is going to unblock you unless you clearly state the reason you are blocked, and a clear plan for editing differently in the future. Your dissatisfaction with the existing quality of that article isn't relevant to the reasons for your block, so discussion of that won't lead to your persuading an administrator that, if you were unblocked, you would follow Wikipedia's rules in the future. This is simple, friendly advice, which you can take, or not, as you choose. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

more importantly we all realize that all articles need "policing"...but it has to be done correctly according to policy. Your help is needed...just do it right (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly BWilkins it needs to be done properly, which has been attempted and ignored. FisherQueen I'm sorry but I've lost any desire to participate at this time. My dissatisfaction is with Wikipedia, not the article. Leaving the article as is will only discredit Wikipedia. People will look at this article and chuckle at Wikipedia. FisherQueen attempting to make changes is wrong. What is proper is to lift the block from Wikipedia and apply such only to this article. Let folks see this article as is. LOL

Ahh, martyrdom. Works so well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins let me give to you a little advice, sometimes what it is you seek in life can be accomplished, even though the other side thinks they have succeeded, because you are much smarter than they. You can stick a feather in your cap, but in the long run you have caused the Universal Life Church of Modesto and Wikipedia far more damage by distorting the truth and misrepresenting fact. You can call it martyrdom, if that makes you feel better so be it.Thecatholicguy (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not allowing them to do it; YOU are. You chose to act in a manner against the project norms. YOUR role was to balance the article. But noooooo, you decided to act against everything you had been told and play Roy Rogers...probably more Don Quixote in this context. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Secondly it is not my personal opinion that is trumping Wikipedia policies, but Wikipedia policies do not permit such solicitations or listings of websites". No, the dispute is whether the current article does or does not constitute "solicitation" or "promotion". Your opinion is that it does, and that that means you can edit-war to change it even if your change is disputed. But other people disagree with you, which means you cannot unilaterally impose your preferred version. *That* is your policy violation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove a few phrases that were unsourced and seemed a little non-neutral, but I just didn't see the cesspool of spam you describe; most of the article appears to be simply informative, and sourced. If you want the article to say that the Universal Life Church are bad people and scammers, that would also be non-neutral, and would need to be removed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is proper here is definition by law, the Universal Life Church does not issue valid degrees or titles. What they issue is Honorary Degrees or Titles. They offer no benefit to the recipients whatsoever. The only reason Churches can issue such is because of separation of Church and State. Lawmakers have no control over enforcing statute with respect to bogus degrees being distributed Churches.

Why is there a need to list these degrees at all? They are not valid. By Wikipedia allowing such to be listed, they are offering validity to these degrees. Innocent people will purchase these degrees because the Wikipedia article is written purposely to mislead, to glorify these bogus degrees.

It is not about being neutral, but it is what does the law state. Even though the laws cannot be enforced, by statute these degrees are bogus, it is a degree mill. It is a Church using loopholes in the law to victimize innocent individuals because they know they can't be prosecuted.

Again many people know what I say to be true, this will only reflect upon Wikipedia in a negative fashion for them to be allowing this.Thecatholicguy (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get yourself unblocked by agreeing to change your behaviour in such a way that a reviewing admin is convinced, you then can go and argue about the content of the article on the article Talk page and seek a consensus for the changes you desire. Until then, your Talk page is for addressing what you have been doing wrong and for working towards an unblock - using it to continue to argue about the article is an abuse of this page's purpose, and if you continue, I will revoke your ability to edit it. Please treat this as a last chance to avoid that outcome, and use this page only to address the question of how you are going to change your approach. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny that I did wrong, however how can you converse on a talk page and gain consensus, when this article is overrun by editors with a hidden agenda to promote this Universal Life Church. The is CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY II, in that instance Wikipedia acted. How will I correct my behavior, I will choose not edit this page and that is my choice to do so. I am request an unblock so I can contribute in a constructive with other pages, I have lost all desire to contribute to the article of which I was reprimanded for. I cannot take part in such a biased article, and participating on the talk page is useless. I'm asking for reinstatement, I admit fault and I am offering what should be acceptable resolution to prevent such from happening again. It is not that I am looking to be a martyr, I simply will not partake in such a travesty of neutrality or journalism.Thecatholicguy (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]