User talk:Farsight001/Archive 1

Purgatory Edits?

Any particular reason why you reverted the edits I added on the origin of the word purgatory? They had two book references, and links to all the biblical translations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncab593 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Succession ref.

Hi Farsight001! the ref. are on the wiki pages themselves, but I will add those links from the pages themslves :)== dava4444 dava4444 —Preceding undated comment added 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Removal of "Objections to Papacy" Material Inappropriate

Farsight001 - your removal of my additions to the "Objections to the Papacy" section of the "Pope" article were inappropriate. These objections to the Papacy are the common Protestant retorts to Papal claims based on Scripture. The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible even includes the "petra" and "petros" information in its foot-notes. There are many evangelical and Protestant Bible commentaries that note Matthew 18 and the seemingly unexceptional place the apostle Peter held within the early church as evidenced by Acts, Paul's prominence as an apostle, and Peter's own epistles. That you'd remove this information from the section of the article devoted to anti-papal arguments is puzzling, since these are the main arguments that evangelical Protestants make against the Papacy. As it is, the article gives the wrong impression that the main objections Protestants have to the Papacy have to do with past abuses of the office and its rejection of Church/State separation, when in fact most Protestants have serious Biblical and theological objections to the existence of a monarchical office within the Christian Church. The Catholic apologists and their convoluted, speculative interpretation of Matt. 16:16-18 receives prominent placement in the top section of the article, while I placed the Protestant object in an obscure paragraph toward the end of the article, out of respect for the fact that Catholicism should be able to speak for itself before other voices chime in. But removing this information from the article strikes me - and forgive me if I speculate improperly about your motives - as an attempt to keep the article pro-Papal, on the balance, rather than objectively surveying the range of thought on the subject. --ManicBrit (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Farsight. Thank you for responding so quickly to my rebuttal on your talk page. First, your view that Petra and Petros are equivalent words is simply the position of Catholic apologists, and is a matter of dispute, which is why the NRSV, translated by a committee of Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox scholars, notes it in the footnotes. My reason for including it in the "objections" section is simply that is a common Protestant objection, and the current section doesn't seem to correctly summarize Protestant objections. Perhaps, as a Catholic, you feel that Protestantism is an invalid religion, and therefore doesn't merit any substantial space in the article. Whatever you believe, the fact remains that the Protestant reformation was a rather big event in history, and Catholic-Protestant disputes are relevant to most students of Christianity.

I am going to revisit the article and put the following in the "Objections" section:

Many non-Catholics point out that Matthew 16:16-18 use two different forms of the word translated "rock." The Greek passage uses the masculine form "Petros" and the feminine form "petra." Protestant apologists sometimes claim that the "rock" on which the Church is built is not Peter, since Peter is "Petros," but Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ. [1] Catholic apologists claim that since "Petros" and "petra" have the same root, the two words simply reflect their grammatical placement in the sentence and still refer to Peter.[2]

Protestant apologists also cite sections of the New Testament (for example, James' apparent leadership role among the early apostles as recorded in Acts 15:19, Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11) that they say cast doubt on Peter's leadership role in the early Church as proof that the Papacy did not exist in Biblical times. Catholic apologists cite passages such as John 21:15-19 as proof that Peter exercised pastoral authority over the other apostles.

That seems like a fair enough summary of objections to the Papacy based on Greek grammar, with balance given to both sides. Since there are only three branches of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, although perhaps you could split Pentecostalism off as a fourth), there's no reason why the most common Protestant objections wouldn't be included in the section. I will also, of course, place my contribution on the article's Discussion page and we can seek the consensus of others. Cheers. Hope to see you in Heaven after God forgives my "invincible ignorance" and lets me out of my millennia of Purgatorial Hell for not kneeling before His designated Authority on Earth. :) --71.232.168.33 (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Christ the Rock, the Rooster's Crow, and the Cross. http://www.ichthys.com/mail-Rock%20Rooster%20Cross.htm
2. http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/04/petros_vs_petra.html

thank you

For taking care of the RCC page, especially in all your difficult dealings with the person who was trying to delete sourced and consensused information. NancyHeise ^talk 07:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation is disruptive

If there truly is a wide-ranging consensus against my edits, not only should someone be able to present a coherent argument against them, but there should be no shortage of people to revert them, and thus it should not be necessary for someone who has acted in an egregiously uncivil manner and who has explicitly refused to participate in the talk page discussion to be the one to preform such edits. You cannot pick and choose what ways you will shun me. If you're shunning me, then you should not be falsely telling that I am engaging in vandalism, nor should you be reverting my edits.Heqwm2 (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there was a coherent argument. You are just willfully closing your ears to anyone who disagrees with you. You have a history of disruptive edits on other pages for the same reason. If you don't want to abide by consensus(that was agreed upon before you even showed up at the page, as well as again after you started editing), then find another wiki to edit. I shunned the discussion, but that does'nt mean I'm just going to sit back and let you make disruptive edits all you wantFarsight001 (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not agreeing with you is not the same as closing my ears, and saying things like "you can't fix NPOV by adding more POV" when making sure that every POV is mentioned is EXACTLY what NPOV means is not a coherent argument. Your accusations of bad faith are inappropriate anywhere, but they are especially inappropriate in edit summaries. I do not have a history of disruptive edits; I have a history of making edits that people, such as you, LABEL disuptive so that they can justify reverting them. I have already pointed out the Wiki policy says that NPOV trumps consensus. Rather than addressing that argument, you simply declared that you were shunning me, and then declared that I was "willfully closing [my] ears". What a hypocrite. And yes, if you refuse to explain why me edits are not valid, that does mean you shouldn't revert them. Reverting edits while rfusing to participate in discussions is the very definition of edit warring.Heqwm2 (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look buddy. Please look. Your talk page has mention of blocks for improperly editing past articles. You have multiple warnings to stop vandalizing the Roman Catholic Church article, and no one on the rcc page agreed with your edits. I know it can seem like people are out to get you, but think of Occam's razor here - the simplest answer is most likely the right one. So is it more likely that one person (you) is in the wrong, or a bunch of people (everyone else)? I encourage you to calm down, and re-read very carefully npov, consensus, vandalism, notability, and reliability policies. There is far more than the one paragraph of npov policy you keep quoting at work here. Farsight001 (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So,farsight,you think you can use the wiki policies againstme , THAT ARTICLE IS NEGATIVE BIASED AND NOT NEUTRAL,you let the real Alberto picture inside or there will be a real problem the letter of the archbishop is true,so you're afraid that everybody will see the true Alberto,I read the policies and that article that a roman catholic wrote is against the policies,it tells people that Alberto is a fraud but the truth is,that Alberto was a jesuit priest

I apologize ,I give up you're right.The R.C.C. is a true church.I will never vandalize that article again

Oh,The Inquisitions lasted 600 years,with the fourth crusade also came the inquisitions and you don't know how many were born at that time.What does the Obelisk in the Vatican stands for?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solifugae (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that crosses are pagan and I know that freemasons use the obelisk worldwide. The execution on the cross was used in ancient babylon. Jesus died on the cross to conquer sin,death,hell and Satan.After 3 days Christ rose fom the dead.If you trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour you shall be safed and go to heaven Acts 8:37 says:"And Phillip said,If thou believest with all thine heart ,thou mayest.And he answered and said,I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." But the R.C.C. removed that passage,because it contradicts it's doctrine. The R.C.C. says you've to be a good Catholic(confessions to priest,eat the wafer at the Eucharist,pray the rosary,good works etc.)to go to heaven... and all that awaits a faithful catholic is purgatory,(only found in catholic bibles and Apocrypha),and Catholics are not allowed to know that they will surely go to heaven,or?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solifugae (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So but for justification you've to take sacraments. and the Obelisk is the male sex organ of Baal,even Baphomet has it (Baphomet is worshiped by masons in the highest degrees (30°-33°)lower masons don't have heared of that name). In my catholic bible I didn't find Acts 8.37... you may have an other version and you should read the whole chapter of Matthew 5 If Chick is lying.You should ask William Schnoebelen,he had studied R.C.C. doctrine to become a priest,before he studied spiritism,became a witch and went to satanism.Schnoebelen is a Christian now,telling people about Jesus. (this information may make catholics angry.)

I know that Jesus says,love your enemies and that doesn't mean we've to agree with every religion,we've to warn the people,that they've to come out of false religion and believe Jesus if we don't warn them they'll will never hear the gospel and if they don't hear it and won't receive Jesus Christ they'll be cast into the lake of fire....^^^

.... and I gave my catholic bible away,but I still know some books of the Apocrypha:Macabee 1; Macabee 2;Tobias;Jesus Sirach... my catholic bible is MT "Mehrheitstext"(old catholic bible) and one more thing;you know her(this is my photo,taken of my catholic song book),it's the catholic virgin Mary (queen of heaven) and her son Jesus(think so!)... what's behind the queen of heaven,now we take a look at Jeremiah 7:18 "The children gather wood,and the fathers kindle the fire,and the women knead their dough,to make cakes to the Queen of Heaven,and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods,that they may provoke me to anger." this is Semiramis and Tammuz...

...how could I accept a religion that hides (I will say that hard)paganism with christianity and share the alter (Ecumenic movement) with other gods etc. ... and before kill and hate in God's name like Inquisitions,Crusades...

...do you think I swallow everything that Chick says without looking for proofs,the verses he quotes are right... ...I know a catholic priest in a country(he already died),some people I know went to the priest,but the priest didn't have a bible he used a pendulum to get information,he was very accurate...

^^^ Love means not to accept everything but instead warn them. Which father is better:A father who directs his child warns and guides him....

                    ... or a father who agrees with everything that the child does and allows him everything.          
                                                                                                                                        

If you believe that Jesus Christ would send a saved person into pugatory,you're deceived.

He only sends unsaved persons into purgatory,pugartory is hell.

I don't hate catholics,their doctrines are wrong,the catholics have been deceived,I warn them and want them to get saved.

Hello, purgatory is hell... first of all,after a man dies there is only judgement (Hebrews 9:27) then read Revalation 20:11-15,they're judged according to their work,but whosoever was not found written in the book of life is cast into the lake of fire. Nobody of those who are in the Great White Throne judgement will be found in the book of life. All born-again Christians are in heaven,they were in the first resurrection (rapture) (Revalation 20:6) They were cleansed by the blood of the lamb(Jesus Christ) read John 3:16 and Isaiah Chapter 53. There's no purification after death. We have to repent (turn away from sin) see Acts 17:30 only in this world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solifugae (talk • contribs) 12:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Consensus sought on lead sentence

Please come give us your opinion by voting here [1], Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farsight, thank you for coming to vote on article name. I supported sentence number two because it seems to be the only way to eliminate endless debate. The sentence makes no claims and both names reside side by side. The facts relating to which name is more official and common are then found in the note. No facts are omitted. We have to consider that most Readers to the page will not care what the name of the Church is -they are coming to find out something about the Church's beliefs or history. If they do care about the name, it is easy enough for them to notice the note next to Catholic Church! I realize that Soidi has not been the most amicable person to deal with here, but please know that Soidi was not the only person to have concerns over the lead sentence. NancyHeise ^talk 18:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here [2] but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward. NancyHeise ^talk 03:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last vote please

Hi, Xandar conducted a new discussion on the use of "official" our original sentence going into FAC that survived Peer Review and several months of mutliple editors. I have agreed not to vote on this one but to agree to whatever consensus of editors decides. Can you please come back for one more vote here: [3]. Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all. NancyHeise ^talk 15:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits

Just a comment regarding reverting edits by others; watch out for multiple edits by the same user. You managed to revert the second edit by User:72.15.46.160 in article Protestantism but missed the prior edit. I have reverted that as well. I know how easy it is to not notice the prior edits. I find myself doing it as well. But unfortunately, that is the way a lot of bad edits get missed and remain in the article for extended periods of time. Thanks for taking the time to try to keep the article clean. It is sure a never ending job. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protestantism

I had to revert your edit to Protestantism, it is NOT a denomination. Lutheranism is but one small part of Protestantism and it is made up of many different denominations. Calling Protestantism a denomination would be similar to calling all cars built in the United States coupes[4]. Please that the time to read the following articles Denominationalism, Christian denomination and List of Christian denominations Dbiel ^(Talk) 07:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that wikipedia is using a vastly different definition of "denomination" than I am used to, which I find interesting because wikipedia it typically supposed to use the definitions found in the wiktionary, which are quite similar to what I understood denomination to mean and which certainly would classify protestantism as such.Farsight001 (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on how you read the Wikipedia Wiktionary definition A class, or society of individuals, called by the same name; a sect; as, a denomination of Christians.[5] The problem is that protestants are not called by the same name, they are known as Lutherans, Babtists etc. and even these denomination familes are further broken down into individual denominations. Based on your edit history, I might guess that you have a Catholic background. The Catholic Church (or Roman Catholic as most protestants would refer to is as) is very unique in terms of christian denominations. It has remained as a single denomination (for the most part) with papal authority based in Rome. The protestant denominations on the other hand, have become very fragmented. Dbiel ^(Talk) 09:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But becoming fragmented does not make it not a denomination. Simply because there are smaller groups within the bigger group does not mean the bigger group cannot itself be a denomination. "A class, or society of individuals, called by the same name" is exactly what protestants are. Though that is not quite the definition from wiktionary that I would be using. But this is of little matter. Even if it were right for wikipedia to call protestantism a denomination, I've been lurking around, and there's literally hundreds of articles in which this correction would need to be made, as well as in more than a few templates as well. Frankly, that's just too much work.Farsight001 (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that fragmentation itself does not make a denomination, but as you said, Wikipedia does use a slightly (actually you said vastly) different definition (but one I personally believe does not conflict with the Wiktionary version, but does expand it into a bit more detail "A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity" (I am sorry, but I had a confusing typo in my 1st reply which I have struck out and edited) Which Wiktionary definition would you be using, if not the one I posted above? Dbiel ^(Talk) 11:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism etc.

As you have correctly pointed out, the author in question is a poor reference. How can he come up with a new figure after 400 years? His technique for doing so has not been revealed. As a historian, if scholarly, he might be permitted to come up with a new analysis of the facts but not to invent new ones without some revealed methodology.

I have requested a formal comment (RFC). These take forever. I have one in from the end of November that hasn't yet been answered, same category (history). Had to renew it once. We can ask for a "second opinion," which is supposed to be reserved for one-on-one arguments, but we can bend the rules. These are "quick and dirty" and we might not get anyone who is as scholarly as any of us, nevermind an expert! So it is a risk, but at least it is quick!

Or we can try mediation, but we would probably be turned down having not exhausted "all other" avenues. Ironically, this would be quicker than the RFC!

Yet another way, is to get him on a three reversion, alternating between you and I. This has about a 50% chance of working, but we might be affected as well!  :)

Very noticeably that for an article which is critical of the Catholic church, no other editor is supporting him, which means they agree with us but don't want to say so because they generally dislike the Church!

What do you think is the best way to handle him. He will not be persuaded by us no matter what we say.

Thanks for leading this argument! Student7 (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

I began a Request for Mediation here [6] and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here [7] to agree to participate. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

(You're a popular guy!  :)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Student7 (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Farsight - Please could you go to the mediation page and state whether or not you agree to the mediation? We're just waiting for you now. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^See the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 06:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Mediation for Criticism of the RCC

Mediation has begun for the case Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. Please place Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church on your watchlist and make a brief statement there (on the talk page) to acknowledge this. If you wish to make a very brief statement about the case itself, you may do so at the same time. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church

Hi Farsight, I have made a motion to close the mediation for reasons described here [8]. Please come and post either your agreement or disagreement at the same link. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Farsight, we are voting at mediation on the name of the Church here [9]. Are you OK with changing the article name to Catholic Church and having a lead sentence that states "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church"? Please cast your vote so we can either find consensus or not for this suggestion. Thanks.

RCC mediation

A draft of the note under mediation is up for comments here [10]. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 11:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RCC Mediation

Your input is needed here [11] to decide on one of three options. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 03:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RCC mediation

Sorry to bother you again, we now have an option 4 to consider since no one could agree on 1,2 or 3. Can you please come vote again? [12] Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church mediation outcome

Hi, you are receiving this message because you were an original party to the mediation process regarding the Catholic Church name issue. The mediation outcome has been summarized and moved to the Catholic Church talk page here [13]. Please feel free to come join our discussion of the outcome taking place now before making the actual changes in the article. Thanks for your help and kind cooperation toward a mutually agreeable solution. NancyHeise ^talk 14:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Please don't revert or change edits that you haven't discussed. Thanks. Noloop (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is a very healthy part of the content dispute resolution process. But deleting large portions of sourced text from articles is a form of vandalism, so restoring the content is perfectly fine. Please ignore the "false" warning issued by Noloop above. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unauthorized removal of material

I see that Farsight001 seems to view this as his own personal page. I raised issues under discussion, and put a very short item in controveries relating to the role of the Jesuits in the Inquisition. Remember, we are talking about an event covering hundreds of years with millions of innocent people killed, by the most cruel ways the human mind has ever conceived. It is totally unacceptable for Farsight001 to repeatedly remove this material. If it is done again, I will request mediation and also for Farsight001 to be barred from this page. From the above he has a long history of presumptuous intervention, without any discussion, and the result has been this page has turned into a Jesuit propaganda site instead of an accurate representation of history. /AD 79.135.110.169 (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)/[reply]

This IS my own personal page. You see at the top where it says "User talk:Farsight001"? That means it's my page. You're talking about the Jesuit page, on which I did not "repeatedly" remove information. A long history? Riiiiight...Farsight001 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torquemada

The citation you removed (Catholic Encyclopedia) states on its Torquemada page that "Most historians hold with the Protestant Peschel (Das Zeitalter der Entdeckungen, Stuttgart, 1877, pp. 119 sq.) that the number of persons burnt from 1481 to 1504, when Isabella died, was about 2000. Whether Torquemada's ways of ferreting out and punishing heretics were justifiable is a matter that has to be decided not only by comparison with the penal standard of the fifteenth century, but also, and chiefly, by an inquiry into their necessity for the preservation of Christian Spain." What is your objection to citing this encyclopedia? --TraceyR (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I don't need your approval to edit this article. The later edit addressed all the points you raised - the figure 2000 as the lowest generally accepted, the word "jurisdiction" which you didn't like, etc etc. By changing the edit, taking into account your comments, I have kept to the wikipedia discussion requirements, surely? --TraceyR (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Rules

You are the one disrupting my edits on the article about Jesus. As for rules, the Jews accused Jesus of breaking the law for healing the sick on the Sabbath. You mentioned something about rules in the Bible. Which scripture verses are you referring to? I am not Jewish; was never Jewish. So the Jewish laws do not apply to me. I am not a government worker; so your rules do not apply to me either. Ronewirl (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an FYI

I understand completely why you deleted the section at talk:Jesus that contained off-topic remarks, but there is another way of handling those situations that seems to be preferred to outright deletion. I restored the section so that it is available on the record and will appear in the archive, but added a "tophat" to it which keeps it from sight of the casual reader. This is often used in article talkpages which are prone to rants and non-constructive commentaries. It seems to be an acceptable and useful compromise between "transparency" and our need to keep the talkpages focused on productive discussions. Happy editing, Doc Tropics 06:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Account: Ronewirl

You threatened to close my account. God gave everyone a free will. We as Christian believers do not make threats. But if you feel convicted in doing so, then all means, go ahead and close the account. If you are right, then you will be fruitful, BUT, if you are wrong, then that will be your responsibility. Not mine. Ronewirl (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warnings

I don't think you realise that our talk page guidelines say "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users.". Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you were attacked on CC page. Don't despair!

Sorry to see that you fell victim to one of PMAnderson's off-topic rantings. S/he obviously didn't bother to see whose comments he was addressing. I put another warning on his talk page. Don't let it discourage you from making edits and comments! If you see an attack against you or another, address it so editors don't get away with improper attacks and intimidation. Stay strong!--anietor (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you perceive an attack, do let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why telling people to shut up and stop discussing is against the very meaning of collaboration

It is unacceptable to tell opposing editors to please shut up as you did [14]. As there are much more sides to this discussion. And the major ones genuniely need to be addressed.[15] Telling people who are not Roman Catholic and yet have grievences with calling the RCC that the exclusive Catholic Church and or the renaming of the one and only Catholic church to be exclusive to them on a secular encyclopedia is going to cause disagreement. Telling people to please shut up is no way to respectfully address their grievences nor address their actual points of disgreement. Shutting people down and silencing them are tactics that tyrants and cults use. Wikipedia is not a cult and should do everything it can to not allow itself to become one. As such it must address every valid point. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CCatholic_Church_and_Renaming.3E Gimmetrow 11:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I've started an ANI thread about this here. Gimmetrow 11:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note at Catholic Church

I have removed the text you added as a violation of WP:V and WP:OR. I reviewed the sources cited in the following material, and they seem to be primary sources. A reader could not know whether those sources were hand-picked to back up the claim being made. As such, a reliable secondary source is required backing up the fact that the church prefers to call itself a certain name in its own documents. Please re-add the text once you have an accompanying source.

As an aside, please stop edit-warring and discuss the issues. Further edit-warring on that page may result in a block. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I read the Talk page and accompanying materials for quite a while. My apologies if I missed something, but I still would like to see the edit warring cease. Additionally, a secondary source is still needed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flood geology

Hi could you carefully explain your rationale for the complete rollback you did on that article. Most of these were stylistic changes for the better, plus a change of the logic. Flood geology is not just a religious belief, it is an attempt to justify the belief by means of geology. That needs to be explained in the intro. Thanks The Rationalist (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hills and the Textus Receptus

I have reverted your reversion - I hope you don't mind. The references to Hills work do need to be cited to his book on the defence of the King James Version, but though this is readily availble on the internet, the page numbers are not - so I will need to find it in a library to complete the job. But if you have a copy, feel free to add the cites; and indeed to improve and correct what I have said. TomHennell (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's

Hello Farsight, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here [16] Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church

Hi Farsight, we are discussing the sex abuse paragraph here [17]. I am trying to get some past editors to come to the discussion so we can discover what others think. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 13:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. Xandar 06:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church RfC

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. SlimVirgin ^talk contribs 00:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic sex abuse case

Farsight, are you actually reading the text you're RV-ing to?

"Rather than acknowledging the church's culpability, members of the church hierarchy have compared the church with the most depraved parts of the secular world, arguing that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that abuse occurs in other institutions.[7] For example it has been estimated by the only official government report comparing sexual abuse between the Catholic church and public schools in the United States that sexual abuse is much more prevalent in public schools than the church. link Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church, E. Dougherty, Newsmax Monday, Apr. 05, 2004 Other commentators have said that the scandal highlights deep-seated problems with mandatory celibacy in the priesthood of the Catholic Church and how that institution deals with allegations of child abuse by its clergy.[8] Other experts in the field of sexual abuse counseling contend that celibacy has no effect on rates of child abuse in the Catholic Church, as it has been shown that the rates of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not higher than in society, other public institutions and other religious denominations. [9] [10]

The Legal Predicament of the Clergy, 4 J. CONTEMP. HEALTH L. & POL’Y 91 at 151–52 (1988)</ref> While an image of "the pedophile Catholic priest" has arisen in media, according to Thomas Plante "available research (which is quite good now) suggests that approximately 4% of priests during the past half century ... have had a sexual experience with a minor ... this figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%".[11"

Not only does it fail NPOV, it's also sloppily written with all kinds of errors in the text. I'll let you undo your latest RV before I hit 3RR. Haldraper (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is a lot of that NOT what I reverted, but a quote, attributed to the one who said it, can never actually be pov. Fail.Farsight001 (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for discussion on the quote you re-added. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am new here to wikipedia and someone seems to be deleting my edits even though I have provided peer reviewed sources. How can I put an end to that? Also I am in the process of compiling more articles on the rates of child abuse in the Catholic church and the general population, but it would be pointless to post it, unless we can somehow put an end to this campaign where people delete reliable information at whim. TheRickster11 (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)therickster11[reply]

April 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Catholic sex abuse cases. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to discuss things. They don't want to. They just want it removed and call into question the credibility of anyone who disagrees.Farsight001 (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave this message to both of you hoping that the pair of you could discuss the issue on the talk page. It doesn't matter which WP:WRONGVERSION is there until a reasonable amount of time has been given for it to be discussed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem. I try to talk about it on the talk page. They either ignore me, or question my capacity to honestly edit, and then revert. But on their end there is never an attempt at discussion. Meaning that for as long as I wait patiently for them to start discussing with me, their version stays in the article. If I don't revert, then nothing happens. It's impossible to discuss with someone who won't discuss with you. So what else am I supposed to do?Farsight001 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does seem like the other guy doesn't ever go and discuss things on the talk page, and you usually do. I guess it looked worse to me at the time than it probably should :o. Maybe in the future you could talk and revert, then at least you've showed you've tried in each case :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Science

If you want to change the body of article, then go ahead. I am not an editor on that page. I just changed the title of the wiki-linked article the correct title name. That should stay as it is, and I don't think it's correct for you to put back in a non-existent title name. But what you want the lead to read above that link is up to you imo. SAE (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition on the bishop who's resigned

Good catch, I was wrong to add it :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinius masillae

Hi, I'm sure you in good faith took my deletion as vandalism, but it wasn't. Please read my comment and see my quotes and links on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_transitional_fossils#Darwinius_masillae Then please self-revert. --Yopienso (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic sex abuse cases

Hi! It seems your current edit war over Catholic sex abuse cases is heading into 3RR territory. Well, technically you're well past 3RR, but I gather there's a bit of room to move - the edits are bordering on vandalism and, as you mentioned, BLP, but I'm a tad concerned that they're not necessarily so. Anyway, I've warned Sturunner and the IP, so hopefully things will quieten down. If not the next step is the 3RR noticeboard: I noticed that Sturunner has been blocked before for 3RR, so it may be that another block will be needed. However, I'd suggest you step back for a bit, as unless it is seen as unambiguous vandalism, there's a good chance that you'll come under any 3RR actions that might eventuate. - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd back off if the IP hopper who's been plaguing the article for a month was blocked. I have never seen anyone receive anywhere near that many warnings without receiving some kind of block. In addition, there is the repeated addition of BLP violations to the article, for which there is no need to follow the 3RR to prevent. I think that if you look a little further back in the edits on the article, you will see that it's quite a bit more complicated than just 3RR.Farsight001 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is. But 3RR is one of those bright line rules, that doesn't care about content so much as behaviour. Once warned, if it continues the IP and user can be, and generally is, blocked. Especially given that Sturunner has been blocked for it in the past. - Bilby (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Please, read and respond here--71.163.237.120 (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian blog

This Roesch blog business is getting very silly. I agree that this material is unreliable and fringe, if not in breach of BLP policy. There is no consensus to add it to the page, so it needs to stay off until proper and convincing evidence is produced to indicate the reliability of the claims and that this is a major, and reliably attested viewpoint. Xandar 21:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

You seem not to understand what is going on. Your comments are not at all helpful. Noloop is not arguing that the sources have to be unbiased, or that all the sources have to be secular. He is arguing that any sources that express a Christian POV should be identified as expressing a Christian POV. This is entirely reasonable: NPOV demands that we include different points of view, and of course each point of view has to be identified.

Did you really think NPOV says that we shoud not identify which points of view are being presented in an article? What purpose would that serve? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amish 01

Hi Farsight. Do you have any suggestions for how to deal with Amish 01? He is continuing his disruptive behaviour. Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vicarius filli Dei

Once again the Adventists have tried to hijack the article. I did some clean up. You have done good work trying to keep it honest97.114.177.186 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went in and made some changes. I used sources, such as the Code of Canon Law. But someone is reverting them as soon as I make them. A Seventh Day Adventist no doubt. Please take a look.97.114.177.186 (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to clean up a bit on the papal tiara article. The Vicarius Filii Dei one still isn't the greatest, but most of the POV is now gone. I am amazed at the lengths some Adventists will go to infiltrate their POV into Catholic articles. I appreciate your ongoing assistance. Thanks.97.112.218.67 (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whore of Babylon

Hi, Farsight001, would you mind joining the discussion at the Talk: Whore of Babylon article? Thanks

Thank you for your work on vandalism fighting!

Thank you for helping fight vandalism! Please remember to warn vandals when you do revert them. Additionally, to help you revert vandalism, having rollback is very helpful. To help warn vandals, I recommend Twinkle. Also, you can revert and warn vandals with ease by using a tool like Huggle, or Igloo. Again, thank you for helping cleanup vandalism! If you have any questions feel free to contact me. I hope to see you around soon! MJ94 (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I'm afraid I've reported both you and the IP to WP:AN3 (See this link). Minimac (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EAR

A member of the WP:EAR team has addressed your enquiry at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#How do you handle people who ignore WP:BRD?. .--Kudpung (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farsight001, you may want to take a look at these related postings I made reporting the editor who has caused the trouble (here and here). Cheers! Novaseminary (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didache in immersion baptism article

Please see the Talk page. Catholic POV is not welcome in that article.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:RS is not anti-Catholic behaviour, even when it contradicts the Catholic POV. I have never been blocked for anti-Catholic behaviour. Your accusation is unwarranted. But thanks for confirming you want the article to reflect Catholic POV.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed quote from WP:RS; check the citations in the section under discussion and you'll find plenty of quotations from WP:RS. I put them there. Can I confirm that you don't want the Catholic POV reflected in the article? As for edit warring, looking at your history it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Accusations of lying are uncivil.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide evidence that I deleted a comment of yours from the immersion baptism Talk page? I certainly don't remember doing that. It is more likely that you made a post and it conflicted with another edit and wasn't saved. I've had to post several of my comments twice today for that reason.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, none of that text is mine. You can see for yourself that the text was replaced by LoveMonkey, who was posting at the same time; there's no text of mine there, only his, signed by him. My text didn't even show. His text deleted yours, and my post didn't register. I didn't delete anything of yours. Please check your facts next time.--Taiwan boi (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely wrong. The text is not mine, and I could not possibly "fake" that signature. Please just get used to the fact that your accusation is utterly false. Go and ask LoveMonkey if that text is his, and see if he claims it's mine. If you're going to continue with these false accusations then I'll take it to the relevant noticeboard. I have nothing to hide, but your words may raise eyebrows on the WP:UNCIVIL noticeboard.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be really confused. I did not deny that the diff was mine, what I have denied is that the text under the name LoveMonkey is mine, and that I used it to replace yours. He wrote that, and you know he wrote it because you have even admitted to removing it after he wrote it. Looking closer it's clear that the edit clash was between you and I since we were posting at the same time. My edit went through a couple of minutes after yours, though I didn't even get to see yours. I certainly never deleted anything of yours deliberately. I didn't even see your text when I was posting, because it wasn't there. You can see for yourself that I was editing a version of the page which existed before your ranting post and your deletion of LoveMonkey's post. It's ironic that you're complaining about me deleting your post, when your expressed aim was to censor LoveMonkey by deleting his.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you haven't read anything I wrote here, but at least you've stopped claiming that the text is mine, not LoveMonkey's.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of Anti-Catholic remarks

Please clarify for me what remarks I made that are anti-Catholic. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please do it without telling me to shut-up.[18] LoveMonkey (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antichrist

Thank you for your sensible remarks on the Antichrist article. The article is still quite weird, as extremists seem to think that it's okay for an encyclopedia article to contain lists of quotes from scriptural and other sources without comment or explanation, but it's a lot better than it has been. The Celts did sack Rome, though, in 386 BC (the famous story in Livy of how the Capitol was saved from the Gauls by an alert from some geese). Diomedea Exulans (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you care

Though a much belated response, I replied to your query regarding Pale Blue Dot here in academic interests. Cheers. Suraj T 10:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Please, be advised not to vandalize talk page as you did here [19]--71.178.110.201 (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vandalize the page. I, per policy, removed a talk page comment that made no attempt at article improvement or bettering discussion toward article improvement. If you want to talk about policy violations, lets talk about leaving a vandalism warning on my page when I didn't vandalize anything. That's the policy violation here.Farsight001 (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the edit conflict

Could've sworn I refreshed the page before reposting. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EW warning on Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting your removal of the comment for the sole reason that more editors think it should stay (even combining all the ips into one) than agree it should go. I agree it's garbage, but continually reverting it isn't productive. If you revert it again, I'm going to take the issue to AN3. Please just leave it alone.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is really fucking stupid. You are giving the IP hopper EXACTLY what he wants. You are reinforcing his behavior and he's only going to push even harder. You agree that it's garbage. So you agree that it doesn't belong on the talk page? Then it should be FUCKING REMOVED! Don't tell me it doesn't belong and then re-add it. It sounds like you're seriously bullshitting me when you do that. If it violates wikipedia policy, then it gets deleted. How is this such a hard concept for people? It's intent was not article improvement. What does policy say to do with comments like that? TO FUCKING DELETE THEM! SO FUCKING DELETE IT, don't put it back in. How does that ever help? It's not a matter of who or how many editors think it should stay. If there were a hundred IP's and none of them were clones, policy still dictates that it BE REMOVED. That is what I am doing. I am following the rules here. Are you suddenly telling me to screw the rules and we can do whatever we want? Because if that's so, I'm sure I could find some rather nasty porn to post just for shits and giggles. But I'm guessing that's not what you mean. So tell me - should I be deleting the post as policy dictates, or should I flout the rules and let it chill?Farsight001 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think IAR is fairly clear. Reverting 4+ editors more than 14 times in a couple days, as well as garnishing your own off-topic section on the talk page which is even more useless than the one you're reverting is not contributing anything to the encyclopedia. I very seriously considered taking it straight to AN3, but instead settled on this, because it allows you to continue contributing constructively and results in less drama. I think I've been clear, so I won't be posting back here again. If you think my decision was wrong, you're more than welcome to escalate the problem yourself. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's not 4 editors. Second of all, I didn't "garnish" my own off-topic section. Someone else started that as an attack against me personally. There's no reason for you to need to post back here again and hatting it was fine to me (I didn't bother with it because I thought it would bring the same reaction of an angry revert by anon), but please pay closer attention to what's actually happening in the future. This IP hopper has edited in the past and behaved exactly the same in the past. We have interacted before. It's not like this is my first time dealing with him on this article or that he is new and doesn't understand.Farsight001 (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EW Your French Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases

Bear in mind that use of a chauvinistic Canada's Anglophone slur (pardon my French) as you did it here is a gross violation of civilty. The rest of your response is a street language used to mount personal attack on another Wikipedia user. It seems to me that you had forgotten three basic rules: assume good faith, no personal attacks, and discuss the article content only. Consequently, I'm removing your attack there hoping that you won't put it back or continue the same way.--Eleven Nine (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Be advised to avoid personal attacks as you did here.--66.151.103.9 (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only responding to suggest that anyone who reads this "warning" in the future to check the link. That was in no stretch of the imagination a personal attack in any way whatsoever.Farsight001 (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farsight is correct: there is no personal attack and the warning is spurious. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farsight001 - ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Just wanted to point out that I've noticed a change in tone on Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases which seems likely to be more productive. I figured you should know that your (likely frustrating) work with these new users on that page wasn't going unnoticed. Thanks for keeping things civil! I personally appreciate it, and I'm sure I'm not alone! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitlers Pope

The text I have removed is not supported by the citations given but if you disagree can you take it up with an informed adminstrator - I don't like arguing or conflict with apologists. Are you the same editor from a couple of years of ago who told me to "shut up" when I presented a multitude of scholarly sources that showed the article curently titled "Catholic Church" was overwhelmingly tilted "Roman Catholic Church" in independent reference sources? Yt95 (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused - I reverted because I saw a section from the IP justifying their changes on the talk page justifying their edits, with no responses. Unless there is some dispute on another article that's carried over to this, it's Mamalujo who is ignoring BRD. Can you point me to where Mamalujo justifies the changes or addresses the criticism that has been leveled against them? eldamorie (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of "Ian Chattan" at Talk:Jesus

Agreed completely with your removal of that inane blather. I take it you've not seen him before? That recent bit prompted me to ask for a filter. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Hitler's Pope. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unreferenced, which you full well know. It's kind of hard to miss the big giant citation at the end. Cut the crap.Farsight001 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP refers to poorly referenced or controversial material too. And when someone says "BLP", you discuss, you don't revert. Simply reverting is the crap that you need to cut. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what blp refers to and means. I also know that the statement is in no way poorly reversed and I see every indication in the world that you're just trying to hide the facts, so what is there to discuss? There is absolutely no valid reason to remove the statement. It's very relevant. It's sourced. It's attributed to a relevant expert. That's all we need, end of story. You threatening to block me, giving no threat to the IP hopper that is definitely violating blp. And if you block me, and I challenge it, what do you think is going to happen? It's going to be very obvious to the reviewer what you're doing. You can call it a blp issue all you want, but we both know its not.

I fucking hate bullies and I will not be pushed around by them.Farsight001 (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic sex abuse article

Farsight001, can you please address (or at least point me to the place where it was previously addressed) my query in 'most recent edits'. I have asked multiple times and been patient for a reply. Also, if you look at my editing history, you will see that I am far from a disruptive editor and would ask you to WP:AGF and refrain from making insults.

I realise that the CSA article attracts a lot of anti-Catholic folks who want to edit without abiding by WP rules and you must be tired of dealing with such editors. But I assure you I am even-handed and am just trying to tighten up the citation rules (partly to stops editors like this from plaguing the article). Ashmoo (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Farsight001. You have new messages at Talk:Intelligent design.
Message added 02:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Farsight001. You have new messages at RobertMfromLI's talk page.
Message added 16:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a request

Hi Farsight,

Just a litle request. It doesn't involve me, but I was just having a look over at Intelligent Design, and I found some of your comments there to be a touch out of line, and the sort of thing that puts off nice new editors. I understand that when it's a matter you're personally involved in, it's easy to get flared up a little, and that you have been very good in the matter of self control elsewhere. Anyway, I hope it's the exception rather than the rule, and if you are annoyed at something someone's doing, maybe count down from 10 before you click 'Save Page', eh?

Anyway, good editing and health to you sir. Benny Digital ^Speak Your Brains 14:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bang

Add. "rv. info is non-scholarly and criticism sections are discouraged". Pls. explain your revert, I have not found any explanation what policy the content failed, especially why New Scientist is regarded for non-schlarly resource. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for expressing your opinion at my talk page: "I explained the revert in the edit summary. Non-scholarly sources were used, which we can't use, and criticism sections are discouraged on wikipedia. I don't really know what else I'm supposed to say. New Scientist is your only scholarly source, but the citation does not support the statement" [20]

Pls. cf."Such claims [declaration of deletions as appropriate] require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion" WP:IDONTLIKEIT

Please note your explanation for deletion neither mentions any specific policy nor explanation why it should apply. Please put you deletion into compliance with wikirules (I would really appreciate it, cf."I don't really know what else I'm supposed to say." -"say" which policy the content fails in your opinion and provide explanation why that policy as the rationale for deletion applies).

Pls. note neither of the sources was non-scholarly. All inputs were from reliable scholarly sources that have even established articles at WP, just have a look if you do not believe: Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, Jayant Narlikar,Hermann Bondi, Eric Lerner etc. I cannot imagine more scholar source.

Criticism including criticism sections is on the contrary very welcome in WP to achieve the WP:NPOV of the articles, just have a look: "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral." and [[21]] (>149 000 hits)

Thanx in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any inconvenience, but the claim "I referred to the relevant policies and I explained how your edits didn't line up." [22] is obviously in discrepancy with reality if no such policy is enlisted. The reason for deletion provided as "info is non-scholarly" and "criticism sections are discouraged" is none of recognized WP policies. Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephfo (talk • contribs) 17:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC) --Stephfo (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Just informing you that your name was mentioned at ANI in the section on Stephfo. The mention was brief and tangential, so need to participate if you don't want, but I thought you should know anyway. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Photo.

Thanks for replacing the "funny" picture of Palpatine, and replacing it with a decent one. I was about to do it myself.

Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.152.195 (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

Hello Farsight001, I see that you undid my revision on the Christianity page but gave no reason. I do not wish to be in an edit war with you, but I am reposting the addition of Jesus' Commandment. I guess, why did you remove it?Ghostprotocol888 (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Hello Farsight001, I see that you undid my revision. I looked at the WP:BRD page and noticed that WP:BRD is not policy. "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." This means that I do not have the responsibility to discuss on the talkpage. Like I previously mentioned, I do not wish to be in an edit war with you, or anyone for that matter. You claimed that it was explained in edit summaries 3 separate times why you were being reverted. Yes, but only one of those edit summaries was true, only because I didn't know how to cite sources, and I think that they were all the same. So, I will guess and say that you reverted the edit because of sourcing issues. I did source and cite the edits that I made. You seem like you are edit warring with me. Please contact me directly about why you are reverting my edit. Is there something that you do not understand about the edit? Is it that you don't want that edit there? I honestly don't know what you are meaning. Please clarify with me directly. I am reposting the material. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostprotocol888 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry Man, I don't understand your position. I guess I have to report this situation, unless you can explain yourself.Ghostprotocol888 (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rude comment on Catholic Church talkpage.

Your comment on the Catholic Church talk page was rude, unconstructive and off-topic. If you have anything constructive to say about the source, do so. Otherwise, please keep your wisecracks to yourself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Talk Page

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit on the Christianity talk page without giving any reasoning in the edit summary. Are you going to comment, and if yes, why?Promontorylink (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

anticreationism

Roughly one in 50 papers submitted to academic journals get published in them. ID/Creationist advocates have submitted just 12, and actually succeeded once

Citation needed. The only one individual creationist I've really enquired into, Leonard Brand, has successfully published several papers, which casts doubt on where you could have gotten the 12 figure (and the 50 figure is also higher than my expectation).

It is not the evolutionist who needs to look at the wild claims of evolutionists more closely. It is the creationists who need to scrutinize their leaders better. Case in point, your mention of scientists calling organs "functionless" - a popular claim in creationist literature, and yet if you look at the biologists talking about vestigial organs, none of them are really suggesting anything is functionless. It is in the imaginations of the creationists.

Facile. Do you know any biologists who think that the vestigial hind limb bones in whales serve a function? Or that the remnant additional teeth in narwhals serve a function? I can cite popular evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne explicitly writing that the vestigial wing nubs of kiwi birds are functionless [23] (and there you can compare how much better he responds to the very same misconception as you have tried and even while using your same approach of arguably redefining vestigial). And by imaginations, do you really mean to imply that medical experts have never in the past been recorded to call the appendix completely functionless?

You're overstating your point, and acting just as bad as the ones who do "lying for jesus". The reason why evolution should displace creationism is that the facts actually are on the side of evolution. When you write arguments to support evolution, you do not need to include any statements that are false. Doing so only harms the credibility of everyone who argues against creationism (because eventually people will recognise one of your obvious mistakes, and use that as ammunition to justify their doubt in the rest of our arguments). Please don't lower this endeavour to the level of equally scientifically-naive devotees trying to outbluff one another. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me re-phrase. 12 papers supporting ID/Creationism. Those that are not related to the subject weren't factored in. Brand's study on the behavior of chipmunks is completely irrelevant. This aside, I clearly made a generalization toward Creationism as a whole. Of course there are outliers. There are outliers in every group. So what? The 1 in 50 number is common knowledge last I checked.

Yes, I know of several biologists who think that the hind limbs in whales serve a function - they are used during mating. This is, however, besides the point. The point is that vestigial refers to an organ of which the function is reduced. Whether still completely functioning at a reduced capacity, or having no function at all, the organ is vestigial, as long as it's function today is significantly less than it used to be. I never said no vestigial organ has any function, nor did I say they all have some function.

Hence, I most certainly did not include any statements that were false. I did not lie, and your insinuation that I did is insulting and rude, especially since you chose to make it out of nowhere never having spoken a word to me before. So fuck off, asshole.Farsight001 (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, you said that no biologist suggest any vestigial organs are functionless, and you were incorrect. As for those numbers, I would be very interested in knowing their source and getting the complete list of that 12, if you did not just make them up as you now force me to presume that you did. (I think you are probably lying only to the same extent as most of those who "lie for jesus", which is not really to accuse you personally of deliberate lying but of gross lack of due research and of carelessness for the scientific accuracy of your phrasing.) I am concerned that your recent efforts (in tone as well as content) may be reinforcing the misguiding stereotypes held by creationists (and if I guage your own position correctly then this should be a constructive criticism).

I thought I was being polite by choosing your private talk page as the forum in which to initially bring this to your attention. The other reason why I may appear to you to be the one initiating contact with you is that the comments I quote from you are those which you injected (without solicitation from me) into a dialogue I was having with another user on their private talk page. Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pope. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. There is a discussion on the article's talk page if you care to participate. Cresix (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Pope shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Cresix (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as seen at Pope, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Cresix (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off, Cresix. I'm not falling for your bullshit anymore. You're the disruptive editor and you were from the get go. You violated the 3RR first. I explained my edits from the get go. Weeks half a dozen edits later and you still have not explained yours. Every one of these warnings belong on your talk-page, not mine, and we both know it.Farsight001 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.== — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that sticking this warning on my page doesn't create an actual section on the administrator's noticeboard, don't you? There's nothing there. No one's been reported to any administrators.Farsight001 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is one now, it said in the report thingy to make sure to notify before going further in writing the report, so I did. By the way, what does IP hopping mean?75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant outlook on the name of the Catholic Church.

You seem to be a watchdog for the CC page; you deleted my contribution in a matter of minutes. I added the paragraph to describe issues with the name of the Church. Mention of Protestants in the previous paragraph begged this addition. Do you truly think there is no relevance here?James K. Workman (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donation of Constantine

Thanks for your comment -- I replied at Talk:Donation_of_Constantine. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

33 AD

When I said "tracing its origins" was weaselly, I meant that deliberately or not it's ambiguuous: it reads as if it's a statement of fact when of course it's heavily debated by scholars, with many tracing the origins of the Church to the fourth century when it fused with the centralised bureaucracy of the Roman Empire. We could rewrite it to say "The Church teaches that it dates from 33 AD" but given that the next but one sentence starts "The Church teaches that it is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ" I think that would be a bit superfluous, especially as it's the lead and is discussed fully at the beginning of the History section. Haldraper (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Hovind

Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from Kent Hovind. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Kent Hovind, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you.

Jinx69 (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Really Jinx? I made one edit a couple of days ago and you're going to place a warning on my page about neutrality? Especially after your behavior across several articles?Farsight001 (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Numbered list item

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Kent Hovind, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.

You can put a million reports on my page, Jinx, it doesn't matter. You'll just be adding to the list of fraudulent warnings on my page(look at them all! Only one report on this page is a valid one!) left by people like you trying to bully and push others around to promote your agenda, only to be offended by someone standing up for integrity, so you seek revenge. Pretty pathetic revenge, if you ask me.

Jinx has been reported for a 3RR violation. As an aside, Darwin still is important and useful, Freud, not so much (As an evolutionary psychologist I have some experience here....) Anyway, good work on the talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your diligence at Baptists and elsewhere. It looks like I missed some excitement the last day or so, but the major problem is solved for now. Happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some input

Hello,

If you have some time I could use some input at From Darwin to Hitler.

Thanks. SalHamton (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism warnings

Hi. You reverted two instances of vandalism on the Catholic Church article by User talk:76.102.94.49. When you revert vandalism, please put the appropriate warning template (per WP:VANDAL) on the offender's talk page. The IP in question had vandalized other pages. A series of warnings gives administrators ammunition to block that IP. Without those warnings, we'll just have to address future vandalism. Thanks for your efforts. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James White (theologian)

I did not revert your reversion, even though it's a BLP and you provided no evidence this source is reliable nor that disowning one's sibling is not a potentially contentious accusation. I would like you to see your evidence on the talk page of the article, because at first glance, this source is in no way acceptable per WP:BLP. If this is non-contentious as you say, surely there are better sources out there for this. Ultra Venia (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Pass a Method talk 20:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James White

I did take it to the talk page, however BRD doesn't apply to BLP violations. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit warring on Catholic History

Your concerns, which appear to be WP:POV, and blanket reversions, without explanation in the talk page, on the History of the Catholic Church article, are not productive. Please express you concerns, so that we can resolve them. Thanks. Piledhighandeep (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi are you Catholic

You seem like a conservative Catholic is that true? Because if so it`s nice to meet another devout Catholic to talk with. Do you think you could help me with some other edits? 83.128.72.82 (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Pope Joan. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) (Not watching)[reply]

Dispute

Hello. Just to let you know that you have been cited as a part in the following dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Pope_Joan You're welcome :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.76.41.164 (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to evolution

Hey! Give my changes a try. This is a good-faith edit. I did improve structure and readability. header is in concordance with main body. I differentiated between theory of evolution and proof of evolution in experiment (sligthly). If unsure, please do not engae in a revert-war (possibly due to urges to protect a spec. version of article/or format). Thanks-a-lot, yours --78.51.211.140 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution noticeboard about Catholic Church template

A dispute resolution has been started at WP:DRN#Talk:Catholic Church#Org_Template_.28infobox.29. Sundayclose (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Farsight001, just wanted to ask if you are going to join the above DRN case? The case is currently waiting for a moderator to take on the case for discussion between parties, so now is kind of the best time to become part of the discussion. Please add a summary of the content dispute in the same style as those currently at DRN and add yourself to the list of involved editors near the top of the discussion. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]