User talk:Xandar/Archive 2

Archive

Xandar, I hope you don't mind that I created an archive for you and archived your long talk page that is almost two years old! Revert me if you prefer all that discussion. NancyHeise (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Award for being a friend

Xandar, thanks for sticking up for me and helping me through the wild RCC FAC. You did a great job trying to keep opposers focused on FAC criteria - something that we should not have had to remind them of if they really were worthwhile FAC reviewers! I thought your arguments were perfectly sound and that you endured the worst kind of unwarranted attacks from people who should have been listening to you instead. I am sorry for the trouble you went through to stick up for me and our work. Hang in there and dont worry about Tony or Sandy. They don't like me either (but really, everyone else does :) :) :) NancyHeise (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

responding to Raul's request

Xandar, I think your idea fits Raul's request, please see my answer to your question on my talk page. NancyHeise (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Karanacs

Hi. You have previously indicated your interest in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Karanacs, by directly editing that page before its transclusion. In order to improve the discussion there (and without trying to persuade you either to support or to oppose), I'm simply writing to tell you that the RfA is now live, and to encourage you to participate. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Featured Article Candidate RCC

(copied over from my talk page:) Xandar:

1. As I have told you, the nomination was not suspended; it was failed. I'm not sure why you continue to suggest otherwise. As such, even the section header here is misleading: the article is not currently a featured article candidate.
2. As I have also repeatedly said, my immediate responses to Raul254's comments on the last FAC are here, and can also be found on multiple parts of Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church.
3. I have also repeatedly tried, with the best interests of the article uppermost, to suggest more productive ways in which you could be reacting to the FAC failure. I'm not at all sure why you do not want to listen.

I honestly fear that you, we, and everyone is simply heading for a repeat of the problems already seen repeatedly with this article at FAC. This would be in nobody's best interest, least of all those of the article itself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We are simply following the comments of the Featured Articles Director. I do not understand why some people seem afraid of producing a comprehensive list of their problems with the article so that they can be addressed. Xandar (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) Xandar, again:

1. The message above is a misrepresentation.
2. I have repeatedly responded to the comments of the Featured Articles Director, and to your own comments on the talk page and elsewhere. I am in no sense "afraid" of listing my comments.
3. I am, however, afraid that the the way you are proceeding, not least the fact that you are having such trouble listening to or understanding what I (and others) are trying to say, will simply lead to a repetition of the problems already seen in the last FAC.

Honestly. I am saying all this with the best interests of the article in mind. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, for the benefit of the article, I'm concerned that you've posted an inaccurate message to a large number of editors. The FAC was not suspended because of length; it was failed because of 12 unstruck opposes (an unprecedented number in my memory). Also, restart is incorrect terminology under these circumstances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am merely repeating what was written by you and Raul on the FAC talk page. there was no mention there of "unstruck opposes" or the article "failing". The message said exactly what I have reproduced. We all know the history of the unstruck opposes. That is why this procedure has been adopted. Xandar (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe your message misrepresents the situation and will confuse others, who may not know where to find Raul's original post, so I'll add the diff here: "I've decided to fail this nom." Raul654 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I regret having requested that Raul add a closing note, as he doesn't usually do that, and I feel his note is being misrepresented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Xandar, I am respectfully but formally requesting that you edit to correct the messages you have left. The FAC was not archived because of length, it was not "suspended", and it will not be a "restart". You've left an inaccurate message to a number of editors, and I'd rather not intervene myself, as that will cause a forest fire. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No misrepresentation. The only reason given was because of length, the "failure" being presumably for this reason rather than for the "unstruck opposes" you spoke of above. It was also specified that remaining objectors make specific their remaining objections - which is the nub of the note that I am sending out. The text of the note was posted on Nancy's page two days ago, which you have visited since then, and made no comment. Xandar (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul's post is here:

Sandy asked me to look at this nom - apparently it had grown so large that it was interfering with her ability to load the FAC page. I've decided to fail this nom. First, I'd like to say I think the article is very good. It's long and somewhat over-referenced (although I don't consider over-referencing to be a major problem), but I think that's to be expected with an article of this visibility/notabaility/inherent controversiality. What I'd like to see from all the remaining objectors is a list of specific problems with the article in its current form.

I'd like the nominators to take some time and address the remaining issues prior to renominating this. I do want to see this featured, but it's not there yet. Raul654 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adjusting your message, Xandar; the new message is much better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I just saw this post on Jbmurray's page:

Your comments on the RCC talk page need to be the full and complete extent of any remaining oppose. Xandar (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm concerned that you may not understand Wikipedia processes in general, and FAC in particular. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

With a long, controversial article like this, we need to isolate and identify all the opposes or else we will simply end up going round and round in circles. The prime WP concern is getting constructive criticism that will move the article to FA. Not negative, blocking. The editors of this article have been round the circle four times. We don't want to address objections, come back to FAC and then hear - "That was only an example. I have lots of other opposes I haven't brought forward yet, but I haven't got time to tell you what they are, and I'm not striking my oppose." We get nowhere like that do we? We also cannot expect unanimity in support of such an article. Some people will hang onto their views on controversial subjects regardless of facts. Opposes also have to be reasonable. WP processes are not, I believe, in support of people with strong POVs blocking articles unless they reflect that POV. Xandar (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that other, much more controversial articles (see Introduction to Evolution) have reached FA status without expecting that opposers provide a list of every single issue they could possibly find with the article before the article is nominated (or renominated). FAC does not require the reviewers participate in a peer review of the article before commenting on it. Otherwise we'd never have time to review any FACs. Karanacs (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Introduction to Evolution went through 4 FACs with 400KB of text on each, or with intractable opposers? There is not going to be any progress on articles like this unless we sort out wwhat the objections actually are. If people are unwilling to put their cards on the table and tak a half hour to set out their remaining objections, then questions have to be asked about how genuine such objections are. Xandar (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC

I was a supporter, though I made several "this would be a good idea maybe" comments which I won't attempt to summarize - I certainly can't face looking at either the FAC or the article again for a while. I also have to agree with jpmurray on the "suspension or fail" issue. I do think Nancy needs access to a textbook (on the history of the Church) of unimpeachable weight to replace Vidmar; I suspect you would have more suggestions than I. I would not suggest putting it up again until after Labour Day/start of college term - if you didn't like the reviewing in the run-up to exams, the summer vacation ones would be worse. Anyway, everyone needs a break. Nancy has done heroic work, but needs to be as un-annoyable as a geisha next time, to sooth some of our difficult salarymen and women. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod, would you be willing to become a more active editor on the article? Perhaps after a suitable break--goodness knows, I can quite sympathize with your not being able to "face looking at" it right now. But I do think that if X and NH could expand the editing team, that would be a great step forward. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't think I'm the right person, & I try to avoid lots of editing on "big subject" articles, a feeling reinforced by this FAC. But someone to help share the load is probably a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I second everything the inestimable johnbod and jbmurray have said. It's been a long long haul for RCC.
• I wish everyone would look at the bright side instead of being discouraged: the article really is much much much better now!
• but I really dropped by to say I won't be participating. Too busy. Good luck! Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 00:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't actually opposed the article's FA status, just made a few comments.
I'm just wondering what is the League of Copyeditors doing if they don't have time for such an important article. Squash Racket (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI: Main page day

Hi Xandar, I don't know if you subscripe to the WP:SIGNPOST, but I just got around to reading the last one and noticed that it had a great article on what happens the day an article reaches the main page. There is no doubt that Roman Catholic Church will appear on the main page after it passes FAC (probably very soon after). This might be a good link to keep around until then so you'll know what to expect. [Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-09/Dispatches]. Karanacs (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Xandar, nobody wants to rip the page and re-write from scratch, and I certainly DO NOT want to eliminate the History section. But the feeling from many editors, as I see it, is that there is a feeling of trench warfare going on, and that the current structure is only open to 'improvment'; as apposed to development.

I say this as somebody who has been watching the article since the first FAC, and who is broadly impressed with the way you and Nancy have incorporated, accommodated or refuted each and every direction thrown at ye. Frankly, where you loose me is in the hostile / defensive post just found on my talk there now. "A mischievous suggestion"...do you really think I would bother. I'm trying to help as best I can; weather that is by copy editing or giving advice, please assume good faith and good intentions from other editors. As a by the way, my impression is that most would be delighted to see the article as FA, and would be proud to see it so, but are well aware the scrunity and fire it might come under. It might not seem like it at the moment, but there is a lot of goodwill towards what you and Nancy have achieved so far, and we are all working towards the same broad aim. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting my post. You are assuming a hostility that is not there. The "mischievous suggestion" comment was not aimed at you. It is my feeling about the suggestion to remove the History section, which in my opinion would wreck the article and mean virtually starting again from scratch, since we would still need some history (and have to fight over what went in and at what weight.) In addition, a great many very important issues are now dealt with chronologically through the History section. The suggestion seems mischievous to me because it would probably put back the article by at least six months to a year, with no guarantee whatsoever that the article would be any better (or even as good) at the end of that process. "Development" covers a multitude of sins, and while not hostile to a reasonable amount of change to the article, and even SOME of the structuring, I would not support a wyolesale reorganization without VERY strong arguments being brought forward. Xandar (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough, Xandar, and I like your turn of phrase "Development covers a multitude of sins". We'll leave it at that; I'll talk to you again when ye are ready for a ce before renom, whenever that is. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Queen of heaven

Thank you for your kind note a few days ago. I encouraged me to participate in the C article, although the long discussions wear me out a bit. You contributed to Queen of Heaven, an article which needs much work. I do have solid material on this topic and would like to add it, which would change however, completely the balance with antiquity. Therefore one option is to just live with an imbalanced article, another is to creare a separate Queen of heaven in antiquity (or something like this). 95% of queen of heaven material is Mary, so I have no problem with this. What do you think as an old contributor? By the way, I checked the traffic on this page and it seemed to be zero, hard to believe. Cheers --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Hallo there, I finally got around to it, it is better but not yet perfect, I think. I left the antiquity there for he time being. It is dwarfed by the article. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC) I finished and separated Queen of heaven (Antiquity) in to a new item. (I also tried to fix origins in HoRCC) Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

RCC again- history

I'm not opposed to a shortening, especially if we have a proper "main" that will expand. You can see the draft from Carlaude's link, though it may not actually be ready to discuss. I have issues with the current section anyway. It's unfortunate Nancy is away however. When they've finished it - no rush- I will certainly be happy to consider it, though no doubt it will creep up in length, as the old one did... Johnbod (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I had been planning to wait for Nancy to return, but then Carlaude got a little edit-happy. He's taking a look at the draft and I have no problems waiting for Nancy to get back. Karanacs (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Xandar, why don't you keep the version of the RCC article on your userpage. I'm very interested to see what will happen if we just let Karanacs et al do what they plan to do with the article, and let us step back altogether. If you keep your own version on your userpage, we can then revert back to the old article if the new one proves unsatisfactory. There seems significant consensus for some large scale changes to the article, so why not challenge the folks who are demanding wholesale changes to be bold and let them stand for now? Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think a viable case for large-scale changes to the article has been made. Certain people have expressed vague dissatisfactions, or suggested re-writes, but by and large they have failed, or refused, to specify the changes they would like, or to provide convincing evidence to support suggested changes. I certainly don't believe the main article (which many people have put hundreds of hours of effort into creating, balancing and referencing) should be handed over as a site for certain people to experiment on. Karanacs proposal has a page of its own. Any other people wishing to make major changes to the article should be prepared to argue for any such changes on the talk page. Let people first produce, and defend, the changes they want to see. Xandar (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

RCC copy post

How is the imprisonment and death of Pope Pius VI critical to understanding the history of the Roman Catholic Church? We already understand that the church was heavily persecuted following the French Revolution, that is the idea that is being summarized. I really don't think the sentence about Pope Pius VI is a necessary detail there. It is also somewhat misleading, as the sentence doesn't explain that the pope was already 81 years old when he was imprisoned, thus his death is not as surprising as a reader would assume. Leave it in if you want, but it certainly doesn't help the article meet Featured Article criteria 4: "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". Kaldari (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are having a nice summer

Xandar, thanks for keeping up with the RCC article. I have offered some proposals for enhancement on the discussion page and wondering what you think about them but my more immediate hope for you is that you are on a beach somewhere getting a tan and drinking an alcoholic fruity drink or a beer or two before coming back to the ol' grind! :) NancyHeise (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I think that section will become a troll magnet. I think the article's ability to ever get FA will be eliminated entirely if we have a section listing only its achievments because then you have to have a section listing its failings in order to be NPOV. I think it is best to follow the advice of Wikipedia's founder and put all of the positive and negative achievements throughout the article, ours in history. Besides, I thought that section was an affront to what the Church actually has done throughout history. Its achievments have not been to create architecture or advance science, its achievements have been to spread the word of Jesus which eliminated paganism, human sacrifice, polygamy, eventually slavery and a host of other worldly ills that used to exist all over the world but no longer do because of Christianity. If we have a section just listing art and architecture, we cloud over the real and true achievement of the Church. For these reasons, I am not in favor of keeping that section unless its first and most important point is that the Church spread Christianity throughout the world. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, FYI, I have ordered three univ. press scholarly works on Western Civilization that discuss the above contributions of the RCC and I will add this to the Culture section. NancyHeise (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Nancy. Xandar (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I just figured out how to change the color of the signature. I was wondering if you wanted me to update your signature with some kind of color change? I would hate for anyone to think of us as newbies with boring default-color signatures - what do you think? How about bright pink? Just kidding, I'll get a more manly color to reflect your personality if you allow :) Nancy_Heise talk 15:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding changing the color of your signature, I wont be able to do it for you, you have to go into the "my preferences" section at the top of the page after you sign in and click on this. Then go to the box that says "signature" and copy and paste this in there (click on the edit first and copy it from there) Xandar then click on the box that says "Raw Signature" just below it and save these changes. It will give you a really neat signature. NancyHeise ^talk 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Influence

Xandar, in this section of RCC, ref numbers 200-204 are not in proper format and aren't listed in the Bibliography. I just did a whole cleanup of all the refs on the page but I am not sure what to do about these. We really need page numbers for those refs so I can put them in proper format. Can you provide? Let me know. Thanks! :) :) NancyHeise ^talk 21:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can get 204 if you can find page numbers for the others. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 21:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

RCC Lead

Xandar, do you think we need this sentence in the lead? "It is made up of one Western church (the Latin Rite) and 22 Eastern Catholic churches, divided into 2,782 jurisdictional areas around the world." I have posted a segment on the talk page asking for advice on whether to eliminate that sentence or not. I would like to know what you think. Also, do you want me to create a nice user page for you? If you want to email me some information about you I can do something for your user page. I think it would be nice to list what articles you have significantly contributed to, your hobbies and interests or favorite quotes, places you have visited, marital and family status (how old are you!) people want to know something and I think it makes the atmosphere a little bit friendlier if we let people know a little something about us. However, if you are like some of the men I know, maybe you are a private person who would rather not - you could post that on your user page too! Let me know. NancyHeise ^talk 16:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [1]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 23:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am currently trimming the article per Ealdgyths comments and the others suggestions and making use of the "notes" section which I am going to try to be very careful not to overuse. If I make an edit you are not comfortable with, leave me a note on my talk page or just revert it and we'll talk. I think you and I are pretty much on the same page though. NancyHeise ^talk 20:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I don't think your edit to Enlightenment combining the Jesuit controversy in China with the South American paragraph flows well. I think I liked it better the other way. NancyHeise ^talk 21:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the peer review and I am just about to list it at FAC. Are you OK with the article or do you have more changes to make? NancyHeise ^talk 22:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice picture of the wedding in Manila. NancyHeise ^talk 23:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I think you should be more flexible on the name issue. We are trying to please everyone and we are almost through FAC. "more officially" seems to be the more accurate term that is also OK with everyone else. Can you give a little on this issue so we can all move on and hopefully get through FAC? NancyHeise ^talk 17:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

New proposal: What do you think of this? "The Roman Catholic Church, is more commonly called the Catholic Church (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica) both in its most official documents such as the Church constitution Lumen Gentium as well as in common usage.[1][2] It is the world's largest Christian Church, representing over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world's population.[3][4]"

New Consensus sought on lead sentence

Please come give us your opinion by voting here [2], Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 17:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, the last thing I wanted to do was make you angry. I do not understand what is wrong with the "or" version? The note still has all information and the "or" version eliminates any future discussions about whatever comes before "Catholic Church" from either one side or the other. It is entirely neutral wording that does not eliminate any facts because they are in the note. NancyHeise ^talk 23:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here [3] 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)

The "or" version ios a breach of wp rules and practice on naming, and the removal of important referenced text on which there has been longstanding consensus. That is not acceptable. Xandar 09:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I am with you all the way! Especially since Soidi is not content with sentence 2 anyway. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This IS an important point, since it is suppressing referenced information and long-standing consensus, and replacing that with misleading text in order to cave-in to a POV. Xandar 10:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I am really amazed at your insistence on pushing your own way here - at the complete expense of the rest of the article and its advancement to FAC. I hope you realize someday that your priorities need a bit of reorganization. The details of the article name's presentation in the lead sentence is not the most important issue here. NancyHeise ^talk 16:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "pushing my own way," I am just determined not to be steamrollered into a misguided change in the pre-existing long-tern consensus on an important issue. This is an issue that is important to a lot of people, and it needs handling on its merits and in line with WP policy, WP practice, and the facts. It's not a chip to be bargained away. Nor is it something to be decided without proper cool discussion and genuine consensus. Xandar 18:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Xandar, I saw your latest post at the RCC FAC and wanted to let you know that RFC is Wikipedia:Requests for comments. Someone (no idea who), listed the issue as an RFC (that is why the little template that appears on the talk page stating that someone requested comments). The template helps the article get added to a page that lists all the requests for comments, and random users can browse and find issues to weigh in on. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Xandar. Let me mirror Nancy's message and state that I did not intend to anger you. And now let me say, independent of what Nancy has said, as an Eastern Catholic Rite, I refer to the Church overall as "Catholic Church", and when discussing the Latin Rite, I call them Roman Catholics. I don't know if that helps you to understand my position. But let me just say that there is too much fighting with nail and tooth about what the Church is formally called vs. what it is called. I don't take this issue to be very decisive and to be honest could not care that much less, (though I could care a little less). And therefore I hope you take my decision with the same light-heartedness that I have made it with. Respectfully, Gabr-el 23:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

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: [4]. Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all. NancyHeise ^talk 15:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I just saw your last post on the FAC talk page "put up or shut up" - please remove this phrase it is very uncivil. We don't need to get upset with opposers we just have to show them the facts. I appreciate all your help very much but we need more politeness please : ) NancyHeise ^talk 00:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I removed the sentence, I hope that is OK with you. I have a quote on my user page which I truly believe in: "Politeness costs nothing and gains everything." NancyHeise ^talk 00:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged

This is the blurred star award for those who helped bring an article "almost" to featured status. Dont be discouraged Xandar! Also, you need to be a little nicer to Sandy, she is just doing her job. This is really not a serious project, it is supposed to be a fun hobby and I am sure with a little more fun editing and discussion it will eventually make it to FA. I am sure that as soon as it makes FA, it will probably be horribly edited to the point of non-recognition at some point. Please try to find the fun in this project - it is really a neat way to interact with people who think differently than we do and to learn new things. I hope you will continue to help bring the article to FA and not be too upset about its failure this time. I was upset until about my second margarita and then I was OK. (Actually I went to Mass first so I am sure Jesus was helping me more!) Peace to you and thanks for all your help. NancyHeise ^talk 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the star, Nancy. I'm not "discouraged" in that sense. The bronze star is not that important to me. I just think the process as currently constructed stinks. Especially the same people's (eg GG and Marskell's) very different interaction with the Islam articles. And double-standards annoy me. Xandar 00:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, this double standard is not foreign to Catholics or other Christians. I would say this is a "soft" form of persecution; though it may be frustrating, it is but a small price to pay for one who follows the cross and knows of the passion of Christ. Release this negative emotion and move forward with the joy of your Master as your shield. In truth, this article may never achieve FA status, but it is better that the article read properly than to be distorted to meet the misguided objectives of those who cling to a false POVs. My counsel to each of you is to hold fast and demand that the neutrality of the article remain as it has today. We do not need the recognition of others to know how good the article is. Peace. --^StormRider 02:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, Arguing that Islam should not be FA rathers undercuts the argument that RCC should be an FA because it is better than Islam. As some have pointed out, it was a 2007 nom that might not get through today in that condition. Let's be honest, we had as much trouble this time (by volume anyway) from people "inside the tent". No doubt we will all be back in the New Year! Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I know you are angry and I wish you were not. Please consider how your FAC FARCE note on the Catholic Church page sets a negative tone for all future edits and conversations. I have removed the note twice because it is really uncivil and does not help at all. You already made your case at FAC discussion page, I don't see why you have to put it on RCC too. The article is still going to move forward even though it failed FAC. It is probably going to become much better the next time. I would like to continue to work with you on this project but not if you aren't willing to give other people a chance. No one is going to bend to your wishes by getting yelled at, it is just going to turn off all future reasonable discussion. I want to work with opposers on a positive light, in a friendly way, not like this. Please cool off and come back to help in a kindly way. I am praying for you. I have enjoyed working with you and I want to continue to do so but I really think you have to be more respectful of others and be OK when things don't go our way all the time. NancyHeise ^talk 21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, my comments tell things as they are. If people don't like the truth, that is their problem. It is quite clear there is a double-standard at FAC, and until it is cleared up RCC will not get anywhere. The people you talk of "turning off" are already "turned off", as evidenced in five FAC sessions, where they emerge with all sorts of prejudiced rubbish against the Church. We cannot have one rule for Islam etc, and another for the Catholic Church. If RCC articles are full of negativity, blame, criticism and an emphasis on historic faults and failures, while articles on other faiths are whitewashed squeaky clean, then that impacts extremely negatively on readers' views of catholicism and Catholics. There must be one standard for all. And being respectful of others goes both ways. If certain people at FAc do not act in a respectful way to editors of the article, they can hardly expect that themselves. And you have been quite abrasive in many of your interactions in past FACs. So unless you are going to be lecturing people like Sandy, Vb, geometry Guy and others about being "respectful to others", please don't come that with me. An attempt to paint us as being in the wrong on this issue is not only false, but playing into the hands of those who want to block the article. Xandar 21:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have mentioned the abrasiveness of FAC Reviewers on the talk page of WP:FAC. I do not believe the way to make things better is to start mirroring the negativity of opposing FAC reviewers. The way to turn things around is to be the first to be the nice person and others will follow. I don't want to work on this project if people are going to be going at each other, I want to do this because it is fun and interesting, not a war zone. You have stated your case to FAC on that talk page. I do not approve of it being on RCC page as I think it sets a negative and discouraging tone to editors coming to the page to help and it makes the Church look bad too. NancyHeise ^talk 23:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are OK

Dear Xandar, I hope you are Ok and that you will come back to join the team when things have cooled off a bit. Your help is much needed and appreciated.

Chimpanzees are social animals.

NancyHeise ^talk 21:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey - I'm glad you're back and I hope you are OK. NancyHeise ^talk 00:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too!

NancyHeise ^talk 02:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

RFM

I began a Request for Mediation here [5] and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here [6] to agree to participate. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

Thank you for your recent scholarly contributions to Pope Pius XII. They have helped immeasurably to balance the article.Student7 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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/Roman Catholic Church. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

Xandar, mediation has begun - yippee, more wasted time on name issues : ) I have made a new suggestion based on this new source [7], how about "Roman Catholic Church which titles itself "Catholic Church"? NancyHeise ^talk 16:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nancy. I'm not to happy with "which titles itself" the Catholic Church, for the same reason I don't support "which calls itself" the Catholic Church. Both forms of wording carry the unfortunate implication within them that this is a false or presumptuous claim. Compare "Mr Barnet, who calls/titles himself Lord Delamere." Also, "Which titles itself" could be subject to the same objections that have been used against other forms of wording, ie. that the Church has also sometimes "titled" itself by other names. The word "officially" does provide precision, and limits the use of that argument.

If "Officially known as the Catholic Church" is pedantically (and in my view incorrectly) resisted, another, even less challengeable, form of words that could be agreed in order to achieve a solution could be: "The Roman Catholic Church, in official usage, the Catholic Church." Xandar 10:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template

Starting Template:Roman Catholicism2 Xandar 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I responded to your post at mediation, can you please respond? NancyHeise ^talk 23:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church

Hi Xandar, 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 17:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

your opinion sought

Xandar, since you are Catholic, I was wondering is you could comment on which version of the RCC ten commandments page you prefer as per this discussion here [9]. Thanks in advance for your insights. NancyHeise ^talk 05:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful analysis and helpful comments over at the Ten Commandments in RCC theology. I am going to incorporate your, Johnbod and Brian's new comments. NancyHeise ^talk 02:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Abortion

I highly recommend that we change the definition of Abortion to "the practice of killing babies in the mother's womb", or the "legal killing of baby humans". Please reply on my talk page Manning38 (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Coward

Hello, Xandar. Thanks for commenting on the Noel Coward FAC. I think you missed the item for Words and Music on the list of musicals and revues. It does appear there - it was produced in 1932. Kindly look again, and if you have time, please revisit the FAC page. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Why don't you start an article on Words and Music? No one would object to that, I'm sure. The rest of us don't think it's a high priority right now. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC) -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

History of the RCC Church

Just had a chance to read through the article! It's much better. Thanks for all your hard work, I hope that my suggestions weren't a hindrance. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

William Cobbett

I see that you added a statement that William Cobbett converted to Catholicism. I can find nothing to support his and one catholic sourced citation that definitely states the opposite. I have removed the staements . Can you find any supporting evidence? Lumos3 (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New sources

Xandar, I went to the library today and I found these additional sources that say the Church claimed as its title Catholic Church. Two of them use the word "exclusively" please see:

• 1)From The Oxford English Dictionary, 1978, Oxford University Press, Volume II, C, ISBN 0198611013, page 186 Definition of "Catholic":

  (a)After the separation, assumed by the Western or Latin Church, and so commonly applied historically.(b)After the Reformation in the 16th c. claimed as its exclusive title by that part of the Western Church which remained under Roman obedience.

• 2)From The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1997 ISBN 01921165x, Definition of "Catholic" page 305:

  "(3)In historical writers, of the undivided Church before the schism of E. and W., traditionally dated in 1054. Thereafter the W. Church usually referred to itself as 'catholic', the E. preferring to describe itself as 'orthodox'. (4)Since the Reformation RCs have come to use it of themselves exclusively."

• 3)From The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism general editor Richard McBrien and some of the 280 authors are listed here [10] published in 1995 by HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0060653388, Definition of "Catholic" page 240: "

  "However, the use of the word 'Catholic' became divisive after the East-West Schism of the eleventh century and the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth. The West claimed for itself the title Catholic Church, while the East, which broke the bonds of unity with Rome, appropriated the name Holy Orthodox Church. After the Reformation split, those in communion with Rome retained the adjective Catholic, while the churches that broke with the papacy were called Protestant."

If we include these with the 1995 Academic American Encyclopedia [[11] and the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica,[[12]] we now have a total of five sources saying the same thing - that the Church has claimed as its title Catholic Church and that the title is its exclusive title. I don't see how we can be expected to support Soidi's argument when these sources represent the most respected modern scholarship. NancyHeise ^talk 17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fetus

FYI, it is fetus not foetus. Some of the British press use foetus, but its not latin and its not used by the British medical community. Thought you might like to know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Foetus is standard UK usage, and is what I've been brought up with. I'll use fetus on the article page for consistency - but I think it looks like something to do with feet! Xandar 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Xandar, I noticed when reading through FAC today that you had reviewed a few articles, and I wanted to tell you thank you! I know your stints as a nominator have not always been stress-free, and I hope that working as a reviewer is giving you the other side's perspective too. Your comments have been useful in helping us to start closing the backlog at FAC, and I hope we see you there frequently. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Karanacs. I'm not intending to be a big-time reviewer, but I hope to keep looking in on the FAC page for articles on which I have a subjecct or other interest. Xandar 17:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Han Dynasty FAC

Hello. I responded to your comments here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi once again. Thanks for copy-editing the lead to the article. I'll continue the effort of copy-editing the article, but I'd really like to hear more of your advice on which specific sentences still need rewording. Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I contacted several members of the Guild of Copyediting. If you still have reservations about listing all the sentences at the FAC page that you'd like to see reworded or split apart, feel free to list them at my sandbox talk page. I would love to address all of your concerns with the prose. Please give me a chance to fix what you think needs fixing, before the Guild members take a whack at the article. Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I just made some more major improvements to the prose of the article with the help of User:Quadell. Check it out!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:La Pianista and User:Thomprod from the GOCE are now on board. The former, La Pianista, has already started copyediting the lead. User:Quadell has been especially helpful so far. I have a good feeling about this!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You still alive, bro? Don't go pushing daisies on me now! I still need you to reconsider that objection! Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just doing some other things while matters hopefully progress. Xandar 01:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah! That's fine. Take your time. Keep in mind, though, that User:Quadell has just now supported the article. And I believe for good reasons.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. You are aware that something to this effect has already been mentioned in Economy of the Han Dynasty? The government was afraid that small independent farmers who fell into debt would coalesce around the wealthy elite landowners (which became a serious problem by the late 2nd century CE). Therefore, the government encouraged peasants to settle in frontier areas where they could work on agricultural colonies, or tuntian. The government would lend them seeds, farm tools, and even houses to stay in while they recouperated (with the intent on having them return to their abandoned farms in the interior). However, what Economy of the Han Dynasty does not mention is the forcible resettlement of people to frontier areas. I did mention in Society and culture of the Han Dynasty that in the beginning of Han, the government would forcibly resettle gentry and nobles around imperial tomb sites so that they would pose no challenge to imperial authority. However, by the 1st century BCE, this type of policy became unfeasible, as the gentry became a much more powerful, cohesive social group and interest group in politics that was not to be trifled with, even by the emperor. Could you point out the source that you used?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, which section of the article do you think needs such a statement? Economy? Society? I'm trying to think of where it would be most relevant.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you refer here to my sandbox notes taken for:

• Chang, Chun-shu. (2007). The Rise of the Chinese Empire: Volume II; Frontier, Immigration, & Empire in Han China, 130 B.C. – A.D. 157. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0472115340.

...Chang mentions the various people who populated Han's frontiers. Chang's model for Han frontier development consists of eight essential components, those being QUOTE (from page 15 to 16): "(1) forced and voluntary migration of people to the new regions (2) full government support of new immigrants (3) military protection of regions under development (4) land cultivation by civilians or military or both (5) free land for immigrants (6) organization of immigrants under the military system in the initial stage and under the regular local administrative system at the developing stage (7) strict military control of frontier regions, and (8) immigrants forbidden to leave their assigned locations without government permission."

These are just the broad categories; he gets very specific. He mentions that the majority of the people on the frontiers were military servicemen (not peasants forcibly moved there), this group comprised mostly of garrison soldiers. However, there were also "irrigation soldiers" who focused solely on farming and hired soldiers. Other people include the soldiers' family members, officers' servants, hired laborers, landowners, traveling merchants, slaves, and convicts performing hard labor services. According to Chang, the majority of civilian migrants to the frontier regions came at the government's expense; it was only when an area became self-sufficient that people started coming at their own expense to settle there.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope this is not the type of detail you are looking for. This would be suitable for another article, perhaps Society and culture of the Han Dynasty.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No. All I'm really looking for is a sentence saying that under the Han large numbers of poor peasants were forcibly or voluntarily resettled to frontier regions. Was there not a section where the article states money from tax and iron monopolies was used to fund resettlement? This could be added there. Xandar 22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it could be added in the last paragraph of the Western Han sub-section. However, it would be kind of misleading to only mention forcibly-resettled peasants, since they did not comprise the only group of settlers in frontier regions (and they didn't even comprise the majority of those on the frontier, who Chang says were garrison soldiers). I will add something now using Chang.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I added it a few paragraphs above the last paragraph in the Western Han section.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

An excellent addition. Thank you. Xandar 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So. After plenty of copyediting by various editors, in what state do you think the article is in now? Is the quality of the prose still dreadful enough to warrant an opposition instead of just a comment? I'd like to tie up any loose ends.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I rather like your most recent copyedits to Han Dynasty. The article sounds much better every time you edit it! Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xandar. Could you please provide further input on the present quality of the prose and if it is up to snuff? Thank you.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Quick question: would you mind if I collapsed our long conversation in a text box? The FAC page is already getting over 90 KB! A lot of stuff for other reviewers to sift through. Since you withdrew your opposition, I'm supposing all the specific things you raised have been addressed?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Xandar 00:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Xandar!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin Bucer

Hello, the Martin Bucer FAC was archived. In my opinion, this was closed too early. I have renominated it; would you please vote or leave a comment on the new FAC? See Talk:Martin Bucer and click on "leave comments". Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Economy of the Han Dynasty FAC

I just posted a response to your most recent questions. Have a look.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

These are all very good points. Take a look at the section now; I have amended the article according to your suggestions.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again: you still around? It's been two days since I left the message above.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition of "Roman Catholic" to category name

Would you be interesting in viewing the discussion on this question? Soidi (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation

A draft of the note under mediation is up for comments here [13]. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 11:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I was just looking at the RCC template on the main RCC page. It lists Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism under "Background" instead of where I think it should be which is in "theology" section. I am not sure how to change the template. What do you think of the arrangment and do you know how to change it?

NancyHeise ^talk 17:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two templates now, one slightly wider than the other, to suit different articles. The one on the main RCC article is Roman Catholicism2. You can go to Template:Roman Catholicism and Template:Roman Catholicism2 and click the edit tab from there. Just move the whole line with Ten Commandments in Catholicism in it (including the line break code) to a new line created under the Theology heading. You'll need to do it for both templates - and best to preview first, in case something messes up. Xandar 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xandar, it looks like it has already been done by someone. I took care of Mit Brennender Sorge also. Thanks for pointing that out, I added the quote from the source for extra security. NancyHeise ^talk 18:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

points about the term "Catholic"

Do you have reliable references that make the points about the term "Catholic" that you think should be in the note? Xandar 12:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking for. I could find a dictonary that says a meaning of the term Catholic is "world wide" or "universial" but I do not see what good that would do you.

What points do you think I am making about the term "Catholic" (and not "Catholic Church.") --Carlaude ^talk 14:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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 [14]. 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 14:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did not "sign up to the consensus about the change of title of the article": at 19:42 on 26 May 2009 I wrote: "We did not 'unanimously decide' to change the article name: I for one just went along with what was the majority at that moment in order not to be an obstacle to movement. In any case, we have no authority to 'change the article name': that is for the interested Wikipedia community, not for this small group. Soidi (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore

Nice change at the Pinafore article. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been promoted. Thanks for all your help! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

RCC

Xandar, I am going away for a few weeks, returning Aug 9th. Brianboulton is planning to help us with the next FAC attempt and we have planned a peer review for September. I would like to invite people to participate in that peer review and refrain from eliminating consensus agreed text from the article before this peer review. Are you going to be here for the summer? Can you possibly coordinate the talk page to make a list of comments to place on the peer review page to be addressed in September? Last summer when I went away, two editors took it upon themselves to eliminate most of the article and put it up for GAR, thankfully, that effort failed but I don't doubt that such activity will resurface again this summer. I would like to discourage that scenario by allowing dissenters to place their comments up for consideration by the larger community in the September peer review. NancyHeise ^talk 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I should be around this summer. I'm not quite sure what "co-ordinating the talk page" involves! If we have people posting article change suggestions or criticisms, they will start getting discussed, unless you're just asking people to list topics they want to discuss in September. Xandar 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If people know there is going to be big peer review in September then I think any proposed major overhauls that are suggested before then should be advised to wait until peer review when all interested parties will be involved. Haldraper is eliminating sourced text that was agreed in previous consensus. His edits make the page eliminate the Catholic POV which makes the page unbalanced and violates WP:NPOV. This is the kind of activity that may increase over the summer but these kinds of suggestions for the page can wait until peer review. Maybe a list of some sort can be started on the page and those with gripes can add theirs to the list that will then be taken up at peer review? Just a suggestion. I am not sure if I have thanked you lately for your unwavering, persistent and reliable help on all matters RCC. I am very happy that you are part of the RCC team, I think we have a nice group of editors, both Catholic and non. NancyHeise ^talk 22:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nancy. You've done sterling work on this and other articles. I actually have another little WP project idea you might be interested in when you have time. as for this consultation. Perhaps you'll set up whatever format you propose, and I'll try and monitor it. When are you off to the wilderness? Xandar 22:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Friday morning. I have thought about how Wikipedia articles that are controversial are the most popular ones. Wikipedia wants good articles on controversial subjects. Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer are also neglected because editors do not want to spend time arguing on the talk page reliving the religious wars of the Reformation. If a decent group of editors were to get together with the goal of making these types of articles pushed through FA - a collaborative effort - then more people on Wikipedia might want to spend their time creating FA's on controversial and popular subjects. Please see my proposal on user:RelHistBuff's talk page. As for RCC, what do you think of making a sub page for proposed peer review comment for the Sept peer review and pointing passers by to that page to list their comments for consideration by the whole lot of RCC editors who will come together for that peer review? That is sort of what I had in mind. user:Richardshusr is a really decent admin who is very good at NPOV and who has been helping RCC - maybe he would have a suggestion on how to do this. I'll ping him to this conversation. NancyHeise ^talk 03:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The sub page sounds like a good idea. By all means ask Richard. Collaborating on Luther or Cranmer though, sounds a bit of a hot topic. Cranmer actually got through FA last year while we were involved with the RCC FA - so I was not involved. I wasn't a hundred percent happy with it, glossing over some of Cranmer's grubbier activities, but haven't had time to look at it again. Reformers often get uncritical hagiographic coverage in articles and much of the mainstream. I got involved in the Martin Bucer FA recently. Xandar 12:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I forgot Cranmer got FA, I think it may have been Thomas Beckett that they wanted to bring to FA but were afraid of controversy. We had this discussion on QP10qp's talk page a few weeks ago. Richard is on vacation I think but I put a note on his talk page. I would create a subpage for this but I think it is best to run that by an admin first. I will not be here to do it, can you ask? NancyHeise ^talk 03:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Siward

If you want to indicate one or two things tonight, I will be able to address them. That is, irrespective of what you say tomorrow after a more thorough review. :) Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Xandar, did I respond to your suggestions adequately? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark

Hi, I noticed you were making some edits and thought I would ask a question since you know more theology. In the 3rd paragraph of the intro to Crucifixion darkness and eclipse there is a statement that:

Mark's chronology of Jesus' crucifixion and death is apparently artificial.

And has some references. I have not found a clean reference to rebuke that. Is Mark's account really artificial? Any clarification will be appreciated, specially if it helps Mark. History2007 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I used that argument, and will rework that intro in a day or two. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Gaelic ...

... is actually the most written down vernacular in Europe in this period, in terms of surviving sources at least. No exaggeration, it is by a big distance. Spellings are therefore not contrived for the[se] language[s] in the modern era. In this case, it is pronounced something like Dunnacha (with epenthetic vowel and lenition), and when used in the case system of Latin its spelling was modified for pronunciation and Latin grammar, with (-nus added as a masculine ending) producing Donnecanus or Dunecanus. It is the latter that is contrived, and would never have been used in natural speech until it was adopted into English a few centuries later. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

May be, but our sources are largely Latin and Old Norman french. Even the man's own seal says "Duncan". Xandar 19:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It says Duncanus, and that's because it's written in Latin. If it were written in Gaelic, it would be Donnchadh. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You perhaps have a point about the kings of Mann, they did probably use Norse as well as Gaelic. Both are used by historians. I preferred the Gaelic spelling over the Norse because of the context and because of cognitive dissonance (and, because, for instance some of the names, e.g. Affraic, aren't Norse and have no Norse form), but I've changed to address your concern here. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

The union of the Picts and the Scots of Dalriada by Constantine's father, Kenneth MacAlpin, has traditionally been looked upon as the beginning of the united Kingdom of Scotland. Kings have often been given regnal numbers from this date. Constantin is therefore often referred to as Constantine I of Scotland, although he would not have carried that title in his life. <>Medieval Scotland By Andrew D. M. Barrell CAMUP 2000p4.

Request for Protection

I would appreciate if you could post a Protection lock on my biography page Shahriar Afshar, as well as the its discussion page, due to a recent breach of confidentiality that has caused confidential information to be posted on my biography page. I cannot discuss the details here, but if you e-mail me (afshar@rowan.edu) I would be happy to explain. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Best regards. --Prof. Afshar (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong person. I'm not a moderator. Xandar 23:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming policy

Just to be clear, my goal is not to remove that clause, but to make it much easier to understand, clearer, and therefore much easier for an editor to apply. Ideally, all of those naming guidelines could be cleaned up to be a lot shorter, and then moved into the naming policy page (which currently goes around endorsing the guidelines, without saying much itself).    M   00:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian literature FAC

I have responded to your queries at Ancient Egyptian literature and edited the article according to your suggestions. Please have a look when you are able. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

RC

I responded on the cc talk page. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I need some help, Xander. User:History2007 is blocking all edits to make Roman Catholic Mariology consistent with the article, Catholic Church even though material on Eastern Catholics is included in the article. This person seems to have written the article most his or herself and is behaving in a proprietory manner. Advice? Help? --EastmeetsWest (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

rollback

Xandar, would you like rollback privileges? That might be quite useful for you in patrolling some of the religion articles. Please let me know if you think this would be helpful and I'll grant it to you. Karanacs (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conflict

They moved the discussion to another page: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Is_there_consensus_for_this_or_not.3F. Just thought I'd let you know. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 17:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is going on here? NCON has been stable for a long time, now this Kotniski person appears to be trying to wreck it. Is he trying to gain advantage in a content dispute somewhere? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not know whether Kotniski has a dispute going. One of his supporters seems to have. However he started out just saying he just wanted to trim the guideline to make it clearer, now it is clear that he wants to reverse it. Xandar 00:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for clarifying, but they seem to think that there's something broken with the policy. It seems to have been working fine for all this time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a proposal to change the naming conflict guideline here. Would you be able to take a look? Sunray (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FAC check..

Can you do me a major favor? Chicado V, which is on a race mare, is my next planned article for FAC, but I'd greatly appreciate someone checking it over for intelligability for non-horsepeople. I'd be very grateful if you could. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well. I'm certainly a non-horseperson. I'll have a look. Xandar 00:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. At least it's a break from bishops! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hate to bug you, but are you satisfied with the changes here? Don't wanna nominate until you're content. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Meat puppetry warning

In case you didn't notice my response to your post at user talk:Yorkshirian, here it is. Engaging in edit wars by proxy is not allowed, and asking other editors to engage in disputes in this manner is a breach of WP:MEAT. Please do not do so again, or you risk being being blocked. If there is a 3RR problem, take it to WP:3RR, or if you think administrative action needs to be take go to WP:ANI. Continuing an edit war is not acceptable behaviour. Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand Meatpuppetry. Yorkshirian is not a new user, recruited by me. He is involved in these discussions which apply to relevant articles we are involved in. He has a legitimate concern in this dispute and in the instance where one person is repeatedly altering an important guideline without consensus, it is redolent that this be pointed out. The 3RR has not yet been broken by PManderson, and ANI is for outright vandalism rather than content changing. Xandar 20:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that because you're not new that what you were asking is acceptable. WP:Meat does not relate exclusively to new user, although perhaps WP:CANVAS is more appropriate here. You canvassed Yorkshirian with the purpose of "influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus". Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I contacted people involved in the ordinary discussion, and who were likely to be affected by the Foum Shopping of the protagonists, who having failed to get their way on one forum, moved to another (together) WITHOUT INFORMING the other participants. Under such circumstances, informing interested parties was perfectly proper. If one side tries to create a false appearance of consensus by transfering a discussion to a different forum without informing everyone else, then it is proper to inform everyone else. Xandar 21:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, as Yorkshirian was already involved it's not a violation of WP:Meat. However, the phrasing of your message to him made it quite clear that you were aware that you were engaging in an edit war by proxy. There are appropriate forums other than the ones mention that you should have sought. Nev1 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

huge addition to Talk:Catholic Church

Do you suppose you could consider reverting that last addition, since as you say, it's a digest of material already to be found in the archives? That's a huge chunk of text to read at once... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No. People are coming to the page and "voting", saying that they can't be bothered to go to the archives and read through the discussions we've been involved in for the past year. Others are posting long lists of their original research. therefore it is best that this digest of some of the topics covered is here to avoid constant repetition. Xandar 21:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

IP address block

I've suddenly had this notice posted, preventing me from editing, and saying that my ISP or IP address/range has been blocked. I am engaged in some important negotiations on WP and need this to be unblocked ASAP Xandar 23:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Xandar - Since I'm not sure what checkuser block this was in reference to (though I'll try to find that out) I'd rather not undo the block for the time being, however, since I know you from the mediation I've flagged your account as able to edit over IP address blocks. You may have to log out and back in for the user rights to update but you should be able to edit now. If that doesn't fix things, please leave another note and I'll watch here. Shell ^babelfish 03:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you've done seems to be working. Thanks! Xandar 11:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Self-Identifying names

I'm compiling a list of articles where the self-identifying name is the article and the common name is a redirect. If you'd like to help me add to this list, please do so here. I suspect we'll need this later. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added some. Hopefully more soon. Xandar 21:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

False accusation against you on CC talk page

Hey there. Pmanderson is at it again...accused you of acting in bad faith in the CC talk page. I put another warning on his talk page page, which he has already deleted. Just wanted to make sure you know, in case you would like to respond. Stay strong! --anietor (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Defend yourself against some silly comments

Some editors on the naming conflicts page have been inserting comments accusing you of canvassing. I don't think you did that, and what you did is more like leaving friendly notices, which is allowed. Just a heads up in case you want to address it yourself and defend your honor! --anietor (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. The ironic thing is that I keep having to be informed of new developments by you and others because these people change forums and start new processes without telling anyone! Xandar 21:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You might not want to characterize your opponent's comments as 'silly'. Civility, and all that. Just a suggestion.    M   01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pity you don't do as you advise, Mr M. Xandar 02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Where have I characterized my opponent's comments as silly? This is not true - but perhaps you can provide a diff. See WP:ATTACK, the relevant part is:

"but some types of comments are absolutely never acceptable: [...] Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

Could you provide these diffs, please? Otherwise, stop misrepresenting my actions, here and elsewhere.    M   22:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Please stop reverting good-faith edits. If you don't like the wording, change small parts of it, so that we can work together towards something we all agree on. If you continue to blanket revert all changes to that policy page, I will take this issue to ANI. This issue includes your canvassing, which usually justifies an immediate block if you have been warned about it previously, and you have. Please work with others on this instead of pushing one single version.    M   22:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You know that you cannot change guidance without consensus. And the forum-shopping, edit-warring and canvassing by your clique have been disgraceful on this issue. Xandar 22:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That consensus exists. If you continue too revert and work against building consensus, you will very likely be blocked from editing. You may want to consider taking a break from this issue.    M   22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Will you please stop lying and making threats. No consensus exists to make the radical changes to policy you are trying to push through illegitimately. You are the one who needs to be blocked. Xandar 22:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have diffs? I have not made many (any?) changes to that page for a long while, and reverted you just twice in an attempt to get you to cooperate. You responded by calling in a meatpuppet.    M   23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Xandar.    M   23:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR

I think you violated 3RR there, so you might want to revert yourself. 3RR applies to all reverts of other editors' work; the reverts needn't involve the same material each time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CCatholic_Church_and_Renaming.3E --Rockstone (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaming

The gaming comment I made on Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict refers to the fact that to get the outcome on Catholic they sought. they needed to change the rules. It looks like it infected Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions as well. patsw (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Other cases where multiple names had common use

What other cases can you think of where there's been disputes over the most common name among several common names besides Catholic? Such as A/B 50/50 or A/B/C 33/33/33 percent of usage. My conjecture is that in close cases, there might be an editing consensus du jour and frequent churning of content and article names. patsw (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, it's quite rare for there to be very close results on common names. The South Tyrol naming consensus is a case in point. Another big one has been Derry/Londonderry - also a case where the self-identifying name (Derry), is different from the Official name (Londonderry). Maybe also Orthodox Church v Eastern Orthodox Church. There's also the Palestinians v Palestinian Arabs. Xandar 00:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus wording at NC?

I complained that "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." is wobbly wording (what is "reasonable", why "easy" and "second nature"? It had been improved. Why have you reinstated this, and where was the original consensus? Please justify the current wording you've reinstated. Tony (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude, if you don't want the general convention to be able to overrule specific conventions, you've already won. That is, we've already won. The general convention has been largely rewritten over the last few days. Before, it was a set of rules that the specific conventions must conform to or be damned. Now it is a set of principles that the specific conventions embody. This means far more freedom and flexibility for the specific conventions.

So you're actually bidding against yourself by continually reinstating that sentence. By removing it, we are demoting "use the most easily recognized name" from a rule that cannot be broken by a specific convention without good reason, to merely one of several principles that the specific conventions shouldtake into account. In restoring it, you strengthen that clause, making it more binding on specific conventions, not less. I know that sounds odd; please, think upon it.

Hesperian 11:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this precise section is being used by Kotniski and others at WP:Naming conflict in an attempt to push a change removing the self-identifying names section of the convention, alleging "contradiction" with policy. The keenness to remove the proviso has a lot to do with that agrument, and that view of the Conventions. As I see it the "protection" of the individual conventions in the new wording is "soft" and subject to interpretation, while the phtase in question is "hard", and less easy to wikilawyer. Xandar 11:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that removal is supported by Philip Baird Shearer, Kotniski, GTBacchus, Born2cycle and myself—five editors who rarely agree about anything. I don't know which of these are involved in your other dispute, but the assertion that removal is motivated by that dispute is demonstrably wrong. I've removed it again. Please let us know how else we might make the convention reflect your take on consensus. Hesperian 13:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The first two named are heavily involved in the dispute. And I'm afraid that you five DO NOT compose the cross-project consensus needed to radically change policy in this way. So please do not keep reverting your non-consensus change to policy. If a change this big is to made it needs to be considered by all concerned in the community. Xandar 20:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that the principle you're arguing for applies to the entire convention, not just the "use the most common name" section? I notice someone has taken it out again. If, instead of simply reverting again, you were to integrate it into the overview section, I for one would consider that a (barely) tolerable compromise: something we could live with until this other conflict sorts itself out. Hesperian 00:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The way you've integrated that is actually a lot better than barely tolerable. I like it. Hesperian 01:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a warning

Xandar, you need to stop making claims about the motives of other editors. I will not block you for this infantile, unhelpful and escalatory style of argument, because I am involved in the dispute. However, I will strongly urge any other administrator to throw the book at you with full force if you don't wise up fast.

You cannot read minds, and pretending that you can is getting you very close to very hot water. Your failure to argue in a mature and collegial manner will not be allowed to derail or distract from important policy discussions. Talk about the policy and not about what you imagine others want.

You may also be assured that PBS's PMAnderson's maligning of your motives - which I know to be honorable - is fast approaching this same point.

Is this clear? We're all on the same team. Act like it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Corrected my stupid mistake above. I crossed wires, and thought it was PBS who had swung back at you. I was wrong. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your reply to me at WT:NC was off-topic for the page. I don't care what you think about me, I care that you don't do your part in dragging the discussion down to a level of mudslinging. I asked you several times politely to stop. You didn't. I asked PMA once. He agreed. Are you willing to get out of the mud, or aren't you? That's all. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have seen no sign of such rude and one-sided posts as you have placed here on PMAs page. I thus take it that your actions have been one-sided. No attempt has been made by PMA and co to attain consensus and agreement for the chain of widespread and significant changes to the policy pages. They are just proceeding by edit-warring and ignoring and insulting those opposed to their schemes. If you think PMA and his allies are acting in a "mature and collegial manner" you must be in a very blinkered state. Xandar 20:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't posted on PMA's page, because I asked him once, in context, and he said ok. If he keeps attacking you, I will come down just the same. You responded to my first 3 requests by ignoring them. He responded to my first one by saying, "spoilsport... ok." If you had done that, we wouldn't be here now. Where is your commitment to rise above the shit? Or do you think that some number of wrongs makes a right? I never said anyone else was acting in a mature and collegial manner, because I don't disparage others to you. I talk to you about why you're behaving dishonorably, and I talk to others about their behavior. Get it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

WP:ANI#Xandar Hesperian 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't respond to your unblock request as I am not uninvolved enough, but I would strongly caution you that "I'm right, they're wrong" is not an acceptable excuse for edit-warring. In situations like this where you are convinced you are right, it may be necessary to pursue dispute resolution (such as slap a disputed tag on the policy page and conduct a neutral RfC). Edit-warring is not appropriate. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Award

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I award Xandar this Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for defending Wikipedia in the naming policy conflict when others like me can not come to help you in your good efforts. NancyHeise talk 04:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking

Hello everyone - I seem to have been independently and improperly blocked by someone called YellowMonkey - seemingly outside the ongoing process at WP:ANI#Xandar above. The block is laughably for "reverting against strong conensus!" Either this person does not know the rules or case involved, or is a friend/ally of the small clique of editors trying to subvert policy there and across Wikipedia. It is quite clear to anyone looking at the edit histories of WP:Naming conflict and WP:Naming conventions that the disruption to these stable policies has been caused by the group of editors who have been changing policy radically without consensus, edit-warring and gaming the system. It would seem that I, the person defending the stable consensus, am the only person not allowed to make continuous significant edits to the policy!!!! Since our friend LoveMonkey did not see fit to act against any of the abusive editors who have caused the issue to arise.

Can Yellowmonkey kindly inform me of exactly Where and when and in what manner this "strong consensus" was suddenly formed for reverting a policy that has stood for years and has been backed as recently as a few weeks ago by a large-scale formal poll on the page???

THIS ISSUE IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY BECAUSE STABLE POLICY IS BEING SUBVERTED BY TAG-TEAM ACTIONS AND THE EDITORS CONCERNED MUST BE STOPPED FROM THEIR DISRUPTIVE COURSE OF ACTION Xandar 11:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

A) My last four edits were certainly not "edit-warring" at all, but attempts to find a form of wording that would gain acceptance from PManderson and others. However my words were reverted out with new forms of wording each time, and I adapted to the new wording. In fact Hesperian, on my talk page, first suggested, then congratulated me on the new wording, before turning volte face when PMA and PBS continued to revert it. User_talk:Xandar#Consensus_wording_at_NC.3F B) If I have been blocked for "edit-warring" Why am I the only one? It takes 2 parties to edit war. Looking at the diffs on this subject we see NINE REVERTS returning to the controversial new wording over just TWO DAYS by the supporters of the new "policy". These include FIVE in two days by PMAnderson, against both me and Arthur Rubin: 10 Sep Against Rubin and 10 Sep 2nd Against Rubin and 10 Sep 3rd against Xandar and 11 Sep Against Xandar and 11 sep 2nd Against Xandar How is this different from what I am alleged to have done? What is being done to penalize this? There are also an additional TWO reverts over the same period by Philip Beard Shearer [11 Sept Against Rubin] and 10 Sep against Xandar Plus two more reverts by another of the same view, Born2Cycle 10 Sep against Rubin and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions&diff=313030327&oldid=313022285 10 sep against Xandar] Again this is not strictly 3RR, but the same purpose is being achieved by what looks like tag-teaming. Yet this not been sanctioned by admins in an even-handed manner. The reverting also continued against Arthur Rubin after my blocking for the same "crime". C) With two editors against the new wording suddenly introduced to policy, how is this the "strong consensus" given as a reason for the block on my editing? Wikipedia policy on editing guidelines requires considerable community consensus for substantive policy changes. There was not even real consensus among the handful of editors on the page at the time, let alone the wider consensus required. reference the extensive poll on this issue only weeks ago. Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_13#Strengthen_COMMONNAME The fact is there is no strong consensus for this policy. D)Why have I been blocked for two days - when this is not even technically a 3RR "offense"? - E) No warning was issued to any party before the block was imposed - as per the guidance. see. Wikipedia:EVADE#Education_and_warnings

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your current block, which is block evasion. As to the substance of your request, see WP:NOTTHEM.  Sandstein  11:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Wow. You haven't listened to a word you've been advised, have you? How is your current strategy working out for you? Well? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

GRBacchus, your remarks are verging into taunting. At this point it might be wise for you to stop posting on this talk page. Karanacs (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not my intention (nor quite my name). However, I'll take your advice and go away now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|1=Clearly NO NOTICE has been taken of ANY of the points I have made. NO action has been taken against PMAnderson and others, despite all the evidence I have put forward that they did exactly the same - if not worse than I was one-sidedly blocked for. WHY was I given a 2 day block, not the 24 hours in the policy?. WHY was no proper investigation done of what was actually happening on the page before a one-sided and unjust block was hurriedly put on my account. Why did Karanacs jump in suggesting a ban before I had even time to reply to the accusation by Hesperian? Why was a rat not seen in Hesperian asking me to post new suggestins in the lead to the policy, and then asking for a block on me for doing so? Since I have NOT committed a blockable offense, I should be unblocked immediately. WHY was there no warning whatsoever before the block was imposed - contrary to policy. I and others have made well-backed statements that PMA and others have been deliberately damaging Wikipedia, destabilising the policies and edit-warring against the clear guidance on how to change policy. WHY HAS ALL THIS BEEN IGNORED AND NOT ACTED UPON? My block was a one-sided ABUSE of position by YellowMonkey. If both of us had been fairly blocked, I would have considered it harsh but fair. However that is not the case. Editors must be free from fear of arbitrary unfair sanctions. In addition, the statement is made that the block is now for posting from another site! However since I was blocked wrongly in the first place, that is moot. Nor does that explanation make sense. A block is not supposed to be a "punishment", but to stop me from doing that again. How would unblocking me cause me to post anonymously again? Since the block is not necessary to prevent disruption, it violates blocking policy. I see this whole affair so far as a DISGRACE to ANI and seems to show blatant favouritism and partiality by administrators. The one-sided action, without proper investigation did NOT protect Wikipedia. It was merely seen by PMA and others as endorsing their tactics and behaviour and they then proceeded to continue revert-warring against another editor making the same point. I am not the danger to Wikipedia. I am an editor of long-standing and this process has been abused in a disgraceful way. We editors are not serfs. We deserve to be treated fairly.I will be seeking an investigation into YellowMonkeys actions here.|decline=Block evasion is not acceptable; as an "editor of long-standing", you're fully aware of this. None of the rest of the request is relevant to the block evasion -- which overrides the previous block.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

A) I know nothing about "block evasion". I don't read up all sorts of arcane "crimes" ! In any case if the original block was wrong, that rules out anything else. B) Why would I be blocked for block-evasion? That seems to be a punishment blocking rather than a block to "protect" WIkipedia, therefore it violates blocking policy. What is being protected? C) Why was a 2 day block improperly made, and without warnings?.

Decline reason:

Only because you no longer appear to be blocked and this template is no longer necessary. TNXMan 19:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Hm. In most jurisdictions, even if you're wrongfully imprisoned, it's illegal to escape. What did you tihnk the purpose of a block was? To prevent a username from editing? Or to prevent a person from editing? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't edit. I only commented on the talk page, and when people were slandering me on the Admin Noticeboard. Xandar 00:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. The only page one may edit when blocked is ones own talk page. Policy takes extreme exception to blocks being ignored. I wonder if we need to make the block notice state more clearly that evading the block by editing with other accounts or without logging in will cause trouble? Would such a notice have made you think twice about responding on the noticeboard? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Very probably. Xandar 02:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Xandar. We're obviously on opposite sides of the issue that we've been debating, but I wanted to mention that I don't view another party to a debate being blocked as any sort of "victory", personally. The main reason that I wanted to leave a note here though, is that the assertion made above about your position being "tag teamed", and how others are being disruptive, concerns me. We're having a debate, and the debate is continuing, but this isn't a battleground. There's no way for anyone to actually "win" regardless, since the project pages are still editable and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. This is one idea that I remember briefly attempting to explain a while ago, that there simply is no real permanance, there's no "final drafts" of anything, even for policy and guideline pages. It would be great if you could be cool, settle whatever this block issue is, and come back and have a rational (albeit impassioned) discussion with all of us. See you soon, I hope!
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You didn't take part in the revert war, the attempted crushing of dissent - or, I think, the "complaints" to ANI. I can easily believe that certain opponents of the point of view reflected by myself are acting honourably. However that doesn't change my position that some editors and their practices in editing policy-pages need to be curtailed. Xandar 09:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Xandar, in reading this long bit, and without looking at the underlying content dispute, there are some clear points that it is important that you accept:

• If multiple editors are telling you that your behaviour is incorrect, answering with all-caps, multiple exclamation points, multiple question-marks, and focusing on the behaviour of others will only escalate the situation and distract you from this issue at hand: your behaviour.
• As individual editors, the only editor whose behaviour we control is our own: When attempting to get a block overturned, focusing entirely on what the blocked editor did is very wise and far more likely to gain support... the other editors were not the ones who took the action that resulted in the block.

If you don't find these comments useful, please accept my apologies. - Sinneed (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Hi, Xandar. Just checking in to say two things:

1. Got your note about the "use common names" RfC, thanks.

2. I wanted to inform you that the means in which you posted made me think I did something wrong. Perhaps in the future you can word the notice more carefully so it doesn't look like that.

Thanks, and keep up the good work! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Franky, I don't know if this will work. I have seen silliness before but this current charade is getting pretty distasteful and I am sure you must feel similar. I have attempted to add some clarity to my views, but I am not sure if there will be enough neutral editors that will participate to make it worthwhile. Regardless, it is one step in attempting to gain a wider audience. The tweedle-dee trio seems to be solely focused on you and they blantantly ignore the actual topic. Strange behavior for ones parading as icons of neutrality and civility. Their behavior is the type that should be blocked and done so often. --^StormRider 03:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if the notification looked like something else, BTW.

StormRider, I think the RfC is a step on the way to getting wider community participation in this. Of course all the editors of articles and groups of articles likely to be affected by this STILL aren't getting contacted - except for those seeing the RfC and the notices to past participants. Really there needs to be a way of getting all interested parties involved, rather than any party of policy-wallahs who happen to be sitting on the page enforcing their view. Focussing on me shows that they are not so confident in the validity of their arguments for imposing what is a very top-down proscriptive policy - no matter what Hesperian now claims. I agree that some of the behaviour needs to be sanctioned. And I am complaining about User: YellowMonkey who one-sidedly sanctioned me and no one else. I don't think that sort of behaviour by Admins should be let rest - or it will continue. Xandar 22:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xandar. I don't know whether I'm included in your name calling above, but I like and strongly agree with the non-insulting part of what you're saying here. (I never have disagreed with most of your actual content, just the nursery-school attitude.) You're absolutely right to want more input, and absolutely juvenile to cast aspersions. Too bad you won't separate out that shit... oh well.

You - you, Xandar - are better than this crap. Rise to it, man; let your light shine.

I would suggest that - considering that you're essentially right - a good, neutral way to let more people know about the RFC is to leave notes at the talk pages of WikiProjects that use specific naming conventions, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, to name one striking example. I hate the idea of a top-down, prescriptive policy - doesn't that put us on the same side, Xandar? Don't make us look bad. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello GTB, I admit I sometimes get a bit wound up and frustrated about some of the things that happen here. I try to tell myself "Calm down - it's only a website." But some people's strategies HAVE been pretty bad. Anyway thanks for the kind words - and the good idea. We want to see what the people on Wikipedia really want on this issue. Xandar 21:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Template

Please see Template talk:Roman Catholicism. Someone is trying to change it after all teh discussions we had to get it finalized. The changes will ripple through, and I suggest keeping it as is. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite NC

Is this merely an attempt to substantially change the policy without going through the proposal - discussion - consensus process? patsw (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church lead

Hi Xandar. Can you please join the discussion on the lead and its inclusion of "many historians agree"? The most recent discussion is located here: Talk:Catholic_Church#on_consensus_and_the_lead, or you may start a new section if you wish. I tried to point you towards this in my edit summary but intervening edits probably meant that you did not see it. Consensus so far is against the inclusion of this phrase (2 editors favor it, 7 are opposed). Therefore your continual reinsertion of this phrase is editing against consensus. You are welcome to try to change the consensus, but that should be done on the talk page. Until consensus changes, I request that you please remove the phrase. Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove this phrase. No such question has been put. A few people sniping at references over a couple of days and refusing to put up referenced alternatives, is not a consensus to remove central information from the article. Xandar 21:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning: Please stop edit warring at Catholic Church

I was going to report you to WP:AN/EW for edit warring. However, one of the prerequisites is that you be warned. I made a comment on Talk:Catholic Church about the need for edit warring to stop. Perhaps you missed it. Please resolve your issues by engaging other editors on the Talk Page instead of reverting to your preferred version. The next incident of edit warring will result in a report to WP:AN/EW. --Richard (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you warned karanacs for edit-warring for continually removing referenced information from the article? Xandar 23:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's

Hello Xandar, 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 [15] Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 01:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Roman Catholicism2}}

Please stop reverting to your preferred version of this template. You have yet to add any rationale for why this template needs to be forked to the ongoing discussion at template talk:Roman Catholicism. Having two templates which are largely identical except for font size is pointless; if there is a demonstrable need to have two font sizes then this can be controlled by making the font size in the original template optional. I'm planning on returning the forked template to a redirect unless a concrete rationale can be provided in the current discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Roman Catholicism2

Template:Roman Catholicism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andrew c ^[talk] 17:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC and notifications

Hi Xandar. I saw your post on the RfC and wanted to assure you that you weren't deliberately left out. I wasn't sure of the protocol on whether to make notifications, and when I asked the uninvolved response was to not do so: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/NancyHeise#Question:_notifications. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"the Church Constitution"

I appeal to you to stop referring misleadingly to Lumen gentium as "the Church Constitution". It is a dogmatic constitution on the Church, like the First Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution on the Church. A document of the Catholic Church that is called a constitution is not at all like the constitution of a country, but you have invented an expression, "the Church Constitution", that suggests it is something like "the United States Constitution". Church documents that are called constitutions are instead an important class of documents that can deal with many different kinds of matter; they can be dogmatic in character, like the two on the Church that I have mentioned and the other constitution of the First Vatican Council, which was on faith and the Second Vatican's constitution on divine revelation. They can be pastoral in character, like the Second Vatican Council's constitution on the Church in the modern world or Pope Paul VI's on indulgences. Or they can be organizational in character, like those on the Codes of Canon Law, on papal elections, on the structure of the Roman Curia, etc. It is the organizational ones that are most similar to a country's constitution, which lays down rules on the powers of the various organs of the state, the election of the president etc. So please don't mislead by insinuating that there is such a thing as "the Church Constitution" and that Lumen gentium is similar to a national constitution that determines a country's structures. Soidi (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Catholic Church

I have protected Catholic Church for one week, as other people were also discussing via edit summary instead of seeking consensus on the talkpage. However, when you begin the bold, revert, discuss cycle by reverting a good faith sourced addition, you should also make some effort to seek consensus at Talk:Catholic Church. Please reread and adhere to the policy on edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Even under the bold, revert, discuss essay, the onus is on the person adding the controversial new material to initiate a talk page conversation to make a case for its inclusion. Its hard to answer an argument before it has been given. General Policy is that the person introducing the material needs to justify it, not keep trying to put it back without gaining consensus. Xandar 01:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If you find that a good faith attempt to work matters out on the talkpage leaves unresolved issues, you might try making a neutral request for additional input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism or make a request for comment. In the meantime, please be specific when objecting to an issue: propose alternative wording following the sources; justify omission on the basis of undue weight if sources that might be expected to comment on the issue have ignored or marginalized it; or suggest that the material would fit better in a particular one of the constellation of articles associated with that one. None of this requires edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

After the article was protected for a week, you came back to edit war again, I blocked you for 48 hours. Secret ^account 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked, along with Pmanderson, after renewed contretemps on the Catholic Church page yeaterday. Both of us did not exceed the 3RR, and I note that Pmanderson has since been unblocked. As a long term productive editor on the page, I was peeved by PMA reverting to his edits without discussing properly on the talk page, and re-reverted to make a point - which may not have been the best course, although I did start a section giving the reason for my action on the talk page. As can also be seen from the article talk page, I have made serious efforts to advocate and participate in a productive and co-operative give and take effort to deal with remaining disagreements over article content, and that is my continued intention once unblocked.

Decline reason:

Did you say that you intentionally violated policy to make a point? Or did you state that using the talk page allows you to violate the edit war policy because, since you started a discussion, its your version that gets to appear in the article? Or possibly did you claim that someone elses situation somehow excuses yours?. I am finding a hard time sorting out which one of these is a valid reason to unblock you... Jayron32 04:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I DID NOT violate policy, since I did not break the 3RR, and deliberately did not break the 3RR. I said that I probably took the wrong road in responding to Pmanderson's reverts. Nor did I deliberately violate the edit-war policy, because I was trying to get a discussion going. I only reverted Pmanderson TWICE, and deliberately did not respond to his THIRD reversion of his edit, but instead started a new section on the talk page to raise the issue with other editors. Therefore the reason for refusal of my unblock request is defective. This is especially so, since the other person blocked with me - who started the conflict and who has been warned several times for his incivility on the page had his block lifted after just three hours. This is beginning to look very much like partiality. I have not broken the 3RR and have said that I had no intention of doing so. My action in reverting was accompanied by a long statement on the talk page inviting comment from editors. The fact that I did this, that I did not break the 3RR, that I have said I will not break this rule, and my desire to get back to productive editing on the page are the reasons for my unblock request.

Decline reason:

You have edit-warred with Pmanderson on Catholic Church for more than two reverts. You might want to take a look at his successful unblock request and compare it to your request.  Sandstein  07:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

As a response, I never said you violated 3RR. I said you violated the edit war policy. They are not synonymous. If you are going discount my unblock decline, you could atleast not misquote me. --Jayron32 05:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe I deliberately violated the edit-war policy, because I was trying to get a discussion going. I only reverted Pmanderson TWICE, and did not respond to his THIRD reversion of his edit, but instead started a new section on the talk page to raise the issue with other editors. Xandar 05:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

In the incident referred to I made TWO reverts of Pmandersons edit on 14th December, and then took the matter to the talk page. I had reverted the same change two days earlier. This can only be at a VERY big stretch be referred to as "edit-warring". Pmanderson was on those days reverted by several different editors on earlier days for his unagreed "edit-warring" changes. However Pmanderson CONTINUED edit-warring after I had taken the matter to talk. Yet Pmanderson is given what now appears to have been a fake block, immediately removed by a friendly admin, while I am given a two day block which is not lifted for a sequence of dubious, and apparently biased reasons. I see this as extremely improper and one-sided action by certain admins who seem to be taking sides in a content-dispute, in an attempt to censor my involvement in ongoing discussion on the page. This follows a similar pattern to my last block, which also involved Pmanderson, who on that occassion was also involved heavily in an edit-war and (surprise) got off scott-free while I was sanctioned for trying to protect the wording of an important Wikipedia policy, (WP:NCON) which he removed without consensus, and which had to be eventually restored. Sandstein was involved in that episode too. But there has been no apology for his being wrong that time. Pmanderson then followed me to the Catholic Church page. This particular complaint was started by Karanacs, who was involved in the WP:NCON issue and is heavily involved in a content argument on the page we are concerned with now. This time she included me in her complaint about edit-warring, a day AFTER I last reverted and had taken the matter to the talk page. Karanacs had several weeks earlier (without informing me) made another complaint about me, which totally misrepresented my position with regard to another edit sequence. Karanacs has also been involved in disputes - in which she has been accused of partiality and misuse of admin position - against Nancy Heise, another leading editor on the Catholic Church page. I am therefore very troubled by her involvement here. What I am seeing is highly partial and unfair treatment in which the APPEARANCE of equal treatment is given by imposing a 48 hour block on Pmanderson and myself, (although in fact Pmanderson was the worst culprit.) However in fact Pmanderson's block is immediately lifted by the imposing admin, and mine is rigidly enforced. That is an improper action, and an abuse of process. And as for Sandstein saying that he wrote this wonderful plea. His request for block lifting contained snide comments against me, and a promise not to get involved in the page. He immediately went back to the page (and as in the earlier WP:NCON case) began implying that his non-blocking was admin backing for his actions. On the other hand, I have explained that I was not intending to edit-war. I have explained that I did not continue edit-warring, I have explained that I wanted to get back to constructive discussion on the page. I have pointed out my many attempts on the page, (in stark contrast to Pmanderson) to get productive and civil discussion going, ( see section Talk:Catholic_Church#The_way_forward), but all this has been ignored. That is wrong, and I would like the excessive and one-sided block properly reviewed and lifted.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I had too much trouble reading through your complaints about other editors and admins that I cannot determine the heart of your unblock request. The first couple of sentences were on the right track. Please reformulate your block request so that it addresses your behavior, not the behavior of others, and your unblock request is much more likely to be granted. TNXMan 12:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Xandar, any editor is free to report other editors for edit-warring violations. I fully acknowledge that I am involved on the article talk page, which is why I did not take any administrative actions myself. I filed a report so that an uninvolved administrator could examine the situation and see what, if any, action should be taken. I have had zero input over which administrator evaluated the report, what action they took, or which administrators evaluate the unblock requests and how they handle those. Filing the report was the extent of my involvement in this incident. I do apologize for not informing you of the report - that was an oversight on my part and if I have to file subsequent reports on any user I will make sure to inform them. Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, Karanacs. As I intimated, I would have liked to have had the opprtunity to put my own explanation of my actions, particularly concerning the way that the first of the two recent complaints was presented. Xandar 20:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this request as reasonable. I have left a note for Secret and will unblock this account in an hour or so if there are no objections from him/her or other users. TNXMan 20:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. Xandar 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Hi Xandar, we are discussing the sex abuse paragraph here [16]. I am trying to get some past editors to come to the discussion so we can discover what others think. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 19:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)