User talk:Farsight001

Talk pages are for talking. :)

Purgatory Edits?

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

Apostolic Succession ref.

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

Removal of "Objections to Papacy" Material Inappropriate

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

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

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

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

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

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

thank you

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

Your participation is disruptive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Consensus sought on lead sentence

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

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

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

One last vote please

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

Reverting edits

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

Protestantism

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFM

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

Request for Mediation

(You're a popular guy!  :)

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

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

Request for mediation accepted

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

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

Mediation for Criticism of the RCC

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

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church

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

Voting

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

RCC mediation

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

RCC Mediation

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

RCC mediation

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

Roman Catholic Church mediation outcome

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

Jesus

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

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

Unauthorized removal of material

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

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

Torquemada

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

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

Wiki Rules

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

an FYI

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

User Account: Ronewirl

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

Removing warnings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Arbitration

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

ANI

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

Note at Catholic Church

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

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

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

Flood geology

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

Hills and the Textus Receptus

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

Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's

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

Catholic Church

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

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

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

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

Arbitration notice

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

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

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

Catholic Church RfC

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

Catholic sex abuse case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Creation Science

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

Addition on the bishop who's resigned

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

Darwinius masillae

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

Catholic sex abuse cases

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

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

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

WP:ANI

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

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Belgian blog

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

Jesus

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

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

Amish 01

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

Vicarius filli Dei

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

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

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

Whore of Babylon

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

Thank you for your work on vandalism fighting!

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

November 2010

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

EAR

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

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

Didache in immersion baptism article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accusation of Anti-Catholic remarks

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

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

Antichrist

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

Just in case you care

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

August 2011

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