User talk:Vaquero100
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] RCC page should be moved to CC page
Sir/Father: I have posted my comments on WikiProject_Catholicism/To-do_list and desire to see the page transferred from RCC to CC. My reasons are more philosophically and logically grounded than theological. I find it funny that everyone seems to want to put a NPOV on a subject (religion) which is inherently always a POV. But that's not my point. There is a certain dishonesty about all this due to competing claims of other editors who are not Catholics. Like I said in the link above, when it comes to religion - it is always a point of view - and it should be written first and foremost from the POV of the religion in question. Hey I may not like your religion or believe it but I do respect what they teach even if I might disagree with it. And that is my point. I feel that it is intellectually absurd, when it comes to religion, to always find a neutral ground - you can only do that to science. I believe that the best way is for it to be written by its members. Then, add a section of criticism of the CC, by other editors. I have had acquaintances who are Orthodox and Protestants and Anglicans and Lutherans-and since this topic came up- and I asked them if they are Catholic in anyway (not defining the word Catholic) and the reactions are always the same: to call themselves Catholics, or refer to themselves as Catholics is simply inconceivable. That is the simple test of self-identification. So as far as I am concerned, as are a lot of people, people identify the word Catholic as being a member loyal to the Pope (and we know who that is). And yet the other editors of the page insist that Anglicans are also Catholics - a tenuous proposition based solely on the Nicene Creed. I have also visited the sites of the Ecumenical Patriarch and Archbishop of Canterbury and they identify themselves as Orthodox and Anglican - I don't seem to find any trace of them calling themselves Catholic. The same goes to various Protestants (just too many of them). The only people that seems to call themselves or identify themselves as "Catholic" are the SSPX, Traditionalists and some sedevacantists.
I wish your Catholic collaborators would do a concerted effort to change the name to its proper naming - your only problem is that you are outgunned and outsmarted. It would seem some Catholic contributors also do not have the fortitude to do battle in this arena. My other critique is also that some editors make some sections overly complicated and highly specialized - fit for a journal but not an encyclopedia.
I guess I have become bogged down on this article only because I find it interesting since Pope JPII died. The article of Judaism suffer, more or less, from the same pernicious problem. Islam on the other hand suffers from vandalism. I would like to contribute to Judaism later on and Islam also but it seems I'm a dog pre-occupied with chewing a bone the size of Godzilla right now.
You might not be the best person to have written to effect the changes but I am drawn by your logical reasoning. I just wish other editors have studied philosopy and symbolic logic under communist teachers or at least atheists or at least have the decency to accept logical reasoning - wikipedia would be much better if that were true.
I hope we can find a way of moving this forward because I find it annoying. The Eastern Catholics, for the record, also do not identify themselves as Roman, but as simply Catholics - I think they deserve to be free from persecution in here too.
If you wish to discuss this by email for convenience, I am willing to accommodate you.
Respectfully yours, Dr mindbender 07:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cults
Over at list of groups referred to as cults I have been unable to make headway explaining why "cult of Mary" is not a group; perhaps you would like to give it a try? Gimmetrow 01:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Relegating Traditionalism
Why was traditionalism relegated from high importance to mid? The dislocation of many Catholics and the decline of the Church (in the developed world) after Vatican II is probably the central narrative of Catholicism at the moment. JASpencer 13:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- The Traditionalist movement is treated quite seriously within the Vatican, witness the fact that the SSPX were one of only three topics in the recent Bishop's synod. The fallout from Vatican II is the most important fact of Catholic life for many people around the world (hence the Top rating for Vatican II) and so the primary criticism of Vatican II really should be understood, even if it is rejected, by anyone who wants more than a passing knowledge of the Church. JASpencer 20:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removing the "roman"
I know you are frustrated. But please be patient. I urge you to stop removing the word "Roman" from in front of links as you did at English Reformation. The main page name has still not changed yet, and a compromise has yet to be reached. I know it is frustrating, but do you see anyone going around ADDING the word "Roman" while this debate is ongoing? Then why should we allow removal of the word while the debate is ongoing. I called for a hault of all edits regarding the title of the church in question while the debate is ongoing. I hope we can all still hold off a bit longer. --Andrew c 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re:Comment from Vaquero100
I already informed you how I got involved with the RCC vs. CC debate. I was helping clearn up Sacred Heart (which I believe WAS a "significant contributions of additional material"), and you came along with the sole purpose of removing the word "Roman" from links, because you couldn't get consensus to change the ACTUAL name of the article. As for my "need to tinker and get your finger prints all over the place", I believe that is a gross exageration. How many Catholic articles have I edited in the past 2 weeks? I have recently been trying to improve the main Roman Catholic Church introduction. You have to agree with me that it is in pretty poor shape. It seems like it is missing a first paragraph because there is no dictionary style definition in the opening. The use of quoted material from Lumen Gentium may also not be in line with style guides, as discussed by other editors on talk. I am working on rewriting the last paragraph, and as of now, I have support from at least one editor. Not being an expert on a topic is no reason for someone to not contribute to wikipedia (I mean, it is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit). If you want an encyclopedia written by experts, go elsewhere. If you want an encyclopedia that is favorable to the topics, there is a project for that as well. It doesn't take a ordained priest to recognize POV issues, style issues, etc. Except for the "His Holiness" business, I don't think I've butted heads with you recently, so I don't know why you still have anger and rage aimed towards me. Maybe you should explain your feelings towards me?--Andrew c 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have added the word Roman close to a hundred times? One night, weeks ago, after encountering you at Sacred Heart, I went through your recent edits and REVERTED your removal of Roman. Then on July the 3rd, I called for everyone to STOP editing in that manner while the debate was on going. And now you are claiming that I have added the word Roman to close to a hundred different articles (where the word Roman wasn't removed by you in the first place?) Seriously, how many times have I edited in that manner since July the 3rd? You are still mad at me for my reverts that happened over a month ago? Talk about holding a grudge. I seriously do not know how to respond to you, nor do I have any idea how to work things out with you. (and FYI, I have always edited topics related to Christianity, in fact my first edit was on a Christian topic, and back in May I participated in a RfC on Traditionalist Catholic, and there have been other edits as well. I don't see why you are trying to fault me for what articles I choose to edit).--Andrew c 18:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Captions and ecclesiastical heraldry
The caption on the John XXIII pic was debated by Lima and Smith2006. Lima said the rubric in the old liturgy was "show" not "elevate." Since he's away thought you should know. Also, if you have a chance, could you provide some comments on ecclesiastical heraldry, an article I wrote and currently self-submitted for featured status. Gimmetrow 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you know nothing of heraldry, you would easily notice if terms are not introduced and explained well. Gimmetrow 21:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank You
Thank you. It was made a FA a few weeks ago, and today it was the Featured Article of the Day on WP's mainpage. As a result, there have been dozens of attempts to vandalize it since last night, but all have been caught and a few worthwhile contributions have been made as well. I'm proud of the article and I'm glad the Order is getting the recognition today. Thanks again! --Briancua 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Catholic Collaboration
| Image:Benedict XVI.jpg | You showed support for the Catholic Collaboration Effort. Remember that voting to support an article implies a commitment to contribute to the article. This week Papal Conclave was selected to be improved. We hope you can contribute! |
--Briancua 12:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Salvation
I found the Catholic section in the Salvation article to contain numerous misleading errors. I didn't feel qualified to attempt to change anything. If you could look into this, or notify someone involved with the Catholicism project, I would appreciate it.--Antelucan 00:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The more I look at this article, the more it appears heavily POV toward the Calvinist position and generally poorly written. I hope this can be brought to someone's attention because it has been bothering me a lot, and yet I am afraid to do anything about it myself, not being much of a wikipedian.--Antelucan 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ah, this Danras fellow is to blame for the POV. His comments on the talk page give away his intense bias and fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic soteriology. Unfortunately his agenda is wreaking havoc on the article and is going unchecked.--Antelucan 01:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re:Cathedral of the Sacred Heart (Richmond, Virginia)
- I noticed it was taken down as well, and I've been planning to shoot it, however the Cathedral currently has scaffolding all around the dome, so I was waiting for the construction/repair/restoration to be completed before taking a picture. However, if you think it is important to have an image, even if it has the scaffolding in it, I could probably get one up as soon as tomorrow. Otherwise, I'll just wait it out.--Andrew c 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Self-Identification of the Catholic Church
I dropped out of "the name of the Catholic Church" debate after bringing forward the significant question of self-identification. Perhaps my evaluation of the other side is incorrect, but I felt that they were no longer continuing in good faith but playing games with me, making it just a waste of my time. I hope and pray that the editing consensus changes in the future. patsw 03:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Sacraments_of_the_Catholic_Church#Requested_move
Hello Father. They are voting on whether to change the name of Sacraments of the Catholic Church. I support your move. Maybe you would like to review the proposal. --WikiCats 14:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re:Thanks
I seriously do not appreciate your tone and accusations. Please read my reasoning behind the proposed move (they are on the requested move page, and the talk page, both places you never bothered to go when you made your move). It clearly states nothing about the RCC vs. CC debate. The only reason I proposed the move is because I couldn't revert what you had done. YOU are the one who made an out of process move, without consensus, without going to talk, etc. I needed an admin's help to revert that move. You need to VOTE FIRST, MOVE SECOND. I can't believe you are accusing me of bad faith edits, when YOU are the one who made the out of process move. Once again, this isn't about RCC vs CC, and I've mentioned on talk multiple times my exact reasoning. You made an out of process move and it needed to be reverted. If community consensus supports your move, then it wouldn't have hurt to take the vote first, now would it? Seriously, you need to calm down, and take a step back. As a side note, I have no idea from where you accusation about not "extending some basic human courtesy" is coming.--Andrew c 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Another move to add "Roman"
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Catholic_Churches_in_Washington.2C_D.C. Another move to add "Roman" SynKobiety 17:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_29#Category:List_of_Catholic_Comedians SynKobiety 17:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
And Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church_in_Great_Britain#Move_proposal SynKobiety 04:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User box
Hi Father. You can use this code if you want to change you user box.
 |
This user is Catholic. |
--WikiCats 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't you use:
|
This user is Catholic. |
- Would either or both require changing when the linkd article is renamed? -SynKobiety 13:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Canonical impediment
Hi, Vaquero. Would you be able to cite sources for Canonical impediment? (I'm assuming you're the first author of the article.) Some of the impediments to ordination are from documents other than the Code of Canon Law, so I'm not able to provide references myself. Chonak 07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply; fyi, I've moved it from my main page to my talk page. Chonak 08:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Full communion
I made a mistake in the caption of my latest edit: "my last two edits" should have read: "my last edit and the last pre-Vaquero edit". Lima 08:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Vaquero. You forgot to sign your last post in Talk:Roman Catholic Church. (I did 2 small fixes in it). --Leinad ¬ 
»saudações! 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for September 5th.
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 36 | 5 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Do not edit someone else's talk page edits
Please refrain from editing someone else's talk page edits, as you did in [1]. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Assistance
Father I am a Knight of the Southern Cross. I would be pleased if you would email me. --WikiCats 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Welcoming Congregation" restructuring
Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 07:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Roman Catholic Church
Stirring this mess back up with borderline personal attacks is not going to do anything but disrupt the project. Please refrain from making uncivil remarks on talk pages. Thanks. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 01:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Per your comments on my talk page, I am dismayed that you think I am part of a conspiracy to rob the Catholic Church, of which I am a member, of its proper title by superimposing "Roman" onto it. If you go through the archives you'll find I spoke out in preference of the name Catholic Church, which I agree is the proper name. My point in contacting you had nothing to do with what terminology I think should be used, but rather to point out that referring to one's rhetorical opponents as "bitter anti-Catholic hounds" whose actions are "wicked" appears to be uncivil. Whether the RCC name violates WP policy or not, violating it again with uncivil personal attacks is not the solution. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Diocesan Infobox
To the WikiProject Catholicism members
I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!
[edit] Possible renaming of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints
It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Roman Catholicism's links with political authorities
I noticed you made a number of comments on the talk page of this article, which is little more than a POV laden hit piece on Catholicism. It's also completely without references and largely original research. (Just a few of its problems, as you know). I don't know whether it could be sourced, made nonselective in the subjects it covers and saved as a real encyclopedia article. It probably should be nominated for deletion. Any thoughts? Mamalujo 00:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fr. Basil Moreau, CSC.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr. Basil Moreau, CSC.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Christianity
Hello Vaquero100!
| You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity
The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented. |
 |
You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
