User talk:Padresfan94: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:22, 3 October 2014 editContaldo80 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users15,541 edits →Texas ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:06, 5 October 2014 edit undoPadresfan94 (talk \| contribs)191 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 47:		Line 47:
	:Nice try, but you don't have the consensus to implement your wording ] (]) 00:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)		:Nice try, but you don't have the consensus to implement your wording ] (]) 00:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Padresfan94 are you editing these articles simply as a Roman Catholic or as a neutral and impartial editor? ] (]) 12:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)		::Padresfan94 are you editing these articles simply as a Roman Catholic or as a neutral and impartial editor? ] (]) 12:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
			:::Contaldo are you editing these articles simply as a homosexual or as a neutral and impartial editor? ] (]) 23:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:06, 5 October 2014

Welcome!

Hello, Padresfan94, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Padresfan94 - we need another gung-ho Vatican apologist on the article Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism like we need a bullet in the head. I see the article has been protected for the time-being. But going forward can I suggest you take a deep breath and try and see this about improving Misplaced Pages content, rather than protecting the interests of the Roman Catholic church. It's a big organization and it can look after itself. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

FREE STRAW! GET YOUR STAW HERE! As much as you can carry, free to a good home! Padresfan94 (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

What does that mean? Can I suggest that if you're going to use sarcasm, then you make it at least intelligable. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be called an Aunt Sally where you are from? Padresfan94 (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm from England. Where are you from? Fine, then just make that point directly rather than making cryptical allusions. I don't think there is any aunt sally or straw man in the points I'm making. I just don't want to see anymore partisanship in the editing of the homosexuality and catholicism article. Your contributions to date have all been one-side. Please demonstrate that you can take an even-handed approach. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.Contaldo80 (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm not from England, and I'll be plain. I just don't want to see anymore partisanship in the editing of the homosexuality and catholicism article. Your contributions to date have all been one-side. Please demonstrate that you can take an even-handed approach. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Padresfan94 (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Haha. So clever! "I'll be plain" - rest assured, I expected nothing else from you. As a new editor I suggest you might want to think carefully about my advice. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two days for returning to edit war immediately on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism after protection expired. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Will attempt in the future. Sorry for this. Padresfan94 (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Padresfan94 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked for the same reasons, and under the same conditions that User:Roscelese was unblocked, specifically that I was restoring a previous consensus version of the article and that I won't revert anything on the article for the duration of this block Padresfan94 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC) :What do you say, User:TParis, can I get te same deal that Roscelese got? Padresfan94 (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per agreement not to revert the article in question for the remainder of the block duration. v/r - T P 00:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell why you had changed Dissent from official Church position to Dissent from Church teaching? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Bladesmulti, thanks for reaching out to me on my talk page. "official Church" is redundant and it implies that there are other ones (other Catholic Churches, there are certainly other Churches), its like saying she opposed the "official Laws of her State" when you could just say she opposed the "Laws of her State". "Official" implies that her state has another "unofficial" set of laws. Padresfan94 (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing admins might take or leave "won't revert for remainder of duration" as an appeal, but you weren't restoring any kind of stable or consensus version. There was never consensus to include that nonsense. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So says you. Shouting over and over again that your version = consensus doesn't make it so. (nor would my similar claims) Padresfan94 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I would interpret "official Church position" as "official position of the Church". Minor errors of syntax should not, in my opinion, become reasons for dissent. --Anthony Bradbury 19:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Just as a friendly note, it's really obvious that you're someone's sockpuppet or meatpuppet, so I would suggest that you cut your losses now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it would be very disappointing to see sockpuppetry. Like Roscelese I have my suspicions. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I am happy to relieve you of them! Ros already wasted everyone's time with one fishing trip and nothing came of it Padresfan94 (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Texas

Even if it were true that Texas law at the time allowed abortion in cases of rape - which it's not - it would be a ban with exceptions. Please stop being childish. Additionally, adding hounding on to single-purpose editing is not helping your case. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice try, but you don't have the consensus to implement your wording Padresfan94 (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Padresfan94 are you editing these articles simply as a Roman Catholic or as a neutral and impartial editor? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Contaldo are you editing these articles simply as a homosexual or as a neutral and impartial editor? Padresfan94 (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)