User talk:The Catholic Knight

February 2010[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI#User:The Catholic Knight making lots of unexplained deletions regarding your unexplained deletions. Thank you. --AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010[edit]

Please do not make huge unexplained reverts. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Catholic Church. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SSP Case[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Catholic Knight. Thank you. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your clear block evasion using an IP address (which I just blocked), I have reset your original block. It will now end precisely 24 hours from now. Regards, –MuZemike 16:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church[edit]

If you have a view on the changes at the Catholic Church article, the best thing to do is make your view known on the current discussion of these matters on the Talk Page for that article. Xandar 23:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

As SlimVirgin thinks I may have acted improperly here, I have unblocked you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo da Vinci[edit]

Please stop your insistance on adding Leonardo to unsuitable categories. Leonardo had no notability whatsoever as a Roman Catholic. We do know that he was baptised when he was a few days old. But he was an illegitimate child and it is quite possible that he was in fact a member of the Jewish faith and not a Catholic at all. It has also been suggested, most convincingly, that he belonged to an heretical sect, the Cathars. Both his major religious works support this view. The Last Supper strongly indicates that he was not Roman Catholic by personal conviction.

On the other hand, almost every Italian who lived between 300 and 1900 was baptised in the Roman Catholic Church (unless they were of the very small Jewish minority). For this reason almost every single Italian fits under the "Roman Catholic" category, which makes a category called Roman Catholic Italians pointless. You might just as well start a category called "White English" (because not all modern English people are white) or "Birds that can fly" (because some can't) or "Round balls" (because Rugby balls are not).

I must add that whether or not Leonardo was Roman Catholic, he was not a significant Catholic writer. He wrote nothing that relates to religion in general, theology, dogma or the Catholic Church. His Catholicism (or otherwise) has no bearing whatsoever on his writings. He occasionally within his writings comments on the behaviour of clergy, in the same way as a newspaper editor my comment on a news item about catholic clergy. He doesn't make any "religious" comment.

As for him being a "Catholic Church painter", he wasn't. He painted one wall of a dining room in a monastery. He painted another picture for a chapel in a church. He never painted a fresco in a chapel or a church. However, because of that one painting which was done for a chapel, I have left him in that category, for the time being. I am of the opinion that you should review who you have added to that category, and limit it to artists who actually painted frescos in churches.

Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Leonardo actually painted a [[List of works by Leonardo da Vinci

|large number of Catholic paintings]]. Xandar 21:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Dppowell (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Catholic Knight. Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. SGGH ^ping! 16:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has become clear that, despite several attempts by users to communicate with you, you have made no attempt to establish what is thought best by the community. You are pushing through your own version of articles with no consensus. I have extended your block to one week in length. SGGH ^ping! 20:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too prefer the previous version of the article. However simply reverting is unlikely to win the argument with those who prefer the cut-down version. It's always good to engage on the talk page. Xandar 21:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hi. Your input on the length of the Catholic Church article would be welcome at Talk:Catholic Church#Long_version. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 21:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]