User talk:Openverse

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Openverse. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Openverse (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of material at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism[edit]

You've got to stop removing verifiably cited material.

I understand if you don't want to make the church look bad. Everyone has things that they feel passionately about. But if the source says that the church has been spearheading the campaign against same-sex marriages and getting its parishes to collect signatures, it's not okay to write it off as some individual faithful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging is not a last resort when you've failed to gain consensus for the version you wanted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "remove" anything, and framing me as biased is unwarranted. The citation says something specific, and your claim is confused. The source is clear that individuals collected the signatures, and not a Church mailout or something:

"After Mass, some parishioners have set up a small tent. The priest gave them the OK to collect signatures for the referendum"

Etc. Would you like to add that they were encouraged to do so by their bishop? I think that point is irrelevant, and promotes the view that "the Church" is some sort of cabal of bishops, and that non-priest Catholics aren't involved in (or, as you are trying to promote in the lead, are opposed to the Church in) various controversial matters like gay marriage. As for consensus, you and your edits need to gain consensus from me, just as much as I need to get consensus from you - the redness of my name notwithstanding. Tagging helps inform other editors that there is an issue, so that they can offer their input, something you seem to be avoiding. You need to stop removing tags you disagree with. Openverse (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you having trouble reading the source? It states repeatedly that the church is the major force behind the anti-SSM campaign. "One of the biggest proponents of the repeal is the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle"; "The Catholic Church is leading that effort". This isn't some grassroots effort of church ladies who got all excited when they heard the higher-ups didn't mind what they were doing, this was an institutional project. And no, I do not need to gain consensus to leave the article in its current state, that's not how Wikipedia works. I know you haven't been around very long, but surely in all your wandering of policy pages to get things to cite spuriously, you must have encountered this concept. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you don't need to condescendingly teach me how "Wikipedia works", I'm well enough aware. (I think it's both hilarious and inappropriate that you would criticize someone who you believe to be a new editor for becoming familiar with policy pages. That's why they're there. May I add that they aren't just for new editors.) Regarding the actual claims, I changed:

For example, the Catholic Church ran a signature drive

To

In 2012, Catholic parishioners ran a signature drive

Because, you see, I went to the article, wondering who of the 1.2 billion possible people referred to as "the Catholic Church" went around collecting signatures. The source article says "parishioners". It also says 3 bishops (out of the 5,099 bishops + 1 Pope that you seem to think equal "the Church") "urged" them to do it - does this mean something to you that it does not to me? You know that the paragraph already opens with "In the United States, the Catholic Church has...", right? Anyway, this discussion belongs on the talk page, which you've been avoiding ever since I suggested getting a third opinion. Openverse (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whining about the venue - the last resort of someone who knows they won't get the result they want if they actually file the 3O. You're the one who needs to gain consensus for your changes. Anyhow, it's not your job or mine to crunch the numbers, which is a misunderstanding you've made repeatedly: we go with what reliable sources say. Again, you should have already come across WP:NOR. It's not your place to decide that the church isn't really influential in Washington, or that it doesn't matter that the church hierarchy pushed the signature drive because there are more parishioners than bishops. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 3O had already been filed. Did you just accuse me of "whining about the venue" because I told you to take this to the talk page of the article? The source says parishioners, I say parishioners, you say "this was an institutional project", and I'm the one out of line with the source? Even though I retained the point that "the Church" pushed for the drive? Openverse (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all for your efforts![edit]

Hi. Just checking back in after a long hiatus and see that you have been fighting the good fight. Please let me know if there is something I can do to help make sure that the truth and Truth are described on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkesquires (talk • contribs) 17:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]