User talk:Runwiththewind

hello

just wanted to inform you of WP:3RR, which states that excessive reverting will result in a block. i have explained some of the problems with the material you have inserted, and hope you can rectify the problematic areas before re-inserting the passages. thank you. ITAQALLAH 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I've reverted your most recent talk page edits. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and talk pages are not for the repetition of one's person views or opinions but for discussion of how to improve articles. JoshuaZ 21:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything wrong with the article about giving an inccorrect impression of Brown's status within the church, your best bet is to find a reliable source that states the correct state. However, I don't see anywhere in the article where it says that he isn't in communion, so I fail to understand your concern. In any event, improving articles is a far better use of time than editorializing on the talk page. JoshuaZ 15:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here [[1]] (Runwiththewind 12:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Historical-critical method

Hello, in response to your message on my talk page - I'm puzzled. I think you're confusing me with another editor. It gets difficult to follow the progress of a debate with different editors taking part. If you look carefully I think you will find that most of the edits you object to were not made by me. I am not the one arguing that the historical-critical method has been rejected by the church (I think those edits you are referring to said that it was not the only way, which is neither true nor what the quoted document said, and I rephrased those to correct them some time back).

My argument, and I added references to support this, is that the Church has changed (the Raymond Brown page has a quote from Father Brown which explains this) from opposing these methods in the past, to positively supporting them today. Given that Brown is widely considered to have flourished as a result of the more enlightened Vatican II climate, I think it's important to give that contextual information. I have been trying in my edits to present a fair position, certainly not the ultraconservative one. I agree that some recent edits have given a misleading impression that Brown's approach was personal and controversial, whereas in fact as far as I can see, it was one perfectly in harmony with church teaching. I appreciate the fact that you have been trying to present a more balanced point of view, but I am concerned that the result is that some of the more complex nuances may have been missed out. Rbreen 19:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on infallibility

Hello sir! I noticed your recent edit and associated comments re: infallibility in Ecumenical Councils. "...an infallible meeting of the bishops of the whole Church." Strictly speaking, the meeting isn't infallible, it is the teaching that is infallible. Not sure what an infallible meeting is. More generally, infallibility is something of a lightning rod. It is a true doctrine, but does it serve the purpose of the article (or the Church, for that matter) to insist on stating it at every opportunity, at the expense of good grammar, readability, and clarity? For the uninitiated layman approaching the Ecumenical Councils article, the opening does not necessarily need to explain the theologically authoritative character of the pronouncements of councils -- the layman will assume that the Council is authoritative just from the rather generic fact that it is a meeting of the leaders of a group. Later on in the article, an explanation of the precedent set by the council of Jerusalem, and the promise of Christ that "where two or more are gathered..." and the further role of the Petrine ministry can be discussed, maybe under the heading of "Authority of the Council." Your supporting texts would be very helpful in a section like that, no? The.helping.people.tick 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church‎

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in [[:Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church‎]]. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Just some friendly advice.--Filll 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions on this article include wholesale deletions, pov forks and a failure to discuss changes before bashing ahead, or to provide useful references supporting your proposed changes. This looks very much like tendentious editing, with a disruptive effect that has to stop. Please take the time to achieve consensus by persuading others in a civil manner that follows WP:EQ|etiquette]]. .. dave souza, talk 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your creation of Theistic evolution and the Roman Catholic Church in order to describe it as a pov section violates Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, which as you'll note can lead to a block. Please follow Wikipedia:Consensus, and discuss civilly on Talk:Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. ... dave souza, talk 18:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I and a few other editors have noticed what appears to be a tendency to ignore consensus, engage in tendentious editing, and create POV forks like Theistic evolution and the Roman Catholic Church and Creation and the Roman Catholic Church. These will almost certainly be deleted in a few days. You are creating ill will and turmoil, and I am pleading with you to try to behave in a constructive manner instead of your past behavior here. If this continues, you will be banned, or blocked or otherwise restricted from Wikipedia. Please do not push us to that point. Take a step back, and try to work with us, rather than against us. Or else, a huge amount of effort will be wasted, you will not be able to edit here, and nothing of your work will be left here. So please, take this very seriously.--Filll 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, but wikipolicy clearly states that WP:NOR is a violation. Have a nice day. (Runwiththewind 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I came here for the same reason as Filll. Please stop creating POV forks. I don't understand your reply to Filll; NOR and POV forks are two different things, so your reply makes no sense in this context. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]