User talk:Caloon2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Caloon2000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JoshuaZ 18:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi JoshuaZ,thanks for the infos and the warm welcome! It's great being part of the Wikipedia Community. I actually didnt know about the four tildes (~~~~) yet. That's a great tip and it makes thinks much easier ;-)Wikipedia has a great potential and I believe it will make a huge leap forward in terms of quality if the community works together. Thanks for the encouragement! Caloon2000 19:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Halloween

This is what I put on the Talk:Halloween page:

User:Caloon2000, you need to discuss the changes you keep making to the "Religious Controversies" section on the article's talk page. Though you summarized your reversion as "Returning to the NPOV version", it was nothing of the sort. The version you prefer uses as its sources badly made, poorly researched, websites or self-published screeds full of historical inaccuracies, cultural bigotry and extreme religious hysteria. These sources are not acceptable for Wikipedia. Nor is it appropriate for you to use the article to call other religious traditions "demonic", "satanic" or "evil". This article is already very long. I again suggest you consider making a page about fundamentalist views on holidays, or something, and not keep trying to re-insert these unacceptable sources into Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines for acceptable sources. This page Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and this section Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan and extremist websites should be helpful. Thank you. --Kathryn NicDhàna 17:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your change to the page Halloween was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Weirdoactor 19:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Weirdoactor, please discuss any changes you make at the talk page. The topic has been discussed at lenght and a consensus has been formed which lead to a well balanced article. Specify, in what way you disagree with the content of the article before removing other peoples's text. Caloon2000

See Talk:Halloween#Religious_attitudes. Caloon2000, you are severely misrepresenting what happened. No "consensus" was reached. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn NicDhàna, all changes have been discussed at lenght beforehand at the talk page. Please see [[1]] for an extensive discussion about that issue. Halloween is a highly controversial topic among Christians of all denominations. The Church has been struggling with pre-Christian holidays for 2000 years. The views which have been documented and referenced with great care in the article are shared by the Church at large and by Christians of all denominations. Many Christians of course see Halloween just as a fun festival but nobody would even argue about the spiritual roots. The Question is, are the spiritual roots of Halloween and the endorsement of Halloween in the FORM it is celebrated today an obstacle for the faith through the customs of Halloween that contradict our relationship with God, including occult practices? That’s the point where opinions diverge: some say, it is just fun. Others point out to the entire ideology behind it and say it’s more than just funny dark costumes. That’s the controversy. This controversy needs to be described neutrally and the way it has been done before was extremely partisan.

According to the official Wikipedia policy, "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents;"[[2]] To write that "Christians get emotional about that topic" and that this view shared by a minority of "evangelical fundamentalists" is partisan and violates the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. And it is not true anyway. Again, as it is shown in the references, Christians across all denominations have problems with the way Halloween is celebrated and therefore bishops, for instance of the Anglican Church, Roman Catholic priests and young Christian musicians took the initiative to redeem Halloween for the Church. (See the references in the article)

Please familiarize yourself with the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia. Personal attacks and labeling everyone who shares a different view as "fundamentalist" as you did in your message above is violating the Wikipedia Policy and it is not the case anyway. No personal attacks please. Also, it is important to remain objective in the discussion. Please cite the article text correctly. As I already explained at the talk page: In order to deal with this issue objectively I structured the article according to the Wikipedia guidelines as folows: 1. Basic outline of the problem 2. Position which holds that Halloween does not raise spiritual concerns and arguments for this opinion 3. Position which holds that Halloween raises specific spiritual and arguments for this opinion 4. Ways Churches deal with this problem practically. According to the Wikipedia policy "an article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views." I believe, that every reader is mature enough to make up his mind on his or her own and that he or she has a right to hear the arguments of both sides. This is the Philosophy of Wikipedia. That is what I support and the bsic value shared by the Wikipedia Community. Again, any constructive (!) comments are welcome. Caloon2000 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by the edits I made, and my record as an editor. Your POV is not Neutral on this, as evidenced by the type of extremist positions and inappropriate links you keep trying to include. NPOV does not mean that fringe views are given a page-long tangent in an article. Most Christians don't really care about Halloween. Fundamentalists do get emotional about it, as seen in your edit war in this article, and your insistence on seeing fundamentalist Christianity as the only religious view that matters. You also mis-perceive criticism of the dubious sources you used as personal attacks. As seen by your User Contributions you only became a registered user one week ago. It seems you have spent that time pretty much dedicated to inserting fringe views and POV into the Halloween article, and deleting any links to religious views that contradict your position. I think you are a new user who means well, but you do not understand basic Wikipedia policy. What you are doing has now crossed the line into vandalism and abuse of the system. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Halloween, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Weirdoactor 20:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not use anti-vandlism templates to quiten people who have a different opinion. Do not use offensive language as you did on your talk page. Your case will be investigated. Caloon2000

Both you and Weirdoactor need to calm down and discuss the matter on the talk page and be very careful of the 3 revert rule. I do suggest however that you read WP:NPOV's undue weight clause - at a glance it seems like your version does have undue weight issues by placing possibly undue emphasis on minority opinions. JoshuaZ 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello JushuaZ. Thanks a lot. I appreciate your comments! I will get back to my original version which was very balanced, edit it, cut if necssary and present a neutral and balanced version which gives every opinion the same room, uses neutral wording and by that hopefully serves a basis for a reasonable and constructive discussion. As I did before, I will discuss the proposal at the talk page. How can false vandalism reports be reverted? Are there any templats for that? Thanks. Caloon2000 21:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have violated the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn NicDhàna Please stop threating new users. Read the policies. Participate in the discussion constructively. This is a community. This is not a war! Think about that. Use the talk page to make contructive proposals. Caloon2000 21:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Again the views are shared by a huge number of Christians across all denomination. No fringe views. Do not discriminmate new users. Encourage them. As I see from your userpage you are actively involved Celtic, Pagan and Feminist communities and therefore highly biased. Please accpet that the isue is highly controversial. It is not a minority opinion but endorsed by bishops and dioceses. Accept a balanced view without labelling everyone who disagrees as fundamentalist. Caloon2000 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin - please don't enage in personal attacks. As far as I can tell having a mention of some denominations issues with haloween makes sense that doesn't mean a very large section is needed. The version you have also has sympathy issues. JoshuaZ 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! You are right, the text had a balance and sympathy issue although I tried to be as objective as possible. Therefore I have cut a lot of text and used more neutral wording. However, the text which was inserted by [Weirdactor] in lieu of the version which found consensus was clearly highly unbalanced and used partisan and offensive language. To get back to the discusion I have presented a neutral and balanced version and discussed the issue at lenght at the talk page. I hope that this will be a resonable start for everyone. Caloon2000
Please note: the edits Llloydfrancer, er, I mean Caloon2000 speaks of are not mine. I have made zero content additions to the article; I have only reverted vandalism on the article. Period. -- Weirdoactor 23:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Weirdoactor I urge you not to use false allegations. I do use one account. You are trying with all means to pervent me from editing! You ignored the advise of JoshuaZ NOT to use the vandalism template. You used it several times within a couple of hours although you have been advised NOT to do so. You use false allegations. You are agressively trying to pervent me with all means from contributing to wikipedia. Why? Because I share a different point of view and presented a neutral text with refernces as it is required by wikipedia as a basis for a discussion in good faith? Continunition of these attacks will result in report and investigation. You are on the radar of admins. How often did I invite you to a reasonable discussion which you answered with personal attacks and false (!!!!) allegations of using diffrent usernames. Wikipedia might be the wrong forum for you. Do not use "vandalism prevention" as an excuse to remove content you dont agree with. Use the discussion forum instead. Caloon2000 00:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of vandalism templates

Caloon, reverting POV edits and inappropriate links is not vandalism. Please stop putting vandalism templates on the pages of those who disagree with you, it is an abuse of the system. Thank you. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm here to make the same comment. Using the word "vandalism" to refer to edits that you disagree with is inappropriate and frowned upon. Leaving pseudo-"vandalism warning templates" on the talk pages of editors making those edits is profoundly uncollegial and not part of the civil, collaborative environment we expect here. I cannot emphasise enough that this approach will only reflect badly on you. Jkelly 17:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello, could I offer the following observations...

  • Other users shouldn't describe the web site as extreemist - a racist web site would be, but this isn't. Could I recommend you suggest they use a different description, for example 'evangelical' (I'm guessing 'fundamentalist' wouldn't be much of an improvement).
  • Lastly, you shouldn't describe other editors, who revert you as vandals - they genuinely believe they are improving the encyclopedia.

Thanks! Addhoc 23:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Religious viewpoints

For reasons of documentation I am posting the following draft of my suggestion which has been repeatedly removed. This article attempts to give a balanced and neutral view of the controversy and the concerns aof many Christians. The structure is as follows:

1. Basic outline of the problem

2. Position which holds that Halloween does not raise spiritual concerns and arguments for this opinion

3. Position which holds that Halloween raises specific spiritual and arguments for this opinion

4. Ways Churches deal with this problem practically

This nis the article which ahs been posted:

The fact that Halloween and the old Christian feast of All Saints Day are on two consecutive days have left many modern Christians uncertain of how they should react towards this tradition.[1] The issue is controversial.


Most Christians ascribe no doctrinal significance to Halloween, treating it as a purely secular entity devoted to celebrating imaginary spooks and handing out candy. Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the senior exorcist of Vatican City, said in an interview with London's The Sunday Telegraph, "[I]f … children like to dress up as witches and devils on one night of the year that is not a problem. If it is just a game, there is no harm in that."[2] The secular celebration of Halloween may loom larger in contemporary imagination than does All Saints Day. Some Christian churches commonly offer a fall festival or harvest-themed alternative to Halloween. Others focus on the Christian aspect of the following All Saints Day. Still other Christians hold the view that the tradition is not satanic in origin or practice and that it holds no threat to the spiritual lives of children: being taught about death and mortality actually being a valuable life lesson. To many Protestant churches, October 31 is also the date of Reformation Day, a minor religious festival and it is often used to reclaim the Christian aspects of the tradition, the All Saints Day, as a day of prayer.

Other Christians, including those in church leadership positions[3], consider Halloween as incompatible[4] and conflicting [5]with the Christian faith,[6] due to its preoccupation with the occult in symbols, masks and costumes,[7] its origin as pagan festival of the dead, and the fact that it is considered by satanists and other occult groups [8] as a festival [9] celebrated with certain rituals.[10] They argue that Halloween is also a prime recruiting season for satanists and therefore poses a considerable chance for children to convert. They point out that while even many Christians may participate "all in fun," Halloween is serious business for satanists and witches.[6] Others are concerned about vandalism and destructive behavior after a church had become a victim of destructive "shock rituals" by satanists leading to targeted monitoring of these gatherings by the police.[11] Another argument brought forward is that according adherents of Wicca (witchcraft) practices “Halloween is one of the four major Sabbats celebrated by the modern Witch, and it is by far the most popular and important of the eight that are observed. . . Witches regard Halloween as their New Year’s Eve, celebrating it with ... rituals..." [12] The concerns many Christians have are shared by members across the denominations on the ground that it trivializes the occult and what they perceive as evil. Evangelical and Protestant Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Church and many Roman Catholics [13], Jews and Muslims, object to the tradition and refuse to allow their children to participate, pointing out to its pagan origins as well as its occult imagery.[14]


The ways that Christian churches deal with Halloween are various. Most churches ignore Halloween and treat it as a merely secular tradition. In the Anglican Church some dioceses, picking up a concern amongst parents and teachers, called to focus more on the positive messages of All Saints Day, the day following Halloween.[3] For many Protestant churches, October 31 is celebrated as Reformation Day in remembrance of the Reformation. Luther's hymn "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" is traditionally sung on this day. Other Christians, particularly Roman Catholics and the Eastern Churches, traditionally focus more on All Saints Day which is celebrated the day after Halloween as a day of prayer.[15] Other Curches, such as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, organized a 'Saint Fest' where Roman Catholic priests together with Christian musicians tried to bring the holiday back to its Christian roots.[13] Many Catholic churches have instituted the days before All Saints Day which is on November 1 as days of special devotion such as the tradition of "40 hours of adoration and prayer." Another response among Christians in recent years has been the use of Hell houses or themed pamphlets (such as those of Jack T. Chick) which attempt to make use of Halloween as an opportunity for evangelism.[13] The tradition, to discourage pagan celebrations and to give it a Christian meaning can be traced back historically to the eighth century when Pope Gregory III designated November 1st as All Saints' Day, a time to honor saints and martyrs. Some believe that All Saints Day was moved to November 1 to counteract the ghouls, demons, and devils that were celebrated on October 31. [16]


Objections to celebrating Halloween are not limited to those of the Abrahamic religions. Some members of the Wiccan practice feel that the tradition is offensive to real witches for promoting a stereotypical caricature of a witch.[17] Additionally, many Wiccans and other neo-Pagan adherents object to Halloween, which they perceive as a vulgarized, commercialized mockery of the original Samhain rituals which are traditionally celebrated at October 31. [citation needed]

[edit] Now pretending to be an Adminstrator?

At Talk:Halloween you wrote:

"You have been clearly advised by trhe [sic] administrator that this is not vandalism. But you ignored this and used the template again!!!"

Once again, I don't know if you simply do not know what a Wikipedia adminstrator is, or if you are trying to impersonate one (as you were the only one "advising" the editor at whom this comment was directed). If the former, please read WP:Admin. If the latter, this is a serious violation of Wiki protocol and you must stop it. --Kathryn NicDhàna 00:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No, never pretented to be an administrator

You are again twisting the truth! As I said, you have been advised by a Wikipedia administrator user:JoshuaZ - this is not me and I never said that (!!!) - NOT to use the vandalism template and you ignored it multiple times. To clarify against any more false allegations, lies and twists of waht I said I insert the administrator's post from your talk page:
"The caloon matter is not a matter of simple vandalism. I suggest you take it to WP:ANI if there is a continuing issue. JoshuaZ 20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)" [Weirdoactor#Caloon]
Why are you guys not able to discuss without attacking others permanently? Caloon2000 01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ has never commented on my talk page. I am not the same person as the other editors who have warned you. You have been warned by multiple editors and admins. --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Kathryn NicDhàna 07:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn NicDhàna, why are you guys constantly lying and twisting the truth. To make it clear once and for all:

1. The abovestated statement was adressed to Weirdoactor not to you. You certainly know that, don't you?

2. Again, I repeat what I already said above: Weirdoactor HAS BEEN advised by an administrator JoshuaZ NOT to use the vandalism template but he chose to ignore that.

"The caloon matter is not a matter of simple vandalism. I suggest you take it to WP:ANI if there is a continuing issue. JoshuaZ 20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)" [Weirdoactor#Caloon]

This quotation is from Weirdoactors talk page. You again twist the truth and by that diqualify yourself.Caloon2000 07:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A word from a Wikipedia administrator

Caloon2000, I respect the sincerity of your position. I've also read the talk page discussion at Halloween and your edits to the article have violated the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. In North America there are certainly some people who have religious objections to this holiday. This, however, is a minority position and the article needs to reflect that. Durova 04:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Durova, thanks for your comment! I redited the article and created a balanced version using neutral wording. However, the version which user User:Kathryn NicDhàna inserted and which is now online is highly partisan uses POV words "Other Christians get very emotional about Halloween", "A response among some fundamentalist Christians" "Some fundamentalists consider" and removed most of the references, links and literature. From 12 books a single one is supporting the position held by many christians. In my articly the undue weight clause might be an issue although I tried as best as I can to persent every position adequately and neutrally provinding references for the statements and discussed it at lenght at the discusion board. But the article which is now online is in clear violation of the NPOV rule and can not stand as it is either. Caloon2000
Hi Caloon2000, could I suggest we change "other Christians get very emotional about Halloween" to "some Christian groups have concerns about Halloween". On the Halloween talk page Kathryn NicDhàna has suggested something fairly similar. Regarding the use of fundamenalist, would evangelical be a reasonably acceptable replacement? Addhoc 18:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 8 hours

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
Stifle (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)