User talk:Eedo Bee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Australian Motto
Australia doesn't have a motto. "So where the bloody hell are you?" is a marketing slogan. Chovain 08:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Matmice
Greetings, thank you for your contributions to our encylopedia. However the article you recently created at Matmice, does not contain sufficient context for readers of the article to understand what it is about and has been nominated for speedy deletion under criteria A1. Feel free to me any questions by leaving a note on my talk page, and happy editing!Teiresias84 07:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well I am not against a page on matmice myself, but it needs a little more context to be called a stub. Add a line or two on what the site is about, and an external link. Then people like me who have no idea what Matmice is about, will be able to make a judgement on whether it is notable and from there (hopefully} others will expand it. Teiresias84 08:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 10:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Latest tagging
OK. Would you like to provide a very good reason for why Pedophilia is of specific interest to the project working on coverage of LGBT issues? Also, as a general rule articles should only be tagged by people who are members of projects. You are of course welcome (as is any editor) to join the LGBT Wikiproject if you wish. WJBscribe 02:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed the tag to the heading under "Homosexual Peadophilia". My mistake, corrected now. Eedo Bee 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Creation and evolution
I think we all have areas we enjoy contributing to, and areas that make us angry, and areas that just bore us to tears. (Mine are LGBT issues, Creationism, and Football, respectively. It's fine to stay out of the articles that you have trouble editing fairly, and focus on the ones that you can best contribute usefully to- we all do it. I hope you'll decide to come back and contribute usefully to Wikipedia- a literate, science-savvy editor is a valuable person around here. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Creationism makes everyone mad. Well most reasonable people anyway. Eedo Bee 14:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed your new userboxes, and was delighted that we have something in common. I was actually raised by a creationist family in a young-earth creationist church... you just wouldn't believe the things I learned in Sunday School. Ask me sometime how Noah got all those dinosaurs on the ark. Then when I was old enough to read and understand the basics of actual science, I was amazed by what a simple and beautiful process evolution is- I was genuinely inspired and moved as I learned more. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha, I used to live next to a Baptist family, and I used to be a staunch atheist. Even at age 5 or so, the fanaticism they held for biblical inerrancy put me off religious exploration for some years. My family was agnostic and secular. When I learned about evolution I was entranced! I learned about it when I was maybe 6 or 7, and I didn't realize how anyone could refute it. Then I actually learnt about it in depth, and you're dead right. It's a bit brutal and wasteful on the whole, but it all works out. Creationism is equally simple, but just... stupid. If you like scientific perfection, the periodic table is another wonder. It's not as forward as evolution, but the perfection and simple mathematics in its natural construction is just unbelievable. Eedo Bee 11:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I envy you. I believed the line I was fed in church until after I graduated from Bible college. So when I finally understood evolution, it completely rearranged my worldview, in a wonderful way. I spent months reading everything I could find at the library, trying to understand it. And was delighted to realize that (as your userbox says) there was nothing about evolution that required me to stop being Christian, no matter what they might have told me in church. An epiphany is a beautiful thing to experience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!
Hello, Eedo Bee, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Latinum etiam est res mea qui amo. Ghfj007 14:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome!
|
[edit] Closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matmice (second nomination)
I have removed your attemoted closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matmice (second nomination). Closing of AfDs is almost always performed by administrators and should never be done by a participant in the discussion. Please let the proper process complete, and thanks for improving the Matmice article itself, Gwernol 12:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was looking up the speedy keep option, and I thought that what was speedy keep was... I didn't know how to revert it so I left it, sorry again. Eedo Bee 12:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Negative Film
If you check the link to the page I created you would there for be able to read that I did in fact make the Negative Film page on Wikipedia. I Never claim to have created the Negative (photography) page.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Stay Free in Chirst,
--Kylehamilton 22:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Negative_Film&action=history
[edit] Would you mind?
I and other editors would appreciate you spending your time editing articles rather than harassing the WikiProject. Please consider unwatching the project page and focusing your energies in a more constructive way that will benefit Wikipedia. Thanks. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think Eedo has made it fairly clear that he wants to be on the fast track to a permanent block. So your request will probably fall on deaf ears. Wjhonson 05:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yep - Scissor Sisters is categorized under Category:LGBT musical groups, which is one I haven't gotten to with my bot yet. If you feel so inclined, go ahead and tag it — or I'll get to it eventually :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Blocked
Despite your recent one week block, you continued to act in a disruptive ([1], [2]) and foully offensive manner ([3], [4]), clearly failing to learn. It is very much apparent that you are solely concerned with disrupting the editing enviornment for others. I have indefinitely blocked your account. Proto::► 09:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It is very much apparent that I am solely concerned with disruption? Solely? Except all the actual contributions I have made... Ignore all the times when I wasn't disrupting, but rather editing or creating pages, and it's solely. Eedo Bee 11:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My userpage
I would appreciate it if someone would remove the vandalism on my homepage, and revert it to its previous state. Dev had no right to alter it, as they are not an administration. Eedo Bee 12:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- It wasn't vandalism, it was the right thing to do. All indefinitely blocked users have their user page replaced with that notice and anyone can do that, not just administrator. Gwernol 12:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Note
Eedo, please note I have blocked you indefinitely, not permanently. I have noted that not all your edits have been malicious or unhelpful, and so will give a bit of advice. Take a few days away, think about whether your actions have been constructive behaviour, and if you do believe you can contribute in a productive manner (and wish to), pledge on here to do so, and apologise for your previous actions. I or another administrator will consider reducing the block to a finite period (say, a few months), but you will really be on a last warning.
I did fail to point out you do have the right to appeal this block with the template {{unblock|reason for unblocking}}. See Wikipedia:Requests for unblock for details. Proto::► 13:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Concerned about this block
I'm a little concerned about the block that's been placed on Eedo Bee (talk · contribs). It seems to have come after Eedo and I had a conversation that was making progress.
The user definitely was causing disruptions - as has been pointed out and can be seen by their edits to the LGBT project talk page. Following a spat of those, Eedo and I had a conversation in which we came to an agreement - the discussion that had been causing Eedo discomfort would be archived and Eedo would stop their vandalism. And that seemed to work. After the conversation was removed, Eedo went on to more constructive editing.
It's puzzling, of course, that Eedo chose to do work for the WikiProject after our conversation, but nonetheless they chose positive contributions.
And then they were blocked.
I don't think I feel strongly enough about this to challenge the block, but I'm stating here my support for Eedo in this instance and would like the admin responsible to consider some positive progress on Eedo's part.
-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- SatyrTN you show compassionate traits. In this particular instance, keep in mind that Eedo Bee was blocked for *one week* just previously. This sort of block is typically not a *first step*, but represents a long history of Eedo Bee being progressively obnoxious, or at least consistently so. It was after this long block that Eedo Bee again started destructive editing. It seems apparent that Eedo has something specific to prove and that getting spanked doesn't necessarily satisfy that demon long enough. A week is an awfully long time in wikiland to harbor a grudge. I'm not feeling as generous as you, but this particular block is untimed and it's certainly not permanent. I like you, feel that people can be wiki-reformed, but comments like "I laugh at all the AIDS deaths" show a particularly, violently offensive mind-set that we don't need around here. Wjhonson 16:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I, too, Satyr, feel this block was justified. Who the hell is he to say "I am going to vandalize, insult and otherwise totally disrupt the LGBT project until I get my way"? As somebody personally affected by the AIDS crisis, I found his remarks vulgar, hateful and hurtful. I hope this block is maintained in perpetuity. I tried to be friendly and helpful to him after his block was released, and I (along with the rest of the LGBT project members) got shat on for my efforts. Good riddance to bad rubbish, is how I see it. Jeffpw 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Eedo Bee's actions definitely touched nerves :) And I don't feel like lifting the block - actions have consequences. I just find it indicative of *something* that the next edits made were to put {{tl:LGBTProject}} on articles for us. I certainly don't want to minimize the negativity surrounding Eedo's actions - just wanted to reiterate some good things and point out that it's possible - just possible - that they'll come back being able to be a civil and useful contributor. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
If I apologise, it will likely only make me look as though I am trying to undo this block. I'm going to apologise anyway. I do apologise for what I said on the LGBT page, particularly to Jeffpw. I did not mean in to offend anyone as deeply as it did, and it was a gross oversight on my part.
I would like to outline I did not mention "all AIDS deaths". Few of the LGBT members got over their/my grude either. I openly said I was wrong on the LGBT page, and was called homophobic and accused of being insincere, and a fundimentalist. I am not trying to defend myself or my actions, but I will not have them portrayed as unprovoked. Truth be told I think the LGBT project needs a lot of work, many articles are erroneously marked.
I won't appeal this ban, as I deserve it. My apologies once again, Eedo Bee 03:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to thank Satyr, you are a helpful and considerate editor. All the best =) Eedo Bee 03:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- (nitpicky) It's not a ban, it's a block. You block an account, you ban the user behind the account. As you have accepted your comments were out of line, I'm going to assume good faith, and will reduce the block to 1 month, as of now; this should allow you sufficient time to consider whether you will be able to return to productive and civil editing. Could I suggest when you do return, you refrain from interacting with the LGBT project and articles that come under their "umbrella"? It is clearly issues you have with their topic matter that have turned you away from the previously good work you were contributing to the encyclopaedia. If you have any questions, either leave them here (I'll drop by occasionally) or email me. Please note that when you do return, you are on a final warning; any more puerility, hostility, incivility or anything else that ends in -ility will see you banned (not blocked). I hope that's clear. Proto::► 09:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ahem*
Eedo Bee 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Erroneous term of "Roman" Catholic Church
Eedo, the talk discussion "More terminology for Latin Catholics..." is for Catholic Christians and those familiar with Christian chruch history. I'm sorry it bothers you in saying that Christ founded just ONE Church, and having simply one universal Church is too broad is problematic for you. However, let me remind you, Jesus never said "Peter, and upon this rock I will build my churchES" but "upon this rock I will build my church", simply. By the way what do you think is the pillar and ground of truth? As well as, provided all Christianity with all the canon of books of the New Testamnt.
Answer: see 1 Timothy 3:15,
Note again the answer is in the singlar. Anything more would create potential contradition and disunity contrary to 1 Cor 1:10. Thus one communion for the one united "Body of Christ", perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment, a.k.a. communion.
The Latin church is but one of the 23 other subdivisions of the universal- Catholic Church. In union with Christ always through Peter, his earthly shepard as discribed in John 21:15-17 and his successors upon "his bishoprick let another take." (Acts 1:20,25)
I think you should be more respectful of people like EastmeetsWest, who is 100% Catholic in communion with the entire universal Catholic Church, but in no way "Roman". Belonging to the Ukranian-Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church. (not the Roman Catholic Church)
I suggest you familiarize yourself with this Church before you make bold ill informed remarks. Here you can find som material that might help, enjoy [5] - of particular importance is the "Apostolic authority" presentation. Micael 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Eedo Bee, I moved this comment to your talk page from here. I'll inform Micael that you are blocked and can only reply on this page, if you feel like having that conversation. — coelacan talk — 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The title of the Roman Catholic Church is the Roman Catholic Church. I agree, they are all one church, but there are differences. By your reasoning, all Protestant Churches should also come under the title "Catholic". I agree there is one true church, or there should be . I'm sure you'll offend the 1.1 Billion Non-Catholic Christians more than I will by saying all Christians are Catholic. Instead of changing RCC to CC, why not make indidividual articles for the Eastern Catholic Churches? Wikipedia should not, nor ever, be based on biblical scripture. Eedo Bee 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
While I agree with you in considering all Trinitarian believing Non-Catholic Christians as catholic. It is also wrong to discredit the Church (which you also believe was found by Christ himself) and disrespect and offend its 1.1 billion members- particularly our own eastern Catholic brethren, not to mention God- himself, by blanketing the true church with a name that does not discribe the real universal church of Christ. And in doing so succumb to error and contribute to a falacy (the sin of omittion) by allowing them believe there is another type of "catholic" Church- a "Roman" church- made by man with an apparently self anointing authority. Thus also discrediting Christ's authority upon his Church.
Additionally, and with all due respect Eedo, although the Church has allowed itself to be refered to as "Roman", it has never officially called itself "Roman Catholic Church". While Popes and others may have used the term in documents(and there are very few) it has always implicated one of two things 1) unity to the Holy See as in unity with the Bishop of Rome, or 2)it is refers to the Latin Rite, the larges subsection of the Catholic Church, which is sometimes refered to as the Roman Catholic Rite. As occurs with the Byzantine Catholic Rite, sometime called "Greek" Catholic, but is not necessarily correct.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the text of all official teachings of the Church, provides an excellent reference and answer for this issue. Please find just one citation where is states that "Roman Catholic Church" is the title of the Catholic Church..it does not exist. The CCC does not even utilize the often unterchanged word "Roman" when refering to the "Latin" Rite church. Obviously avoiding this often error implicating word...using "The Latin Church" instead.
Also, the Church's allowing of the the term in eccumenical dialogue does not in any way implicate that it concedes to a change of name. It is more like someone refusing to call you by the name you desire and your allowing the use of such a name for the sake of dialogue. However that, in and of itself, does not mean that suddenly you are officially changing your name to all the world.
Since, everyone thinks this is a matter of point of view I will start working on the historical basis and provide citations on the first person's to ever refer to "the Church" as the "Catholic Church" and see if they simply meant Christians in general or if it meant Catholic as the Church discribes...there is ample historical(not just biblical) evidence/proof! By the way the bible is well accepted not only as a religious document, but as a historical document by religious and secular scholars. Do you ever watch the History Channel. It is referenced all the time on religious as well as non-religious historical matter.
Overall, I am just asking for your support.
If I can't have unity among Catholics regarding this issue my all my work will be in vain.Micael 09:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Believe me, I am not doubting the existance of the Cahtolic Church as a united body. You are correct about the Catechism, because the CCC is for all of the Catholic Church. However, there does exist a distinct Roman Catholic Church, which while still in full communion with the Eastern Churches. The article names itself as "the Christian Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome". That is the Catholic Church. However, there should therefore be a seperate article for each of the Churches, including the one specific to most of Europe, known as the Roman Catholic Church, or the western rite Churches. Why is there an articel on the Ethiopian Catholic Church if they are in communion? Or a page on the Ruthenian Catholic Church? I agree that the terms used on these pages should be "Catholic Church", but there should remain an article on the Roman Catholic Church, or more broadly, the western rite Catholic Churchs. Eedo Bee 06:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Eedo, my discussion in no way denies what you refer as the "distinct Roman Catholic Church", however, you may not be aware of this but that is more of a slang term just as "Greek Catholic Church" is slang for the Byzantine Catholic church. The actual name of this autonomous church within the Church is the Latin church, Latin Rite, or Western church which Wikipedia already provides articles on this site(I guess you were not aware of this, in not making a distinction between the slang "Roman Catholic church"-Latin rite and utilizing the same exact term for the general church at large it is impossible to link " Roman Catholic Church" to the Latin Rite article as it would instead connect you to the generic -Roman-Catholic Church article. Thus even more reason to change the article name to simply the "Catholic Church"). BTW, I am a Latin Rite Catholic.
Additionally, these subsections of the Catholic Church are churches with a little "c".
The focus of my discussion is specifically with regards to the name of the Church at large as this is what the article describes. I hope you now see the significant ambiguity and contribution to confusion and error the slang "Roman Catholic church" can create to those uneducated and misunformed about our Church. Therefore the prefered use of "Latin church" or Rite. While you and I are Catholic I completely understand what you mean when you say you are Roman Catholic. However to the general population- the audience of Wikipedia in general, to non-Catholics, it means something completly different and instead provides confusing language sheilding others from seeing that the Catholic Church truly is the Universal Church established by Christ.Micael 10:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Success to you after your block
I wish you the best of luck here on Wikipedia after your block expires. Here's hoping we can all move on from the regrettable incident of a few days ago. As far as I am concerned, it is forgiven and forgotten. Jeffpw 10:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
{{subst:Matmice}} Oo7565 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Queer pedagogy
I'd welcome your suggestions for improvement of the page. Read up on some of the external links from the page and some of the other books on the topic, and feel free to let me know or update the page yourself with easy-to-understand, clear descriptions of queer pedagogy. It's harder than it looks... :) 75.25.180.65 (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Oops, the above was written by me. Had wondered why you never replied, then realized that I hadn't included my name. But still would like to hear your thoughts. Voyager640 (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
