User talk:The.helping.people.tick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] on infallibility

I believe this infallibility is present in the body of Bishops at these councils, not just in their teachings or final approval of whatever it is that they wish to teach, but is actually present as a nature at the meeting itself. I wish to cite Catechism #891 to indicate this. "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council." (Runwiththewind 19:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page, and thanks for trying to keep the peace between User:Runwiththewind and myself. Even though I believe his heart is in the right place, I am afraid I have lost all patience with his original research. Thanks again, Cat Whisperer 14:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, The.helping.people.tick, 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! --Thw1309 16:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double effect in Catholic teaching on contraception

I noticed that some time ago you had made an edit to Humane Vitae indicating the principle of double effect does not apply to cases such as hysterectomy. I've had difficulty finding any Catholic sources talking about this (when double effect does and does not apply). I was wondering if you were aware of any such sources, and if so, it you could point me to them? LyrlTalk C 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Stuart Dauermann

There is an attempt currently under way to delete Stuart Dauermanns biography, i understand that much info is based on sites fond of his work, but this man seems very prominent and notable on outside websites from Google can u help save it? by correcting the problems if u find some on it. Thanks--יודל 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

Wow! Thanks for coming to the discussion page and helping out in the founder situation. Much appreciated! NancyHeise (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome -- "Helping People" is my middle name! You were doing pretty well, but then someone brought up the fact that you were the only one so I thought I should weigh in. Keep it up! The.helping.people.tick (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the good job you are doing copyediting this page. NancyHeise (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Your additions were great and much needed - excellent copyediting - thank you! I put your refs in proper format and one of them was transposed so I corrected it. Wow am I glad you came to the page! NancyHeise (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyHeise (talk • contribs)

[edit] Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop

Hi. I have recently started the article Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop. Since you are listed in the category Yale Alumni, I thought you might be interesting in contributing to the article. Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your excellent copyediting of Roman Catholic Church

The Saints Star Award For brilliant copyediting on the top article for Wikiproject Catholicism, for being a helping person who makes us all tick, and for general superior intelligence that was much needed in trying to bring this article up to Featured status.NancyHeise (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Templates

These are copied and pasted from my talk page, I use them all the time. I have even included the instruction of the very nice editor who gave them to me. NancyHeise (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, just dropping a note to let you know I replied on my talk page. Also, I'm going to be forward, and place the following "Cheat Sheet" here for you, if you do not need it, then not a problem, simply erase it, but it has come in extremely handy for me

<ref>{{cite journal | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = | date = | url = | doi = | id = | accessdate = }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news | last = | first = | coauthors = | title = | work = | pages = | language = | publisher = | date = | url = | accessdate = }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | work = | publisher = | date = | url = | format = | doi = | accessdate = }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite book | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | publisher = | date = | location = | pages = | url = | doi = | id = }}</ref>

I hope you find that of help, you can simply copy/paste it, and fill in the blanks! The minimum I'd advise is: publisher, author's last name, title, URL and date of access. Ariel♥Gold 07:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] requesting your assistance

Hello Helping People, I am probably going to nominate the RCC article for FA this weekend (Im busy right now) and I was wondering if you would check in once in a while on the FA tag on the talk page and maybe help address any FA reviewers comments that come along. Thanks for all your great help and kindness. Have a great day. NancyHeise (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to check it!The.helping.people.tick (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA comments on papal infallibility

THPT, can you make the change to the article you have proposed in the FA discussion? I can add the references if you can do the wording. Deal? NancyHeise (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For your solid defense of the RCC article on the FA comments. Well done. NancyHeise (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If it can be shown that the oppose is unfounded or incorrect it can't sink the nomination. For instance, I cant go to the page on Islam and oppose it for an FA just because I think the entire article should be about terrorism. Just like the person who opposed at the top of the FA page wanted more info on the priest abuse scandal and a separate section in the article called criticism. I was able to show that criticism is addressed in the article exactly the way it is recommended by Wikipedia, which is not in a criticism section but throughout the article. If that person were to provide some information that was key to the priest abuse scandal that was somehow not included in the information provided (which is hard to do since there are whole articles about it wikilinked in addition to the content in the RCC article) then I would have either had to provide that information or risk losing the FA because of a valid argument. Vassayanna will have to come up with some key information from a top reliable source that is somehow lacking in the article. If she does that, we have the choice to insert the new info with a reference or decide for some reason that it does not belong in accordance with some Wikipedia policy. NancyHeise (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Later

My comments about your username were sincere. I'm unwatching the page to let y'all work undisturbed on the article. Looking forward to seeing it in FAC again in a small handful of weeks. Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RCC and POV

I just wanted to let you know that my POV comment was not directed at you at all. I got concerned at some of the recent comments by others either making ad hominem attacks or using language that suggested they wanted to remove any of the negatives, and I wanted to make sure they understood that NPOV doesn't mean ignore the negatives. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, cool.The.helping.people.tick (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RCC edit

>>Hi, I am not trying to be heavy-handed, but you changed a hotly-contested number that has two references, citing another WP article that in turn cites only one reference, without mentioning anything on the talk page. I reverted your edit, but would welcome the correction if the justification were: the two sources were misquoted, it is actually .2%

I thought it was just a typo. I suppose I should have dug down a bit. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
On further reflection either number is quite small and perhaps the "stat" should be expressed in such a way so as to convey the fact the proportion of offenders was small but nonetheless their effect was significant on both the Church and the victims. Albatross2147 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RC Lead including Abuse

Thanks for your support here. Although the present wording is fairly innocuous. I am concerned that this is the thin end of the wedge, and if the principle of this going into the introduction is accepted, the wording will change and expand, and it will gain undue weight. This also sets the RCC article apart from those on other religious groups, who all have negatives that could go into the lead on this basis. I think this issue needs being firm on to prevent more trouble later. Xandar (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RCC Mass edits

Great improvement, much better than the slop I typed out! Keep it up!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support vote at Roman Catholic Church NancyHeise (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)