User talk:Cat Whisperer

Welcome!

Hello, Cat Whisperer, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Thanks for the warm welcome! -- Cat Whisperer 19:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings CW, to respond to your question: there is nothing wrong with using internet articles as sources. The one I omitted was: http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2005-February/004824.html ; I did this because the site itself was a cut-and-paste from another article given on a plain text html site. In other words, anyone could make that sort of page up no problem - it would be like referencing a message board. The page http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=3997&issueID=517 looks a lot better, though it would be best to source the actual document in question, i.e. the Greek synod cannon whatever. Thanks for the contributions, Lostcaesar 09:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, and the information! -- Cat Whisperer 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cat Whisperer. Welcome to Wikipedia. --WikiCats 02:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice name, WikiCats! Thanks for the welcome. -- Cat Whisperer 02:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize any further articles for the purpose of inserting your personal views in them. Thank you, and good day. Jsnruf 05:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have only edited the Kathleen Sebelius article twice: [1] and [2]. Please indicate which of those edits you consider to be vandalism, and why. Thanks, Cat Whisperer 10:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Your username was one off from the one I intended to click. Jsnruf 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing this up! -- Cat Whisperer 02:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on the excommunication article. I rechecked my research and realized that, although I think one could make a case for assembly participation as being a ministerial participation under c. 1345 (cf. assisting at mass c. 917), there really is no primary or secondary source material backing it up. This would make the view original research, which isn't encyclopedic. Pmadrid 17:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Cat Whisperer 17:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Cat Whisperer! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply

I read your concern regarding Host desecration. My edit comment was not directed towards you. The article appears to need a complete re-writing; that is appropriately referenced.

Feel free to re-edit the article; just include your sources.--Lance ^talk 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alas in conflict there are innocent victims; if it happens again, please excuse me. And as far as "cookie" is concerned, non-Christians don't know what the "host" is. Some factual and non-religious description is, I believe, needed.--Lance ^talk 00:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say thanks for all the references and discussion. Im no expert in this area so i appreciate it. keep it up. --Blckavnger 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Cat Whisperer 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i answered you state ment chekc it out at my talk -lazer john

just fyi, i'm only trying to provide a neutral pov, and i'm actually pro-choice myself. --Chris Pickett 21:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have it properly moved to userspace now. Thanks! NawlinWiki 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of this! -- Cat Whisperer 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me this! I did do it intentionally, though. I was trying to explain something. I think it's still on the sandbox. Trying to say that our rights are being taken away due to a lack of religious support. I simply say that there is religious persecution in our own country, and by trying to take religion out of everything, is stripping us of our rights. Now, it's like removing Gay flags or Gay Pride Parades because it hurts someone's feelings. We can't do that, it strips them of their rights, right? Same thing, just religion. I'm sorry for leaving a long note. -66.218.13.198

I'm sorry you disagree, Cat Whisperer. I know that if I change the minds of just a few people, that I could start a anti-persecution thing that will re-shape America. That is my dream in life, just as it was to the Founding Fathers of America. -66.218.13.198

Oh, and thanks for your last message. -66.218.13.198

So Ware, but not universally and not historically. See The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895. By that reasoning,

Sorry, I removed your adultery definition. First, the article is about fornication, and the long section on the catholic view of adultery seemed to distract from that. This has been a long topic on the adultery article itself. The definition of adultery precededs the council of trent, by over two thousand years, going back at least as far as Moses -- longe before catholicism. Biblical definition, historical jewish, as well as current jewish law, and laws no longer in force, as well as laws theoretically still in force define it as non-symmetric. That is anyone having sexual intercourse with a married woman is adultery. A married man having sex outside of marriage has not historically been adultery. Infidelity is a different issue. Atom 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with not talking about adultery at all in the fornication article. However, as previously stated, the one given is not incorrect at all. It is one of several correct current usage definitions. It is the definition still in current law in Minnesota, Current Jewish law, and historically correct through most of the Roman empire, as well as before that all the way back to Moses. Atom 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I answered your question, on the discussion page (I hope). BTW, thanks for all the great work you do, esp for idiots like me who can't make the footnotes appear!DaveTroy 21:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Whisperer

First, and as always, thanks for all the work you. I wish I had 1/2 your computer skill. As to the 1917 Code, I know it a bit, but it isn't my area of expertise, except as it relates to the CIC 1983. I am also not the world's greatest Latinist, though I am still plowing through it, hence why I am trusting Dr Peter's translation over my own.

I don't know if you have copies (or access to copies) of Canon Law Digest. I have them at my schoool lib, but I have to admit that I haven't read (yet) the articles that I am about to send your way. LOL, when I have the time one day I will. Anyway, they are: Canon Law Digest, V: 452, VII: 688, VIII: 620 -- 24; IX: 601 --2. This set of footnotes comes out of Peter's translation on the 1917 Code of Canon Law, translated by Edward Peters. His copy also includees references to English lanuage JCD disertations on the canons that were written in the various ecclesial univ. around the world. The closest I can find (and it is on Orders generally) is: Distinction between the Episcopate and the Presbyterate in the Decretals (MS no 2848, Gregorian University, 1957, printed version number 1543, 1957). I neither flatter myself that I can read the midieval Latin particularly well that this guy did, nor have I yet actually read the disertation, but it is out there if you are interested in reading it.

As to this specific Canon, the CLSA commentary and Woesterman are both silent about the indult question, and neither takes it up as a history question. It would seem a glaring ommission, but there you are.

PeaceDaveTroy 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the famous canon I just mentioned. The following block quote comes from Wm. Woestman's book The Sacrament of Orders and the Clerical State St Paul Univ. Press Ottawa: 2006 pg 19.

The present canon states the present Church's practice, and does not consider whether the Pope can grant to a presbyter the faculty to ordain priests and deacons. [footnote] For a brief discussion of this question, cf Stanislaus Woywod, OFM and Callistus Smith, OFM, A Practical Commentaryon the Code of Canon Law, New York, Joseph F Wagner, 1957, pp 559 -- 560. For longer treatment, cf. Felix M Cappello, SI, De Sacra Ordinatione, 3rd rev ed, De Sacramentis, vol 4, Turin, Marietti, 1951, pp 191 -- 209, nos 284 -- 312.

DaveTroy 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have finished updating the article on fetal pain, as you suggested. There continues to be discussion at the abortion article regarding how the fetal pain article should be summarized. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks.Ferrylodge 23:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See

In other words, you found nothing in

WP:CIVIL

to back up your post.

As for whether you choose to respond or not, as it was a general comment and not directed at anyone, I don't really care if you respond. That's your choice. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat, I'm not trying to be dismissive of you, I'm just noting (perhaps too forcefully) that choosing to respond or not respond is up to you. (Also, I just looked at the page again and realised that you created the proposed intro, so I can see why you were upset). But, as noted above I was not dismissing the editor, just the proposal. Hey, I've had proposed edits torn to shreds, and I've just moved on to another attempt at a better edit. I'll add an addendum to my response so you know what my criticism is. •Jim62sch• 20:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI - the debate about the lead is moving again, with the original one from last month (which I thought we had moved on from) still under discussion. Your vote would be appreciated. Morphh ^(talk) 20:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you block this user? He vandalized a page after the media bias one. User_talk:Twistedchidl1066 171.71.37.103 20:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That vandalism occurred before my final warning (by one minute), so unfortunately it doesn't qualify for a block. Should

WP:AIV. Thanks, Cat Whisperer 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

thank you for the invitation to talk, and for the advice; I look forward to the dialogue. Sanctum Cor Leonis 21:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see someone (you) using Vorgrimler for DV. Thanks! The.helping.people.tick 12:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! I don't get to do too much on WP, but I like to help out when I can. You know, "helping people..." The.helping.people.tick 01:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism from this IP. --72.174.145.104 16:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC) (aka Pianohacker)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer! -- Cat Whisperer 19:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on this user's talk page. You may want to look at his contribution list. Thanks...Ron --Rhopkins8 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update! I reported the user to

WP:AIV and the IP has been blocked for vandalism for a week. -- Cat Whisperer 23:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Wimania (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cat Whisperer! I noticed that you edit

Canon Law articles quite frequently and so I wanted to invite you to join WikiProject Canon Law. The membership is constituted by a user who's going to be a priest and yours truely. You are most welcome to join. Thanks and God bless! Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply