User talk:Chooserr/1

I admire your resolve, but like my dad used to ask, "Is this the hill you want to die on?" (not his original, but that's not the point.)

The point is that there is a lot more that you can do to contribute without getting yourself blocked. Anyway, take my advice or leave it. I just hope you consider it. --Elliskev 00:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. New start? Godspeed. --Elliskev 00:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Aolanonawanabe 01:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. I hadn't even been logged in for 5 minutes! -- Megamix 01:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a wonderful thing. It certainly isn't spamming. Carry on :-) --HappyCamper 01:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's certainly not spamming. A lot of Wikipedians do it. I do it myself. One thing I'm careful to do is to check the contributions of the new user just to make sure that he or she is a genuine editor and not a vandal. AnnH ^(talk) 02:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was accused of being a sockpuppet. Hopefully that guy'll stop stalking you though. He is correct in that your articles seem to be a bit short (though that doesn't excuse his snide remarks)... try making them more complete. JG of Borg 03:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you do, otherwise you're just giving him ammo, with good reason. Have fun! JG of Borg 03:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PLL.gif Image:PLI.gif were uploaded to use in the table for that quote. The quote was deleted. It's not really proper to do things that way and they are not fair use in that case. Fair use is only acceptable in some articles and that would not constitute. May I delete them? We can't assume it's GFDL if you got it from the BBC (and you would need to show where from the BBS) gren グレン 04:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welcoming the newcomers! Just one thing to take not of is whether or not they have contributed something before you add to their talk page. I see the template you use states, "thank you for your contributions". Maybe replace that line with something else. Thanks! mdmanser 04:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Although I am not a Roman Catholic (I am actually a Polytheist, but having a lot of respect for His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI), :o) I just gave my opinion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Life Alliance, only with a few words... Hégésippe | ±Θ± 10:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chooserr, you might be interested in this link I'm compiling at my blog:Catholicism in Science Fiction Speculative catholic 03:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My IP (71.129.72.3) has been blocked. I'm not sure why and would like it unblocked for to the best of my knowledge I haven't done anything wrong lately. Thank you, Chooserr

11

Stop spamming the Recent Pages page. Take it to the mailing list. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if you DO NOT STOP, your block will be extended. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected your page. If you continue, you will be blocked for a week and the page reprotected. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We had a couple of disruptive users/vandals just minutes before you that were rapidly adding a flurry of welcome messages to new user pages and were using that to disguise some bad edits (bogus "you've been blocked messages" etc). See Polysciwantacracker (talk • contribs) and You got that right mister (talk • contribs). I saw an anon IP doing the same thing, and what's more it was signing its edits with your username, and so I believed it was part of the same trend. Sorry if you were blocked in error, but perhaps you could have done those edits under your username if you chose to sign them with your username. By the way, we're getting many thousands of new users every day, far too many to send welcome messages to them all, and many of which never make any contributions at all... so I'm not sure if it serves much purpose to do large numbers of welcome messages to users registered minutes earlier who haven't made their first edit yet. -- Curps 06:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Curps, you could stop making irrational decisions. It never hurts to welcome people. It hurts the community a lot to punish people who are doing no wrong, then blame them for doing what they think is right to cover up your mistake. --24.221.8.253 06:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The block was reasonable. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chooserr again, you can post your opinions there if you wish. -- Curps 07:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop putting bogus block messages on other people's Talk pages User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see warnings. I don't see blocks. Nothing wrong with warnings. --24.221.8.253 07:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current discussion on

WP:AN/I demonstrates that you are mistaken. Nandesuka 07:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

12 hour block

I have blocked you for 12 hours because you don't seem to understand that spamming is wrong. I suggest you take this time to reflect on your actions and how you can avoid similar situations in the future. Nandesuka 07:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka,

You just want to get my goat...I won't let you have it...I don't care for your twelve hour block. And I do know what spamm is (I've removed it before). I'm not sure if you've ever been blocked but if you have then you'd understand. I love sharing information and unfair blocks shouldn't be imposed on me.

For the record though I do think it is kind of funny in the back part of my mind that if curps hadn't blocked me, that I'd have help further wikipedia And probably have been off hours ago. Chooserr

(I was going to add this to help people understand my Ina template before I was blocked)

My block messges weren't bogus...they were simply a template I invented to help block users whose names I felt were inappropriate for wikipedia...this would have included a Nazi one I saw a few days ago if I'd made the template...and any others including the Curps names (which were blocked just before I started using it). If I couldn't block I wanted to make sure that these names didn't just fold into the fabric of wikipedia due to oversight. Chooserr

"The devil made me do it" was a common comedic catchphrase popularized by Flip Wilson and is not an inappropriate username. "The devil made me do IT" (information technology) is a pun on the original phrase, and again not an inappropriate username. Posting your bogus block message to that user's talk page caused confusion, and I removed that message at about the same time that I blocked the anon IP address you were using. -- Curps 07:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• User:CURPS VS THE FUCKING FUCK BOTS!
• User:OFFICER CURPSKY YOU'RE TATOR TOTS
• User:Porn-observer
• User:COMMUNISTISMS ON WHEEELS (only kidding)
• User:Legitimate user name (ANAL SEX WITH TATOR TOTS)
• User:PENIS TEH LOLZERS GO TATOR TOTS
• User:Kharbear (ANAL SEX WITH TATOR TOTS)
• User:Fetal Tissue tastes funny
• User:CURPS YOU STUPID FUCKING FUCK BOT
• User:COMMUNISTISMS I SAY! COMUNISTISMS!
• User:FUCK BOTS GALLORRRRRR IT"S TEH CURPSISODE
• User:FUCKING FUCK BOTSGET TO GO ON A FEILD DAY
• User:TATOR TOT SEX WITH ANAL CURPS!@

Thanks for collecting these. The right response for a non-admin would be to post these to

]

Before posting these, check at Special:Log/block to see whether they've already been blocked. I believe all of the above (except possibly Porn-observer) have been blocked. -- Curps 08:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with Chooserr about possibly blocking some of these users: their horrific misspelling of "tater tots" is indeed unforgiveable. Nandesuka 08:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, now can I be unblocked? Afterall I didn't cuss at you...you were just being fussy and abusing your power. Chooserr

LOL, an IMPOSTOR of Curps. "The devil made me do IT" (This user has been Identified as an impostor of the Devil look at wikipedia policy for further information). Chooserr

What are you referring to? Those accounts listed above can hardly be considered true impostors, since they're merely intended to be annoying and not to actually fool anyone. -- Curps 09:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

???????????? Chooserr

"unrepentant about doing so" that is the reason why I've been blocked........?????? If I said "I'm sorry" you would have said okay? That's the stupidest reason for blocking I've ever seen! And in your message to me you said, if you do it again.............Chooserr

When you are unblocked, you're invited to go look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges to certify that there is, indeed, a major problem with this mess and that, for what it can be trusted to accomplish, the community needs to get involved. --24.221.8.253 08:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments 24.221.8.253......not that they are doing much good to get me out of the pound. But atleast there is one person on my side. Chooserr

User:24.221.8.253: you ought to make a user account......we need more users like you in the future :D. Chooserr

Hi, Chooserr. I got your message this morning just before I left for work. I am now in the staff room at the computer (which I don't normally use) before beginning work again in the next few minutes, so this will have to be brief.

I think you would have been wise to respect the majority decision about the dates. While I personally prefer A.D. and B.C., it is not, in my view, a battle worth fighting. Certainly it doesn't contradict Christianity to use the other format. After all, we name the days of the week after Roman and Norse gods. I was therefore a little concerned to see a message you sent to someone's talk page asking was there a Catholic administrator who could block someone who was changing the format to C.E. I think if you look at my Babel templates, you'll realize that I am an obedient Catholic, but I still respect the Wikipedia rules about 3RR etc. I have found it possible to do a lot of good on Wikipedia by staying within policy and not putting people's backs up unnecessarily. If I block people, it will be for breaking Wikipedia rules, even if I sympathize with their views. I revert vandalism to the abortion article, whether the vandal says that abortion is "cool" or that it's the murder of a baby.

It does seem that you've had a rather rough time since joining Wikipedia, and I'm sorry about that. We have a policy of not biting newcomers. At the time that I sent my recent message saying that welcoming newcomers was fine, I was concerned that you were being harassed by User:Aolanonawanabe. His frequent posts on your page, complaining that you were spamming new users, when you were in fact sending them a standard welcome message, plus his tagging as a speedy delete something which you had created which was obviously not a candidate for speedy deletion, suggested that he was tracking your contributions.

However, I have not looked at your recent contributions; there are too many for me to examine, and I would strongly suggest that you do not continue to welcome new users at the rate that you were doing it at. I don't know what was in those messages, so I can't comment, but it seems that others have objected as well. Certainly you should not have been sending messages The Devil made me do it (or whatever the name is) threatening a block. While I don't care for that name, I doubt if many administrators would block for it.

Please do not consider filing an RfC agasinst anyone. RfCs that are hastily filed, tend to bounce back on those who filed them, and you have, in my view, been too controversial to get much support. Also, you have to show evidence that two different people tried and failed to resolve the same dispute. I suggest that for a while you try some non-controverial editing, at least until you're a bit more familiar with our policies.

I can't possibly consider unblocking you, because your contributions are so numerous that I wouldn't be able to go through them and make a judgment about how fair the block was. In any case, I wouldn't unblock without discussing it with the unblocking admin first. Sorry. AnnH ^(talk) 14:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, if you want to file an RFC, actually file an RFC instead of clogging up the main RFC with your ramblings. Do so soon, because your ramblings will be deleted. --Calton | Talk 23:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have been uploading a great number of images with ambiguous or meaningless comments such as "GNU?" or "does not violate any licenses" or "no copyright visible". Please be advised that there is no such copyright license as "GNU" (

]

Cookies for you!

• 
  Cookies 'cause I bumped into some of your "Welcomes" to new users while I was welcoming...isn't that fun?

  ViolinGirl

Chooserr, hi.

Please be careful when reverting. When you were reverting my date format edits, you also undid other wikifying that I was doing. Basic etiquette would dictate that you not steamroll unrelated edits when several have been made. Rather than reverting your revert, which would be silly, I'm going back and redoing the particular edits that aren't related to date format. Please be careful about this in the future.

I made the date format consistent in the

]

While we're talking, I wonder, what do you think of the rewrites I've done at

War on Christmas? I'm trying to make a version that's informative and clear, and doesn't misrepresent either side of the controversy, but I realize that I myself am not entirely unbiased - how do you think it's looking? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, the reason I put "war on Christmas" in quotes in the article is because its very existence seems to be disputed. It's a problem, writing about any conspiracy theory - one can, simply by using certain terms, concede certain points of view. It's just Propaganda 101, really. Alternatives to scare-quotes include referring to it as the putative war on Christmas, the alleged war on Christmas, or the so-called war on Christmas. I have no desire to be PC, only accurate. Thanks for your feedback, anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, then. See you around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In

]

This type of censorship makes me sick

Vote to keep, show these hypocrites what's what, tolerance? ha, only when it's good for them--Diatrobica;l 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chooserr, did you see the section I wrote just for you at

]

I understand that you're not necessarily interested in the article, but I wanted to let you know I made some edits to address your concerns about language in the opening paragraph. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you are listed as a Pro-Life Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion. Category:Pro-life celebrities The abortion zealots don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life. Dwain 23:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, what does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.11 (talk • contribs)

Can you explain what's POV about that article? (Preferably at the article's

]

I respect your religious views, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a holy book. Deleting otherwise factual entries because they conflict with your religion isn't acceptable, and starting a campaign towards that end is much less so. No one is trying to impose homosexuality on Christianity - you don't see people putting up gay right posters inside churches, do you? We're merely documenting facts, regardless of political or religious affiliation. Please try to understand that and remain neutral. -- Ritchy 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no objection, regardless of my nature as a Roman Catholic, to the information posted on the Gay Rights in Iraq page. Sebastian Prospero 19:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chooserr, maybe we can begin articles for every nation on the laws or lack of laws on the rights of the unborn. What do you think? I think these kook fringe types would have a fit, but the rights of unborn humans who are being killed left and right is much more important and valuable to know then the one being voted on now in Iraq.

By the way this Aecis character who is a self professed liberal from the Netherlands of all places, is the one trying to reinvent the dating system to BCE. This character is on the verge of being voted on as an admin and complained that us "pov-pushers" would cause problems and so she? won't do it now. So keep an eye out pal!!! Ciao Dwain 23:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a kook fringe type, I think well-written and sourced articles on reproductive laws in various countries would be an excellent addition to Wikipedia, and a better use of both your time than involving yourselves in BC vs BCE revert wars. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, the fringe is watching eh Chooserr? What you wrote sounds good I will look into it. And I will never give up the fight against the leftists concerning the use of BC and AD. Dwain 23:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was being somewhat ironic in my choice of self-description. I don't really think of myself as a fringe type. On the BC vs BCE issue, I don't care a whit one way or the other, but I am an avowed enemy of revert wars, and I'm sorry and disappointed to see both sides of a dispute stooping to the most juvenile and least effective tactics over and over and over again, as if incapable of learning. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported your violation of the

]

Thanks!!!

Thanks Chooserr!!! :) Dwain

Could you please tag that image, the one you just uploaded with the barnstar? :-) --HappyCamper 23:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unfair that I should be the only one blocked. I added pleanty of information on my defense and was even going to add a quote by GTBacchus, who said that once things are consistent, they shouldn't be reverted at all. Please reply, Chooserr 00:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have not blocked the others because they didn't violate the rule, although I have encouraged them to discuss their edits rather than engaging in edit wars. My suggestion to you is to voluntarily stop changing date formats.--

Black 00:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Blocked for 36 hours

I have blocked you for 36 hours for violating

]

Discus

Sean, I discussed it fully in the edit summary box. It was ignored and I was baited into a 3 rvt violation due to a Wheel War campaign. Chooserr 00:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. You arbitrarily changed date formats to your preferred version and did not discuss it on the talk page, which is where discussion takes place. Also, I am going to note this block at

Black 00:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Towards a resolution of the BC issue

Blocked for 3RR, are you, Chooserr? I'm sorry to hear that. I've been thinking about this whole date format issue, and I think it will be necessary to clarify our guidelines, in order to avoid these situations. You may have been the one caught in violation of

WP:3RR

, but it's just a technicality - both sides have been too revert-happy. The worst things about revert wars is that they aren't ultimately productive. Neither side will win that way; nobody's going to get all of Wikipedia following the format they believe in, and it's just ugly to try.

On the other hand, I'm not saying that we should ignore our deeply held beliefs. We all know about

]

GTBacchus, I'm not sure you want to get directly involved but can you ask Dwain to visit my page. Thank you, Chooserr 00:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Slim Virgin has reverted the Euripides page to the BCE/CE format even though it was consistent only hours before under the BC/AD format.

I'm more interested in a long-term solution than in ephemeral reverts. I'm sure Euripides will continue to rest in peace while we discuss it. My goal is to change the guidelines to include a "leave well enough alone" clause regarding date formats. Nobody "wins", true, but the way it's going now, everybody loses, so we can only improve.

Thanks for the caution, BTW. I may go ahead and get involved, but I won't say you didn't warn me ;) -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that when I was talking to you I was talking to myself! But someone thinks that might be the case Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard! This makes me laugh!!! :)

"Chooserr, sockpuppets

Hi. I'd like to request a CheckIP to determine if User:Pitchka and User:Chooserr are editing from the same IP addresses. Both have recently been going around changing date formats, and I have noticed disturbing similarities between their grammar, particularly in their edit summaries. Maybe they just think alike, and I'm being too suspicious. But it can't hurt to check. Thanks. Nandesuka 01:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But of course I must be a sockpuppet mustn't I. How could there be two people who actually want to preserve the most common and traditional type of dating system? Why that is quite disturbing isn't?! Oh, and since Chooserr is on hold for the time being, well I must be orbiting my edits around the moon into a different country!!! It's actually pretty funny that you are disturbed by our similarities!!! :) Dwain 04:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• and yet when I called him a troll and a sockpuppet....--Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused 02:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

I thought you'd get a kick out of this like I did!!! Dwain 04:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time believing that anyone following this whole affair doesn't pick up on major stylistic differences between Chooserr and Pitchka. I wouldn't suspect for a moment that they're the same person, and I've had some experience with sockpuppets, however weird that sounds. Maybe I'm just gullible, but I have to agree with Pitchka here; it's silly that two like thinking people find each other and are summarily accused of being the same person. Pitchka and Chooserr have entirely different approaches to Wikipedia; even though they both seem bound and determined to use the site for activism (which I consider unacceptable from any POV), they go about it different ways. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, "this ... character who is a self professed liberal from the Netherlands of all places," second this. It seems virtually impossible to me that Chooserr and Pitchka are one user. They are like-minded, their ideas are similar, if not the same, but I'm 100% convinced that these are two different persons. Aecis ^praatpaal 00:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently edited the era formats in

]

I reverted the fetal tissue thing. Please tag the image in the appropriate fashion, e.g. {{

) 17:37, Dec. 18, 2005

Blocked am I? What grounds, may I ask?

Fred, why've you blocked me. I wasn't edit warring. I recently created

]

The block is based on this edit [1]. Please quit edit warring over era notation. Fred Bauder 19:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't even a revert*...I served my previous block. I left a friedly message to the user that reverted me. And didn't edit it again. I haven't violated even the 1 rvt rule this time. So please will you lift this unfair block so I can get back to helping wikipedia. Thank you, Chooserr 19:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It would have been if I changed it to the Chooserr version instated before that and got rid of the links that were added. I simply changed the dates, which is if anything a content dispute. And not a revert, or even edit warring. Because if I'm not mistaken in a war 2 parties have to be fighting each other. Exchanging blows so to speak. And making one edit, that was reverted, without a follow up "attack" can hardly be considered a war. :D, Chooserr 19:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, unblock me. I have established a case which shows that I wasn't "warring". Chooserr 19:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're meant to patroll your blocked users' pages...please do.Chooserr 19:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason that a blocked user sand box would come in handy, admins who block but don't patrol the blokees' pages. I will try to draw some attention to this unfair block once more. Chooserr 19:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be added to the "list of users who wish to be unblocked" - place this template on your user talk: {{unblock}}. I've done so for you.

]

Blocked again?

Oh no! I go to sleep, wake up, and you've finished your block, and gotten blocked again?! Chooserr, why did you change a date format? There's clearly a big effort underway to find a long-term solution, and get a good clear rule written into the MoS, which will end the need for all this nonsense, and that's the perfect time for everyone to stop changing date formats and focus their energy on fiding a solution and getting it implemented before a single other date format changes. When you come back, please consider allowing for the wheels to slowly turn. So little harm is being done in the world by spurious use of the letters "CE", nobody's dying over that. It takes a few days or weeks (or...) to change policy, but it will happen, because it needs to. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, may I propose, to any administrator listening, that Chooserr may be allowed to earn early unblocking on the condition that he agrees not to touch any date formats in any articles pending ongoing discussions at Wikipedia talk:Eras? I'd like for him to be able to contribute there, since he's an involved party. Would you agree to that, Chooserr? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I would support such an informal probation, and will unblock upon such agreement.
    FCYTravis 23:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• • • I don't believe it is right that I was blocked, for I haven't edit warred or even reverted! I don't believe I should be hog tied, or black mailed - for that is what it'd be in a manner of speaking, block your opponents until they agree not to touch a era tag again. And if you are able to debate properly and make a case it should be heard. If I were an admin I'd do as should be done and watch the users talk page. But if I must do this to be unblocked I will, but not forever, for I don't intend to make promises that are unkeepable. I can hold my peace for a week or two until a resolution has been sought. And if it's fair I can patrol and help contribute. Chooserr 23:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • FCYTRAVIS, I agreed!!! Chooserr 00:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gimme a sec, I had to see it :)
          FCYTravis 00:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
          ]

Quote: "But if I must do this to be unblocked I will, but not forever, for I don't intend to make promises that are unkeepable. I can hold my peace for a week or two until a resolution has been sought. And if it's fair I can patrol and help contribute. Chooserr 23:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

I do not like you,

stance). However, I respect that you have a deeply held belief rooted in certain recently discussed topics. I think I can understand some of the reasons for that, which is why I respect it- I was raised in a conservative and Tridentine-leaning Roman Catholic family, went to the pariochial schools, was a lector, altar boy, youth minister, the whole works. Even Latin classes. My mother half-expected me to become a monk, which was something that was considered likely to happen for some years when I was younger. I understand the Christian, and specifically Roman Catholic, POV to a great degree.

In light of that- no matter what is decided at the

to contribute positively to the debate itself. I would rather have an agreement on the issue than continue to push my own POV in opposition to your own. This is my way of extending a hand in, at least, the hope of mutual agreement to work toward a better Wikipedia for everyone involved.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion . Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.