User talk:Tomcapa1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Tom

For information the way to contact other contributors via Wiki is:

Go to 'View history', find an entry by the person you wish to contact, click on 'talk' and away you go!

By the way, I cannot accept the anonymity apparently demanded by the leadership in relation to individuals who have declared the views in the public domain. After all, we expect politicians to declare their interests before participating in debate. We expect a councillor to declare his/her shares in a property developer before speaking in a planning debate. So why should Chris McDonnell's - publicly known - role as secretary of the Movement for Married Clergy be excluded from this article? I hope you see your way to working with your ACTA colleagues to create a more balanced article.

Finally, I think it is better to keep our dialogue in the public domain via this avenue, rather than via email. Incidentally, given that Alex Walker has blocked me from the ACTA forum the ethics of his passing on my email address may be questionable.

Your brother in Christ,

Bob (HayesBob (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]



Tom, you don't seem to grasp the nature of Wikipedia. It is an open forum in which dialogue (the expression of different viewpoints) takes place. Wikipedia is not merely free space to host organisations' adverts. You already appear to have been cautioned by editors for unjustified removal of materials. Let us keep it civilised - after all, ACTA wants only dialogue, does it not?

Regards Bob

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Tomcapa1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Mangwanani (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for this Mangwanani-- I take the point, and have been in negotiation with the person whose edits I have re-edited. I am rewriting the article to try to reach a more neutral tone and content. I am not employed by A Call to Action but they did suggest that I get the article put up for them, although I employed a freelancer to do this. Tomcapa1 (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Tomcapa 1[reply]

Please also have a read of this page before deleting text and/or making comments to/about other users. I noticed something in one of your edit summaries which would not normally be considered best practice for Wikipedia articles. I will keep an eye on the article over the coming days, especially regarding unreferenced assertions as well as maintaining the Wikipedia style guides. Happy editing. Mangwanani (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to A Call To Action may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • lay people, religious and priests, there was also opposition from some conservative Catholics. <
  • ref>{{cite web|title=Vatican 2 Voice|url=http://vatican2voice.org|website=vatican2voice.org}}</ref>}} Some Catholic groups have broadly similar aims, but ACTA is not a protest group and as an

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ACTA Deletion[edit]

I have left a comment on the article's deletion page. I have to look at the page objectively and with strict reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please do have a read of these guidelines. Notability and referencing are indeed an issue and the discussion about deletion is, in my view, perfectly justifiable. While ACTA is a vocal group, with a significant amount of opposition, it is also a very small group. Please do try to remain objective. Mangwanani (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 17 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ACTA AfD[edit]

Hi, I noticed that your changes to the Articles for Deletion page affected its readability, so I did what it looked like you were attempting to do with the changes. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Tomcapa1 (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest[edit]

Thank you for your message on my Talk Page. As I have stated several times before, I believe you have a conflict of interest with the ACTA page and this is evident, not only in the article itself but also in your comments to other members of Wikipedia and your comments on the deletion page. Please note that Wikipedia is not a forum. It is an encyclopaedia. Please read the guidelines I am linking you to here. Moreover, remember that the comments on the deletion page are neither personal attacks against you nor ACTA. They are constructive observations of the article and how that matches up to Wikipedia's guidelines and requirements. The article does presently fall short of these. Mangwanani (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comment. I have read the guidelines. I have not attacked people on the talk page. I believe that I have done all that can be done now to make this an objective article and also given the clearest possible indications of notability (although it seems to me that there is more than a little potential contradiction between that aim and neutrality from a theoretical perspective. As noted elsewhere I do not see why someone who had no interest in A Call to Action -- either for or against-- would write an article on it, and I refer you to the article on Juventutem, a topic you brought up, an organization much smaller than A Call to Action, with little evidence of notability, and where the article is clearly written by an agent of that organization. Tomcapa1 (talk)

ACTA Deletion[edit]

The article was deleted by Slakr who is a Wikipedia Administrator. The deletion was made in accord with Wikipedia's Deletion Criteria, following the discussion on the deletion page. Reviewing the discussion it seems that the Conflict of Interest issue was a minor issue, the main problem, and main reason for the article's deletion, was that ACTA lacked notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Hope this helps you understand what happened and why. Mangwanani (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC) """Comment""" Thank you for speedy reply, and apologies for semi assumption that it was you. I do not accept that the organization lacks notability and shall be taking this up with Slakr. It ssems odd to me that I saw no comment whatever from him before this deletion, but thanks very much for your help. Tomcapa1 (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC) """Comment"""Checking further I find no deletion summary by Slakr. Please advise. How did he come to be involved since he has made no earlier comment? Tomcapa1 (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC) """Comment""" Hi there, please can you arrange for the last version of the article to be sent to me in your capacity as an administrator. Thanks a lot Tomcapa1 (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Call to Action. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" Elizium23 there appears to be a big misunderstanding here. I have not done any of these thing, although I did respond to the guidance suggestion that someone attempt to tidy up the material about social activism. However, I take the point about citation and will do my best. You are posting here on the wrong site, confusing (which must never be done, UK A Call to Action with US Call to Action Tomcapa1 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"""Comment""" Elizium23 (talk) Sorry if I sounded rude. Your advice was good, best, Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Call to Action, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

""" Comment""" This is not original research or personal analysis but report of received opinion by Pope Francis's most distinguished biographer in the Independent and another source. Please stop what appears to be bullying and unblock the capacity for me to add this necessary material and to prevent you leaving the article on the neutral -- ha ha-- claim that this organization is incompatible with being a Catholic. If you don't I shall request deletion of the whole thing Tomcapa1 (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2015
(UTC)Tomcapa1 (talk)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Call to Action. Elizium23 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"""Comment""" Please explain what this unpublished information is and answer the queries, which have refuted unjust charges you have already made. This talk page discussionwill itself serve as evidence for an appeal about your extraordinary behaviour if you do attempt to get me blocked. You are attempting to pull rank in a very bullying and biased fashion, and you have given the game away by several factually incorrect claims.Tomcapa1 (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"""Comment""" I am very unhappy both with the quite arbitrary deletion of the article on UK ACTA, A Call to Action, and now with the fact that I am threatened with being banned from editing on here. It must be good to have the power to make such threats and to be able to block things you don't agree with, but a pattern that is very clear is emerging -- the domination of many Catholic related articles by a caucus of very traditional Catholics. I do not approve of such bans and deletions which seem to me to be based on ideological aims disguised (no doubt from the perpetrators themselves, for I don't doubt their sincerity), by a mass of technicalities in which they alone and proficient, and which can be used to cover all eventualities. Instead of, in the interests of balance, trying to find a rounded picture and also as a senior editor helping people fairly new on here, you have acted like an Inquisitor from the start, and of course you are certainly not the only one. The administrator on the UK Call to Action site was unable to resist displaying his ideological interests, eg praising the Latin Mass society, and saying most young Catholics were traditionalists. At the same time he constantly preached neutrality. You have yourself displayed your own attitudes, for example, identifying the UK organization with USA one with which it has no links, and it is blatantly not in keeping with neutrality. You could redeem yourself by giving some guidance about how to end this article on a less ridiculous and obviously non-neutral note that the one which now stands. This is going to have to taken further with Wikipedia I am afraid anyway, as it not just you as I have saidm and it will be taken further. Tomcapa1 (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed)
I'll put it simply, my friend: if you think Pope Francis has opened the door to changing Church teaching then you are dreaming, you are in a wonderland, you have deluded yourself beyond measure. Your so-called "evidence" that the climate in Pope Francis' pontificate is favorable to Call to Action is worthless. It is totally pointless until and unless you dig up a source that says so. Your sources can rant all they want about how different Francis is and how the times they are a-changing' and how the answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, but if they don't mention CTA then don't put them in the article. Because you're committing WP:SYNTH. Look it up. Read it. I'm beginning to detect some WP:IDHT behavior from you and that's the kind that really irks me. So yes, if you continue on this course I will make sure you are blocked. And I'm sorry to leave my message on such a negative, non-neutral note, but that's how I roll. Elizium23 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"""Comment""" Elizium23 Thank you -- another very marked evasion of or misunderstanding of the point. The point I was making was not about the Pope changing the teaching of the Church but about his different attitude to discussion or dissent. THat was the substantive point of my last much needed sentence, and that was the point made by the citations. Meanwhile you continue to express your own preconceptions and ideas in a very free manner I note [User:Tomcapa1|Tomcapa1]] (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
"""Comment""" Elizium23 PS what was the personal attack deleted thing? It appears to be on your file not mine-- can you clarify? Tomcapa1 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ACTA versus Call to Action[edit]

Sincere question; ACTA seems very similar to Call to Action, apart from one being a UK group and the other a US group. I understand that the former is smaller, and with less WP:NOTABILITY , but if they are truly related, that may justify adding a section to the Call to Action page.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC). THank you for your question, which I am sure is sincere. However, the 2 groups are not connected in any way-- beyond the vague similarity that both could be described as 'progressive'. The names are an unfortunate but not very surprising coincidence (since both are 'calls to action') but the UK one came as a result of the Tablet magazine's header to the original letter by 7 priests that caused A Call to Action. Why has the UK organization not changed its name? Because it was already established with many members on its lists when the problem was realized. We now say, ACTA (A Call to ACtion). What are the differences? Call to Action is a lay organization. ACTA has many priest and religious members. CTA campaigns forcefully for womens' ordination, same sex rights in the Church and so on. We have members who do that (but others who oppose them). We do not take such positions as our policy, but we want more dialogue in the Church eg that responses to the Family Synod are canvassed among the local dioceses. This is perhaps why no one in the UK group has ever been excommunicated, whereas -- although the details are hard to come by-- some sort of conditional excommunication was once issued for the US movement. With thanks for your interest, 217.44.133.8 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)217.44.133.8 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Tomcapa1[reply]
Thanks, that resolves that question. Have to admit that articles on ACTA are much harder to come by than articles on CTA, as reflected in your WP:N and AfD discussions. Will keep looking; perhaps in time it will warrant a standalone article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tomcapa1&oldid=1139011541"