This is an archive of past discussions with User:Storm Rider. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think it demonstrates a weakness of mine; I just did not recognize that connotation as a proper edit. It is not a formatting or type of editing I have done in the past. Of course, had I looked at who was making the edit I would have also understood and been able to research it and learn in the process. I will keep my head up for these types of edits in the future. Cheers. --StormRider21:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
My edit wasn't a test. I wanted to correct an error. SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie was built at Vulcan shipyard in Stettin as also stated in the infobox. "Aktiengesellschaft" just means "(stock) corporation". Greetings --89.247.252.5 (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
If it is an acutal shipyard there is no need to put the name in quotes. Your edit read, "Kronprinzessin Cecilie, built at Stettin, Germany, in 1906 by Vulcan shipyard, was the last of a set four liners built for North German... With the recent release of a new Star Trek movie, this appeard like a typical prank. Go ahead and make the edit, but don't use quotes on the name, but rather link to the actual article AG Vulcan Stettin. Sorry for the error.--StormRider16:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Please sign your posts on discussion pages using four "~" (tildes). The reason it was delted was explained on your talk page. It is opinion from a non-expert source. There is no way anyone can verify the accurateness of the statements being made. Wikipedia requires reliable sources be used in writing articles. Given that we are an encyclopedia, articles demand a higher degree of verifiability than what is acceptable on personal blogs. Good luck. --StormRider06:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the vandalism from my talk page multiple times. I was starting to get confused through all the reverts and additions. blurredpeace☮19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Storm Rider, Blurpeace has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Discussion of Denominational Groupings on Christianity Talk Page
I just wanted to take a moment to apologize for any additional confusion I may have caused on the Christianity talk page. In retrospect, it's pretty clear to me that I managed to step into a messier discussion that I had realized. It's also clear that you're trying to maintain a voice of reason and balance (which I appreciate).
We may disagree on the substance of the discussion regarding the term "Restorationism" (I have an interest in the Second Great Awakening in general, and the Restoration Movement in particular, and neither one strikes me as a good "catch-all" category for everything that isn't part of the "big three"), but I do agree with what your goals seem to be: to find a workable solution that doesn't imply a point of view, limits the number of new or renamed categories to a manageable number, and disrupts the page as little as possible.
Anyway, when I first saw the discussion and responded, I had no idea that it would spin out of control the way it did - and the last thing I wanted to do was contribute to that. Even though I'm sometimes responsible for "friendly fire" incidents, I would like to be on the side of reason. EastTN (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
We have no problems. I respect your participation and your interest in the term Restoration Movement; I suspect that there is an overall discomfort with the term Restorationism also. I am not opposed to changing the terms, but I would oppose creating a broad range of subcategories/sections just to accomodate the smaller groups. Using the term "Other" does seem to work. I would also discourage attempts to segregate the JWs and LDS from all other forms of Christianity. This article is not the place to demonstrate who disagrees what and why, but rather an article that focuses on Christianity as a whole.
The other editor was more focused upon what he was saying and achieving his objectives. I could have also been more clear about my objective to maintain a single section. Let's see what we can do about imroving the article and move on. Cheers. --StormRider22:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I knew you'd understand, but sometimes it's still important to apologize. Your concern about segregating the LDS and JWs makes sense to me - the only purpose for categorizing churches in this article is to help the reader understand how they're related, not to score points for or against a particular group.
I reverted the blanking on Guitar Hero 5. I went for page blanking rather than vandalism but it looks like we both hit the same button at the same time and so the IP got 2 warnings for the price of one! A tb on my own talk page would be appreciated btw. Regards, HJMitchellYou rang? 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes— stick to what the cited references state— AND the cited references does NOT use the term "Protestants," NOR does it use the term "other Christians." The cited reference does not blaim the term on anyone and we don't have to blaim the term on anyone. --Carlaudetalk08:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that is an acceptable position. Essentially, it is when "others" use the term, and given the context in which it is used, that offense is meant and taken. My comment was generated more from common knowledge than an argument over reference. We have really pushed this issue on references to an extreme. If something is common knowledge, then a reference is not needed. I do not believe there is a legitimate rejection of the concept that Catholics can be offended by the term Roman Catholic. Also, I do not believe it is a contested fact that some people use the term as an epithet. If that is the case, then a reference is not needed. --StormRider21:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Help
I was just adding a useful label, what's wrong with that? :-)
I think you have a few things wrong with your edit: 1) A scapular is not a talisman; it is not believed to have any magical or occult or supernatural powers, 2) the Catholic Church is not a sect of Christianity, but it is the largest church within Christianity. Thus, you had factual errors and and POV spin on the rightful place of Catholicism within Christianity. You might want to review WP:NPOV. Cheers. --StormRider22:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Then it's an amulet? Anyhow, the majority of the article was written by History 2007, who uses Wikipedia as a Catholic teachings disemination tool. The Scapular article sounds like it came out of a Catholic text book. I was just trying to make the article more objective. Objective, you know, like an encyclopedia is supposed to be? This little encyclopedia experiment is getting to be a joke. 132.237.245.15 (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not a Catholic and I have not reviewed the article. Please read the link above for neutrality; your edits were not only misleading but they also were "spiinning" in a negative sense. A scapular is not an amulet either; essentially it is simply an article of clothing that denotes being a religious or a monk. Check me on that, but that is what I recall of it. Look it up in a dictionary and then come back and align the article to that definition in a neutral manner. Cheers. --StormRider22:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for doing so! Given recent vandalism, the semi-protection is probably the best thing to do. Cheers.--StormRider00:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Galápagos tortoise
Please be careful with the use of huggle, especially when a reasonale edit summary has been provided. Note that, as mentioned on its page, Huggle is an application for dealing with vandalism. I have "re-reverted" this. • Rabo³ • 21:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I was careful; the entry was incorrect. Geochelone Nigra is one of eleven species of giant tortoises on the islands. This subspecies has a single living example today. It is not appropriate to cite this at the beginning of an article, unless all eleven are being cited. Cheers. --StormRider22:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I can see you noticed the issue, but as I already wrote this reply, I am adding it anyway as it may be of some use. A brief intro to scientific names: Geochelone nigra is the species (small note; specific epithet always in lower case). Subspecies are always represented by a trinomial - not a binomial (e.g. G. n. nigra is the nominate subspecies of the species G. nigra). The scientific name is generally included in the intro, as can also be seen if checking the featuered articles of the WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. • Rabo³ • 22:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Racist edits
I got a message saying my edit of a south african rugby player's was reverted, but i've never been on the page and i absolutely would not post racist remarks, or decrease the quality of his page by deleting stuff for no good reason. could someone else have been on my IP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.232.188 (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, someone from your computer vandalized the article and was appropriately warned for it. You might want to consider registering; it will assist in stopping this kind of confusion. If this IP address is a private computer then you might also want to consider implementing security measures to prevent others from using it when you are not around. No one can use this IP address except your computer. --StormRider15:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, we now have an option 4 to consider since no one could agree on 1,2 or 3. Can you please come vote again? [3] Thanks, NancyHeisetalk18:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Request to participate in University of Washington survey based on ideas gathered during the Wikipedia focus group you were invited to attend
Hello. Back in March, you expressed interest in attending our Wikipedia focus group sessions but were unable to attend. The goal of those sessions was to gather feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you.
Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better!
The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.
--StormRider 01:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)==Thanks, Storm Rider==
How strange to find ourselves on the same page for once. :) Thank you for your comments defending me on most recent issue at ANI. I agree with you that Alan's complaint has resulted in far more disruption to actual progress than my "conflict" ever would have, and it reflects poorly on the administrative aspect of WP. Alansohn has been generally critical of my actions on WP for some time now, so it's hardly a context-specific issue that we need to be concerned about there. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I know Alan, but only from the context of both of us like to work against vandalism. However, this is only my fist encounter with him where both of us are editing the same "article". I am very dismayed with this type of allegation and what follows is an example of the worst of Wikipedia and something I reject totally and completely. IF he only knew how often we are on opposite sides of an issue, any issue, he would at least begin to understand how outlandish and inappropriate his action was. I am sorry you have attracted his attention; I have been there before and it makes working on Wikipedia not nearly as enjoyable as it once was. In time, his attention will become focused elsewhere, at least I hope so. Regardless, in that you seem to be needlessly hampered acting as an admin, your efforts as a editor are still very much needed on that article. Cheers. --StormRider22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm considering a return to it, though I think I will avoid any involvement at least as long as the ANI is ongoing—to try to comply with the whole "avoid even the appearance of conflict" idea. I'm actually sensing some of the edits by some of the editors to be a bit on the "trying to prove a point" side. (That may be an understatement.) I wonder if a compromise would be in order: perhaps you could accept the application of the Wikiproject tag if it was agreed that the Category:Mormonism wouldn't be applied to that article itself. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have resisted editing too much; I think with a diverse group of editors a good article will eventually result. Sometimes the process does look a little muddy, but I remain hopeful.
I really am a purist on the category/wikiproject deals. To be fair I may also be reacting to the strong intent of the Gulag group to tie this Academy to the LDS Church. I think it is stretching and there is only a peripheral relationship at best. However, given that a question has been raised on the LDS project page, I will abide by the will of editors. I will remain open. Cheers. --StormRider01:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
West Ridge mediation notification
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mediation case name, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, DoyleCB (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you will be happy with the result, but I am eager to participate. Thank you for letting me know. BTW, your link does not work above. --StormRider18:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WestRidgeAcademy, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, DoyleCB (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Please do not revert my edits. Please refer to the Three Revert rule. Try to reach a consensus on the talk page instead of edit warring. Thank you. --DoyleCB (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Doyle, if you want to play this silly little game, it is not going to end well for you. While an article is up for arbitration, no edits should be made. Please read some policies, READ THEM, because your assumptions demonstrate you have no understanting of them. Cheers. --StormRider18:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Storm, no one is playing any games. Please be civil and avoid bullying. Those are also Wiki policies that you are in violation of. Perhaps you should take a step back if you are so emotionally involved with this issue. At the end of the day, it's just an article. No need to lose your cool! --DoyleCB (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Haven't lost my cool, not even close. You make me laugh so often I have trouble keeping myself off the floor. I am sorry, but your edits are more joke than anything. Do you realize how far you are from reality or how one-sided you obviously see life? Pity is the next thing that comes to mind. --StormRider19:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
For someone that hasn't lost their cool, you sure are being very uncivil and combative towards me. Those comments above are certainly not without serious emotion. Take a chill pill and come back later. I refuse to get into name calling and other immature acts over something so ridiculous. In the meantime, please review the following Assume Good Faith, civilDoyleCB (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from making disruptive edits on the West Ridge Academy page. If you are too emotionally involved with the article, perhaps you should take a break from it. Please also review the following Assume Good Faith, civilDoyleCB (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for your assistance. I could certainly use some advice at this point and have done all I can to avoid edits and let you two make the edits, do what you feel is best. This little, tiny article is not worthy such outrageous hours of attention. Just when things had calmed down, we are right back where we started from and a large majority of issues have been freight-trained again. I really am not motivated to spend another 40 hours on this 400 word article. How do we arbitrate this, or even just shut it down. It is a productivity killer and frankly not worth it! As you said, a lot of hubub for minor article. I have done all I can to follow your lead and instructions and have left the editing to you. I don't want your agreement or even support - just instruction on how to cease this great sucker of time and energy. Any help would be appreciated. If there is no solution for getting this one back on track, even to where we were this morning, just tell me and I will cease trying. Thanks again for any recommendations or assistance or education. (CC Descartes) DoonRay (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a problem of attrition. Doyle's edits are highly POV and extreme; when anyone, I mean everyone, counters his POV, Doyle screams bully, POV, bias, etc. Fortunately, everyone sees quickly through this facade of silliness. However, I think I will recruit a few admins to pay special attention to his edits and activities. It will not take long and he will, as a result of his own actions, find himself banned from Wikipedia again.
What do we have to do? Stay on top of the article. If his editors pose a problem, revert his edits and request that they be taken to the talk page for consensus. On the discussion page, expalain the problem with his edits and wait for a response. Never revert without providing a corresponding warning; if you don't know where the warnings are, let me know. As soon as he gets four warnings in a 24 hour period, he will be blocked again. It will not take too many blocks, each block will be for a longer period, and a more permanent block will be issued. Also, never revert twice in a row against this editor. If no one else reverts his edits, wait 24 hours, and then begin again. Doyle is going against every other editor that participates on the article. Be patient, be diligent, and attempt to find enjoyment in what you do. I know, it is very difficult when this is what we deal with at times.
Is this a time waster? Of course, but you will have to ask yourself if it is worth it. I don't like giving this article as much time as I do, I don't care about the topic, and I prefer doing other things. However, what I detest is liars and almost everything that comes out of Mormon Gulag appears to be lies, exaggerations, taking statements out of context, etc. Fundamentally, there is something there, but you have to wade through so much crap to get to it!
I think we will have to go to voting as you proposed. I hate it, it is the worst form of discussion and process of decision making that we do here, but I don't think Doyle is interested in any form of discussion. To me, he appears unwilling, if not incapable, of discussion. Sad, but we don't get to choose who edits. Don't give up, just allot the time you can and forget about the rest. Cheers. --StormRider00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Kindly... perhaps you could tell me where the warnings are. I appreciate your assistance and open dialog. DoonRay (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you are receiving this message because you were an original party to the mediation process regarding the Catholic Church name issue. The mediation outcome has been summarized and moved to the Catholic Church talk page here [4]. Please feel free to come join our discussion of the outcome taking place now before making the actual changes in the article. Thanks for your help and kind cooperation toward a mutually agreeable solution. NancyHeisetalk14:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your remarks on the RCC naming talk page. Your views are clear. As you say, as long as there is a consensus on the application of the naming conventions the proposed action will go through. I hope you will continue to speak up when you feel the need, though. Stay cool. Sunray (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sunray, you have done an incredible job of directing the mediation. I understand that this is a public forum and as a result we have to allow the public to speak; however, you will find that I am not a supporter of maintaining a public forum. I think that editors need to be qualified to participate and if not qualified their participation should be greatly restricted. Topics of religion are by their very nature enrobed in emotion. I am not a Catholic, but I am a life-long student of history. So much of the comments really have to do with emotion, doctrine, beliefs, etc. Those are of personal importance to the editors making them, but they remain irrelevant. Other comments are given ignorant of Wikipedia policy and are also irrelevant. I just don't want to waste any more time; let's implement what was agreed and then answer the complaints as they are raised. As I have said, the complaints will never cease because there will always be an emotional response from "new" editors. Do I sound cynical? I think it may be accurate.--StormRider01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
June 2009 warning
Hello, Storm Rider. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I am passing on issuing a warning for abuse of the warning templates this one time only. I urge you to pay attention to the conversation at the Admin noticeboard. Understand that those are neutral editors and each of them is finding that your edits are disruptive. I am trying to be direct now because I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation. You have a strong POV and you don't realize it. Not a single editor on the article or at the admin group sees your edits as neutral or constructive. Stop now and begin working with other editors. Ask questions, try to understand why people think differently than you do. If you do not, this will end up where you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia articles. --StormRider15:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You are probably correct, but when others reverted his deletes earlier and then stopped I was going to revert then and then got busy with other things. I tried to soften it by letting him know it would be better to archive rather than delete warnings. Is that the case, or does it matter? --StormRider22:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Storm, you have been most helpful in assisting me to better understand many Wiki processes and procedures. A Wiki page was created called Ken Allen (Mormon) to support a desired citation need on the West Ridge Page. Obviously this was not created by Ken Allen, or West Ridge etc. There is no supportive citation about Mr. Allen, his Religious Affiliation etc. He has asked me how to have this page either changed to just 'Ken Allen' or removed. Since I cannot edit this page, or change the subject title, what do you recommend? Thanks again DoonRay (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The link was red, meaning there was no article to link to. Articles for living people have more stringent rules and I doubt Mr. Allen, no offense to him and his accomplishments, would merit an article. You have deleted the information and I think that was appropriate and we can wait and see what happens. It is probably time to begin adding the material discussed on the talk page. Enough time has passed and no one has really disagreed with the intention to do so. I will see what I can do this week. --StormRider17:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Intelligence, July 2009
Hi Storm Rider, I have a few issues with the quick revert of my edits to Intelligence. First, I'm not a big fan of wholesale reverts to edits which are well-thought-out and delicately worded. If I take 30 minutes to reconstruct two paragraphs, making sure to protect as many of the original voices as possible, I think it is reasonable to expect the next person who edits those paragraphs take equal care when evaluating the change. Second, if an edit is well-worded and essentially correct, but happens to have been unfortunately placed, the next editor, rather than reverting the edit, should find a new home for the content. Third, a quick revert gives others little time to consider the nature of the changes. Obviously, if something is just flat out wrong, then a quick edit is warranted, but again, it's a good rule of thumb to give well-considered content a chance to see the light of day. I'm going to pursue the Mathematics revert on the talk page, but I think the changes to the article on Intelligence have enough merit to warrant further consideration on their own accord, and to be dealt with in some way more delicate than a wholesale revert.
Just a heads up...I deleted the whole thread (including your initial response), as the topic did not seem to be useful towards improving the article (and the abusive IP who started it has now been blocked). If you'd prefer it to be restored, let me know. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk22:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I would not add it back; it is the typical kind of problem that comes around with those with a very strong POV. Cheers. --StormRider23:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I restored it and provided a more civil response to our anon IP friend. The way to build the Wikipedia community is to understand that many people will come here being something less than an ideal Wikipedia editor. We can blow them off or we can attempt to educate them and hope they will learn our ways. It often takes a lot more than a single interaction to accomplish this. It often takes only a single interaction to blow someone off. Anon IP editors are one of our strongest resources even if many of them are simply a pain in the posterior. Be kind, be gentle but be firm. Happy editing. --Richard (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I am currently trying to help the editors in the Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong#Topic area review.) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Article Naming Conflict Problem
Having just dealt with a year long row on the Catholic Church name, a user is now wanting to radically change the Wikipedia Naming Conflict guideline, particularly with relevance to cutting the section on self-identifying names. If this went through, it could bring the whole issue up for argument again! Not many people are involved in this proposed change, which could cause hundreds of hours of havoc and edit-warring. It would be useful for people to comment on Kontiski's proposed change, or state whether you would prefer policy to stay as it is, at. Wikipedia talk:Naming conflictXandar20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Restorationism
Storm Rider, I just wanted to quickly touch bases with you on this, and assure you that I'm not planning on doing anything drastic. My immediate plans are to focus on getting some sourced material into the article, and see where that takes us. That seems more useful at this point than trying to re-work what we have. If we can find enough sourced material, then we can think about what to do with rest of it. EastTN (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have as much time as I used to for editing and even reviewing comments and articles. Unless it is really agregious or it is something I know I can handle quickly, I won't say anything. Not that I agree or disagree, just that I don't have the time to comment, etc. As long as we are sticking to reliable sources, there won't be a problem. It is when any of us a led by our our views, without consulting experts, that we run into problems. Cheers.--StormRider18:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem - I have some of the same issues. I was a bit flippant when I said that it could turn into a disambiguation article, and wanted to reassure you that I had no intention of arbitrarily trashing it.EastTN (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I am currently on the brink of an edit war with a revisionist contributor (User:IronAngelAlice) who wants the Christianity and abortion section to suggest that Christianity has taken a somewhat equivocal and lenient view of abortion. Your objective opinion would be greatly appreciated. Please look at the history. Thanks!LCP (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
NEW CATEGORY PAGE
Hello Washington-user!! What do you think of this category? Either on a scale of 1-10 or with commentary. Let me know through the "Special:EmailUser/" section. #TTiT# 13:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Traveller-in-Tacoma (talk • contribs)
Continued Naming Conflict Guidance Problem
There has been another attempt to reverse the policy on giving priority to self-identifying names - which would re-open many naming arguments on Wikipedia, including Catholic/RCC. and Mormon/LDS Having failed to gain consensus for changing the policy on the article talk page, (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict), and despite attempts to reach a compromise on trimming the existing wording, Kotniski and some of his allies have attempted to reverse the policy unilaterally and moved the debate to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Is_there_consensus_for_this_or_not.3F. On breach of the compromise I have reverted the original wording, extant since 2005. You might want to add your comment at the new discussion. Xandar00:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
As you may know, there is currently a disagreement about what the Bible and early church teach. Thanks! LCP (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Naming conflict page
Pmanderson has reverted the original text of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict page several times to an unagreed version that is the reverse of the long-standing policy. I have uused my three reverts, so can you, or someone else please revert the page to its last version by me - which is the long-established original text? I have asked for page protection, but it is important that the guideline is not compromised. Xandar20:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Nontrinitarianism
Recently User:Ic2705 as been adding a somewhat controversial bit of text to the intro at Nontrinitarianism. Another editor and myself have reverted him a couple of times in the past few days, and the related discussion on the talk page is here. Since I believe you were pretty heavily involved with the related discussions on Talk:Christianity, I would appreciate any additional comments covering parts of the explanation of the reasoning that I missed. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Christian importance ratings
This is a really good question. As I remember, I raised the LDS importance ranking from "Low", which I thought completely unjustifiable. I think I raised it to "Mid" primarily because it was just one level of change, although, personally, I tend to think it could probably reasonably be indicated as "High", and I myself probably would have were it not already for a more devoted group to the subject. Maybe I should have anyway, I dunno. Feel free to change to that level if you see fit. Regarding "Top" importance ratings, we've had a bit of discussion over that subject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum and then at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group, and it was more or less agreed on that only up to 100 articles should really get placed at that level. I'm thinking the only reason the LDS or Mormons weren't included there were the comparatively slight impact they have had on Christianity outside of their own church, their comparatively short history, and, again, the existence of at least one group specifically dedicated to that subject, not that the last one is necessarily a good one. The idea went on to try to prioritize within that subject, dropping the assessment rating of the LDS group or any other dedicated group corresponding to their own main article's quality assessment. I'm guessing the JW's and SDA's were included, after discussion, because of their being basically continuations of the long-standing monophysite tradition, but I'd have to check to verify that. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not advocating a higher rating per se for the LDS Church, but attempting to understanding the logic. It appears highly subjective given the number of articles that are rated and where they are found in the scale. Christidelphians also have a top rating, which I don't see how they have had a major impact on Christianity. The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism is also rate top, but this is confusing because the ten commandments remain a basis for all Christianity.
The Latter Day Movement article receives a top rating along with JWs, and Adventists. I will go out on a limb and take a controversial position, but the LDS movement does not exist without the LDS Church. I would agree that there are a lot of splinter groups, but in relative terms they are insignificant to the movement. It does appear that the top rating is mostly reserved for the major groups and not individual churches, but then Russell's group is also a splintered groups among them the Worldwide Church of God, the Concordant Publishing Concern and the Assemblies of Yahweh. Other off-shoot groups of the Bible Student movement include the Pastoral Bible Institute and the Layman's Home Missionary Movement; however, I am not aware of a single article the groups them all like we see with other groups.
I appreciate the response John; it may be worth participating in major review of the rating scale and where certain topics should go. Cheers. --StormRider18:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The 10 Commandments article shouldn't be included, and I am removing it from that rating. Thanks for catching that one. And I acknowledge the question about the Christadelphians, although I remember that they were pivotal in the development of some other larger group as well, even though I can't remember the details right now. I acknowledge the size of the LDS and related groups now, and that such size makes them important, but the question of their impact on broader Christianity, unlike some of the others, is a reasonable one here, because I really don't see that it has had much impact on other Christian groupings, which would seem called for considering it already has its own WikiProject. You'll note that Christmas, what some might consider the single most important event of the year in several locations today, only got nominated for inclusion later. And I very much encourage people to participate in review. I'll probably say something to that effect in the generally ignored newsletter this month. Who knows, maybe, considering the school year is starting, we might get more attention to this month's newsletter, and more interest in the matter. :) John Carter (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Naming conflicts proposed changes RfC
Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance have set up a position statement/poll as a prelude to RfC on the talk page. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page. Xandar00:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Ascription
You wrote What you are trying to do is determine right from wrong and that is nor within our purview That is not what I am trying to do, nor, as far as I can see, did I say anything of the kind. That does ascribe a position to me - and omne which I disagree with.
It is much better to stop and think. If the shoe fits wear it. You fail to understand what neutrality is. The position of Wikipedia is simply to report facts as defined by relable sources. Nothing more and nothing less. You have directed us to only use names that are approved by one side. That dispute is content for the article, but it has nothing to do with the name. In the example you stated, it has been over 20 years that they have governed the country. It is beyond question they are in control. Because it is diputed changes nothing as far as the title is concerned. Again, there is difference between a title and content for articles. --StormRider20:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The shoe does not fit. You are ascribing to me a position with which I disagree, and which is not supported by anything I wrote. In short, you are acting in bad faith, and unless I recieve an immediate retraction, this putting of words in my mouth will be cited in any future dispute resolution. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson20:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you or are you not saying that Wikipedia should ignore the preferred name of the current government for their country? The preferred name is the Union of Myanmar because that is the name the government gives it. If we do anything else, Wikipedia is put in the position of taking a position; thus moving from the neutral positino to a POV position. If this is not what you have stated ad nauseum, then I would gladly apologize. BUT, if this is your position, then please do us all a favor and not deny your position. --StormRider23:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Ignore? No. If some ruler declares that he is ruling the Supreme Kumquat of Anachoria, we should certainly include that he has done so; but should we call the country the Supreme Kumquat of Anachoria if other people aren't? Also, no. See East Timor, Libya, and both Koreas for actual examples.
Your position takes the point of view of the present Burmese Government as neutral. This is as regrettable as taking the POV of the present Greek Government on the Macedonian conflict, and for the same reasons.
M, PMA and co are again reverting to edit-warring and making threats on the Naming Conflicts page. This really has got to end. They clearly have no intention of trying to forge consensus or listening to what other Wikipedians say. Xandar22:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see the results where it was agreed on that the church commonly refers to itself as the "Catholic Church". Is that was you are referring to? --Andy Walsh(talk)22:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
