User talk:Storm Rider

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 1 - Oct 2004 - Apr 2006 Archive 2 - May 2006 - Dec 2006 Archive 3 - Dec 2006 - Jul 2007 Archive 4 - Jan 2007 - Apr 2008

Contents 1 Just checking 2 Talk:shunning 3 Roman Catholic Church 4 Civility 5 Take heart and keep the chin up 6 Roman Catholic Church 7 Thanks 8 One priesthood 9 Membership numbers

[edit] Just checking

that you got my message, since you didnt reply to it. Ironholds (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My answer would not have been any different. What is not acceptable is to give notice about a move on Wikipedia and then provide no time any editor to a correction. The article is worthy of Wikipedia and could easily have been rewritten to satisfy Wikipedia policies. Instead there is now the absence of information. If I am not mistaken the notice was given after the article was already deleted, which makes no sense. When there is nothing left to be said, I dont' make a habit of repeating myself. I think the matter is closed. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I give my notices with Twinkle, so thats impossible; it would have tagged it for deletion and then immediately afterwards sent a message to you. and the whole "provide no time any editor to a correction" thing; i've said before, I AM NOT AN ADMIN. i didnt delete your page and have no control over when another admin deletes it. In addition, if an admin HAS deleted it, it means he agree's that its CSD material and not salvageable. Ironholds (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand now that you are not an admin and did not personally delete the article. Would that I could have talked to that twit; at least my anger would have been appropriately directed. In reality, it would be better if there was some policy that allowed a minimum time limit, say 24 hours, before deleting an article to allow others to comment. If not, the notice should be rewritten. You did not do anything wrong and I suspect the editor that deleted the article did nothing wrong. It is not a big deal. If you feel offended, please accept my apology. My position remains that the matter is closed; let's move on. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted; i'd in turn like to apologise for going a bit OTT. A time limit would be good; maybe the foundation is worried about some company finding their copyrighted info on the site and suing the trustee's for all they're worth. Ironholds (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:shunning

I'm just dropping you a line Storm Rider to explain the removals from Talk:shunning. The person using the Ip 128.111.95.110 is the banned user Anacapa. As per WP:BAN all edits made by ban evaders are to be reverted. I'm removing the recent and obvious comments by this banned user - if you don't mind comments that you have replied to should also be removed also--Cailil ^talk 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cailil, I looked at the discussion page and would be happy to delete my repsonses, but I think there is still a comment by the above editor under the LDS section. After that one is deleted I would be happy to remove my comments. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I think I've got the ones you were talking about--Cailil ^talk 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

Thank you for your message, no apology is necessary at all. I do not believe it to be a matter of faith; it is a matter of fact that the Catholic Church is not a dictatorial empire of brainwashed Vatican followers but a league of many different churches in communion forming "the Catholic Church". This is a fact, you don't need faith to realize that the Byzantine rite in Greece does not use the liturgy that say the Maronites use, or the Coptic Catholics or whatever. But thank you anyways, and I hope to see you around. Tourskin (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, I think I understand your position and nothing that is being discussed is meant to demean or belittle the nobility and solidarity found within Catholicism and its participative sister churches or its singular role within those churches. However, the position is irrelevant when discussing the Manual of Style. The principle we are discussing flies in the face of logic to me and to the way that I was taught English grammar, but none-the-less is what is commonly used today. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply on my talk page. Nice to see you around! Vassyana (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well theres some new messages on the talk page check it out. Tourskin (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please remember that civility is a requirement at Wikipedia. Your comments at Talk:Cult#Plural marriage by leaders appear to be excessively personal. It's unhelpful to speculate about the motives of other editors. Note also that the BLP policy applies to all living persons - making unsourced derogatory statements about living people, even on a talk page, in inappropriate. Many topics on Wikipedia excite passions, but this is an encyclopedia not a school yard. Please conduct yourself in a collegial manner. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and sharing your opinion with me. I may have been a little aggressive, but Milo has exceeded patience. Based upon his/her comments (s)he either purposely lied and simply was mistaken. I stated that I thought he was mistaken, but if he continued on his path his/her behavior would convince me of other things. There is no standard of a scholar, which he seems to think of himself/herself. Given his/her lack of knowledge of all other editors, I find his attempt at self-aggrandizement infantile. If he wants to be offended by my words, then I consider that a personal problem. He is overly POV and also aggressively attacks others; I eventually respond in kind. You don't start out declaring other editors' comments fallacious and then be completely mistaken about the facts. My invitation to him still stands; he needs a break from Wikipedia until such time as he can play nice.

Also, thank you for re-presenting my proposal about making a different section for polygynists. I think it an acceptable alternative and have failed to understand her insistence. Had Milo accepted doing that a while back we would not have needed the rather long diatribes of tit-for-tat stupidity that I find so distasteful. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Any normal person would find comments like "I find his attempt at self-aggrandizement infantile" offensive, as are claims that he "purposely lied". Please comment on the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for sharing your opinion. The bottom line is he misstated the facts to support his position. When caught he dodged the question and continued in the same path. Generally, when a error is made it is admitted; particularly when there is a editing dispute. He did nothing but attack me with some silliness about being a scholar and how scholars need to be treated.

As an aside, civility entails talking with the individual involved. This conversation does not include Milo. Respect is given freely, but it is lost through the result of bad actions. Milo has done just that and I don't have a much respect for him. You may be accustomed to him bullying others, but I am not and I will tolerate him to run rough shod over me or anyone else. If he is incapable of discussing an issue logically and honestly, it is better that he excuse himself until such time as he can. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Take heart and keep the chin up

The big downfall of Wikipedia is that, as a public stage, it is open to the participation of some of society's biggest poseurs. How many times do we have to hear about some twit spouting their qualifications only to find out they are anything but qualified. The fact that policy is used to cover their shenanigans and administrators willingly allow them free reign makes editing here tedious at tunes. However, if one can maintain a sense of humor it offers an unending display of laughable stupidity.

Fortunately, I believe that eventually intelligence will prevail and that idiocy's interest will wane and return to the embrace of television. Until then we must patiently bide our time. At least there is music to help pass the time and an unceasing prayer that eventually a lot more chlorine will be added to the gene pool. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

FAC has restarted, if you would like to vote, please go here [1] Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support vote at Roman Catholic Church NancyHeise (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your comments on Talk:Master Mahan that your comments there are not made personally. I do appreciate that because in light of your previous comments to me in April I think I probably have (had?) some good reasons to believe that you may be inclined to mock or otherwise be uncivil to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Though I work on a broad range of articles, my primary focus is Christianity, and in particular LDS movement related, articles. Because of the nature of religious-related topics strong emotions are often met and in crude terms, anti-Christian and anti-Mormons, are common. I have little patience with anyone whose edits can be interpreted as such.

In some respects, I believe the very nature of Wikipedia being open to absolutely anyone is one of its weaknesses; it is certainly not its strength because accurate information is our stock in trade. When a passing editor can vandalize articles or put in complete fabrication so easily it demands vigilance by all other editors. Sometimes I am far more likely to bite when I perceive editors as "anti" anything or new. It is a sign of my weak character. ;) This is a rather tortuously long way of saying if I have offended you I am sorry. If you think I am overly aggressive in the future, please let me know and I will spend more time expressing my position. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your words — I appreciate them and realise such apologies are not easy to make all the time. I too am sorry that I've offended you, if I have in the past in any way. You can rest assured that I'm probably not what one would call an "anti-Mormon" (I'm actually quite mainstreamed within the LDS movement), and I regret it if I came across as such. Best wishes, and hope to bump into you around WP again; hopefully it will be under better circumstances than the first time! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One priesthood

Not a big deal - but I don't get why we have to be exact in saying there is "one" priesthood. The sentence reads very awkwardly - especially to a non-Mormon who will look at it and think, "why are they saying that there is one priesthood?". Has there ever been a moment when the priesthood was not one? When I read the following sentence it is pretty crystal clear that there is a single priesthood with two levels: "The priesthood is divided into two levels". --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Descartes, if it is not a big deal why do you insist on only your position? Is it not possible that others feel differently than you? I think my repeated efforts at compromise and finally using, "There is one priesthood in the LDS church divided into two levels, the lower priesthood or..." was preferable to your edit above. Obviously, it is a big deal to you because you reverted me twice. I caution you that you are close to violating the three revert rule. More importantly you come close to demonstrating ownership of the article, which is not acceptable. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you misconstrue my intentions. Reverting an edit with a good description is one way to float an idea. If you disagree you can revert it back - once we get our backs to the wall of the three revert rule we can discuss in more detail before making more edits. All I am trying to do with the article is clean it up - it has a lot of grammar and copy edit problems. These things need to be addressed if it will ever get to a Featured Article status. But you didn't really respond to my question - all you said was your edit was preferable. So I am still in the dark as to why we need the awkward wording. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Membership numbers

I just floated an edit in the summary section (I left the church reported numbers, but removed the "fourth largest" wording based on discussion) - please take a look and revert if you disagree. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)