User talk:Storm Rider/Archive 6

Please don't remove the entire section on weddings and controversy. This is a section that has been present in this article for some time for obvious reasons wether you personally agree with it or not. This section has been carfully balanced to be non biased and is accurate. The talk section on references for this section is dated at 2006. I have up dated the refereces for this section some time ago. If you beleive that more work on this section needs to be done, lets talk about what needs to be done. Please don't just remove the whole section! This shows massive bias on your part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ant75 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and for your respect, of which I reciprocate; your comments are that of true child of God. Though I am not ashamed of anything I have said, I apologize if I have insulted anyone.Tourskin (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace with you. Or as they say in Aramaic, Shlama amkhon. Tourskin (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, pardon me, but I am curious as to inquire what denomination of Christianity you are. You seem to have an excellent knowledge in the LDS Church and very active in promoting unity. You may have guessed but I am an Eastern Rite Catholic born in Iraq. Tourskin (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have been a student of religion for most of my life. One can best understand my perception of Christianity by visualizing the time when all will bow at the feet of the Savior. At that moment, does it really matter whose tears have been left on his feet? Is the Catholic so much greater than the Lutheran's? Or is the Latter Saint better than those of non-denominational Protestant?

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by conversion and commitment. I believe firmly that truth is of inestimable value. However, I have never been able to put myself in a position where I can deny the Christianity of another. More importantly, I believe that all those who worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God and believe that God is active in their individual lives should stand together as disciples of the Holy One of Israel. I find that the more I study different religious histories, their stories of faith, their teachings, etc. I am enriched spiritually. Thank you for asking and continued Peace. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 12:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be tempted to believe that my asking you was motivated by an inner bias. In truth, I seek what you seek - brotherly love amongst all Christians throughout the world. It is written in Marks, gospel - he who is not against us is for us. This passage strikes me in how relevant it is today - I can only conclude and this is the only conclusion that I can 100% come up with is that Jesus Christ saw that his followers might bicker in the future - but we are not against each other. If an LDS Christian, a Lutheran or a Catholic or any Christian had to represent their faith in one line, that line would be identical in meaning and would revolve around the praising of our Master, God and his Only Son Jesus Christ, of whom we are not worthy to praise. Thank you for sating my curiosity. Tourskin (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And peace with you. Tourskin (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I'm writing this message to you to let you know (in case you're not aware of it) that there has been a question raised in Talk:Book of Mormon about conflict of interest concerns in relation to editors that are "Mormons". I have made an effort to make a response, duplicating my comments both in the relevant section of that talk page, and on the talk page of the user who started the discussion. I wanted to make you aware of this so that if there was an error of judgment on my part in what I said, that could be fixed before the editor who raised the issue gets his/her nose out of joint. I don't know for sure if this issue bears more discussion and further input from other editors, which is why I'm letting you know about this. If you have any questions/concerns about this issue or the way I handled it, feel free to either post them in the relevant subject of the page named, or shoot me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I'm just dropping a line to let you know that the issue raised by Calamitybrook has been resolved. He/she has admitted that the issue was raised just to ruffle some feathers, and has apologized to me for being a troll. He/she indicated to me that he/she will no longer be contributing to Mormon articles because he/she DOES have anti-Mormon bias to a certain degree. Also, on another matter: I am currently involved in a minor dispute with two other editors about what I feel is a poor choice of words in describing Kolob in the Book of Abraham article. I felt the need to get other editors' inputs on this issue before I continue to assert my opinion or back down, so I wonder if you'd be good enough to comment on it on the relevant talk page. I welcome your opinion, whatever it may be. I look forward to hearing what you have to say about this issue. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically VP is very outdated, and I (as well as the other former mods) were getting a lot of approval requests. There are no active developers, and maintaining that access lists was a real chore. We can't add other mods, or allow people to add themselves to the list, security for that is built in the program. Also, huggle is a new, extremely powerful, and at least one generation beyond VP, anti-vandalism tool. If you try that and still, for some reason, want to use VP, all of its features are present in m:Wikimonitor, which has no labor intensive access lists to maintain. So there was really no reason to have to put up with that upkeep. Prodego ^talk 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please throw your weight in here, either for or against my point. Gabr-el 06:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Storm Rider, its not like I dont have anything else to do but I designed a signature for you if you are interested. It looks like this:

^StormRider

If you want to use this for your signature, copy the signature above from the "edit" version of this section. Then click on "my preferences" at the top of this screen and paste it into the box that says "Signature". Then click on the box immediately below it that says Raw signature and save the page - you will have a neat new signature. Let me know if you don't like the colors and don't feel like you have to change anything if you're happy with the present sig - my feelings wont be hurt :) NancyHeise ^talk 17:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What a kind thing to have done. I would have never thought of such a thing nor had the ability to do so. Random acts of kindness share the Spirit of Christ more effectively than all the words we can say. Thank you.--^StormRider 18:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John_Foxe. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --John Foxe (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No rule forbids me from deleting messages on my talk page.--John Foxe (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you still need some assistance? Vassyana (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to send a friendly pat on the back your way. You're versed in religion in a way I aspire to be and you're far more eloquent and civil than I can hope to force myself to be.

As an editor you're a fantastic role model for a newbie. Many thanks for the example! Prosper and Bo (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A partial explanation for what's seemed inexplicable is revealed on my talk page.--John Foxe (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be the only way to contact you. Since when is correcting an incorrect entry "vandalism"? The entry used to read "Windows Vista Records" and I changed it to "Buena Vista Records", which is correct. I resent receiving a message accusing me of something I haven't done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.1.255.105 (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon, the warning you were given in September of 2007 was for this edit. Cheers.--^StormRider 16:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [1]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 23:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if you could look at this artcile for deletion [2] Cheers 60.229.34.127 (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please come give us your opinion by voting here [3], Thanks!   NancyHeise ^talk 17:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here [4] but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward. NancyHeise ^talk 03:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Xandar conducted a new discussion on the use of "official" our original sentence going into FAC that survived Peer Review and several months of mutliple editors. I have agreed not to vote on this one but to agree to whatever consensus of editors decides. Can you please come back for one more vote here: [5]. Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all. NancyHeise ^talk 15:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So like, if I can ask a personal question, what happened to you in October last year? Were you chained to a hospital bed with a laptop for the entire month? Unschool (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, that was really a function of using VandalProof for vandalism control rather than real editing. I got a little "excited" about the program at that point. My professional career allows for a flexible schedule, but I obviously had more time on my hands. Wikipedia is a personally addictive hobby where I now try to be a little more in control to please my wife. Thanks for asking, Cheers. --^StormRider 16:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Storm. Looks like you started to create an archive for the Reformed Egyptian talk page but then didn't complete the transfer of the material? All the best, John Foxe (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John, I must have got busy with other things and instead of saving the window, I closed it. Not very bright on my part, but now it should be fixed. Cheers. --^StormRider 21:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article. NancyHeise ^talk 01:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Nancy and Xandar display a hope that is beyond me; I would have quit some time ago rather than face the onslaught they have. When criticism cannot be clarified in specifics, then it amounts to 'I just don't like it', which is unworthy of any process on Wikipedia. How is an article meritorious if it is not balanced? Why would we not want to know the essence of the Catholic position rather than just the opposing view or something less than the viewpoint of the RCC?"

A friend gave me a tip-off about the RCC article. Your comments above are pretty general themselves, but look like they still hit the nail on the head, imo. A massive article like RCC, through no fault of its own, is very vulnerable to all sorts of lines of criticism, that cannot be assumed to be valid. (Something similar could be said of the actual subject of the article also.) I think you are spot on to direct attention to the way process is stretched in cases like this also. But at that point, we do hit things that are "beyond criticism" in practice, despite sound Wiki theory that process is as open to edit as anything else.

Now that places the burden on us to be as specific about suggesting improvement to process as we think criticism always ought to be.

To that end, in my reading, you place your finger on a well-known and documented issue—that a desire to reflect every view-point can result in weasling the topic the reader came to learn about. Because of its close association with the broader topic of Christianity, alternative viewpoints to Catholicism are more numerous, not less numerous, than Christianity itself. This makes free-standing articles for various alternative points of view more viable than for most topics, hence liberating us from the impossibility of squeezing them into the parent article itself. RCC is a very top level article, I would have though it needs to be a kind of "lead" for a suit of articles, the most important thing is summary and linking. Detail, where it exists needs to default to a "mainstream" description. Less should be said, not more.

Anyway, just some moral support. I think you're pushing in the right direction with your comments. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know how Nancy has continued to be positive after working as hard has she has. The RCC article is a top-level article and it should focus on broad brush strokes; however, editors when reviewing the article often want to see everything they have ever heard negative about the church. If they don't see it they immediately think that its history is being whitewashed. More importantly, those who have "heard" things, often are lacking in knowledge of the reality of the issue. Regardless, thank you for the thoughts. I am only a very minor player on that article, but it is one that I care about. Peace. --^StormRider 07:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for your work at Gender of God!

I am particularly impressed that your explanation of the Mormon view includes presentation of scriptures that have been criticised.

Like the RCC article, it is not the place for the GoG article to digress into every last criticism of particular views of each tradition.

So, as far as I'm concerned, the Mormon view gets presented neutrally (not apologetically) without getting tangled in details of the Trinity unrelated to gender.

One possibility might need to be considered. I know that Catholic and Protestant views of God's gender do not diverge. In other words, there is no need for separate sections. It might be too much to expect that Mormon views are identical with respect to gender. But were this so, separate sections are irrelevant to the topic and either polemics against Christianity as divided, or partisan sectarianism advertising alternatives.

I think we may face some separation on the basis of details related to gender, and nomenclature and categorisation might be a bit tricky, but I do think it would be odd if difference were to be stressed over similarity.

The work you have done to make it easier for me (and ultimately readers) to understand the Mormon view is very much appreciated. I hope you will not feel badly as I poke around and work with you on other sources to ensure that we have enough to guarantee that what we produce can be accepted by a highly critical reader as authentic.

I hope you will not underestimate my trust in you if, while relying a lot on your guidance, I still work on tying things tightly to published work.

I'm getting the ghost of an idea that I might just be able to sell to Tim, and that you might be content with also.

I think you might both agree, because it will be true, fair and clear. I think it will be possible because it will leave irrelevant arguments unstated. Those are covered elsewhere anyway.

Best wishes to you, Alastair Haines (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My issue has been on the attempts to segregate the LDS Church from Christianity; that is unacceptable and is POV. What is an absolute fact is that Mormonism is not Catholicism or Protestantism, but to attempt to say it is not Christianity goes farther than is scholarly possible. I am speaking in secular terms. Please understand that I am very well aware of the mainstream apologists and churches and their respective positions of Mormonism. I also understand how they define Christianity, but I also understand that they make assumptions based upon their beliefs and they are not the final arbiters of Christianity or Christian history. Christianity from the time shortly after Christ was seldom a monolithic system of belief, but rather a system of varied beliefs and doctrines.

I would encourage you to verify my statements and to look at other sources, particularly those that are critical of the Church as well as LDS sources. I am more than familiar with the vast majority anti-Mormons and some are better than others. I do have a knee-jerk reaction to that which I deem anti-Mormonism. There is a difference between legitimate criticism and anti-Mormonism and I do not confuse the two. The problem is that far too often the latter is passed off as if it legitimate criticism.

I encourage a strict adherence to the topic as you have stated above. This article is not about the differences between mainstream Christian churches' doctrine and those of the LDS Church, but it is about gender among religions. I would be careful about drawing to broad a brush stroke between Catholic and Protestant doctrines. With over 36,000 Christian denominations, I think you will find a breadth of doctrines to review.

In closing, again, there is not sense of distrust by verifying my statements. However, just as I support that the Catholic Church is the only real source for declaring Catholic doctrines, the same applies to the LDS Church. It is virtually impossible to gain a complete, clear picture of LDS teachings from anyone other than the LDS Church itself. --^StormRider 10:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is accepted at Wiki that the mainstream Communist view should be presented, and then criticism summarised. There is sometimes a different standard at Wiki in religion articles, but especially in Christianity related ones.

I also agree that all criticism is not legitimate criticism. The LDS suffers from the latter, as do all points of view, and any legitimate critic can concede this. Sometimes people can find the difference, even in discussion, hard to recognise.

I, for example, do not know enough about the LDS to judge Tim's criticism. I do know enough about him to know that he is a generous, honourable, friendly and sincere man. But I will not press that point just now. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not wanting to get into a revert war over a simple category add, from Christian mythology. "Christian mythology (μῦθος (mythos) in Greek) is the body of traditional narratives associated with Christianity. Many Christians believe that these narratives are sacred and that they communicate profound truths. These traditional narratives include, but are not necessarily limited to, the stories contained in the Christian Bible."

Jesus, the stories to do with him form part of christian mythology. Not a big deal, just helps to have all the relevant bits of the religion showing up in categories.. NathanLee (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nathan, thanks for the comment. I have looked at this category in the past. At the time it was reserved for what I perceive as proper Christian mythology such as stories of the three wisemen, specific angels, and relics. Those things that are extra-biblical, but are held as "faith" promoting stories by religious groups. As I review the category today it seems like the parameters have been expanded.

From a strictly secular academic POV, we often speak of all religion as mytholgy. Joseph Campbell was excellent in his descriptions of religion as myth. However, to the common reader the term mythology carries a distinct POV; in the context of everyday parlance, the false beliefs of the ancient world and its civilization. If our audience was limited to a college-educated and brighter than those college graduates one sees being questioned by Jay Leno, I can see labeling all religion as myth. It could be understood in the proper context. However, given that our readership is more common, I reject the use of the such a term. Does this make sense to you?

I would also strongly encourage that those articles be deleted from the category as well as that for Islamic mythology. Someone has been active in expanding both of these categories. Cheers. --^StormRider 08:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In reference to this: [6], are you sure? Your edit seems to make the article say that the church doesn't consider adults to be mentally capable of differentiating between right and wrong. I don't know anything about the topic so maybe that's the case, but it seems doubtful. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:55, 29 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Ah nevermind, I misread. Sorry. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:57, 29 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed you removed Image:Brigham Young and company 1870.PNG from LDS Church. My objective in its inclusion was to summarize visually the important pioneer era of the Church. Would you reconsider its inclusion (maybe making it smaller or right-justifying it [as I had it originally]), or can you suggest a more appropriate pioneer image? I thought this was a double win--highlighting the pioneer subject matter while including a bit about Brigham Young, a most important figure in the Church's history and legacy.

Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure you noticed this message as well, but I'd appreciate your input on this too. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed it. The placement of the picture and its size are the two biggest concerns. Its previous position and size took over the front part of the article. I can't remember the wording that was used, but as I recall it seemed to focus on BY; maybe if the wording was changed to focus on the pioneer heritage during the time of Brigham Young. I wish I knew of a pioneer heritage that was more in keeping with the handcarts, or the travails these people went through to find a place where persecution did not exist, but one that is usable does not readily come to mind. Cheers. --^StormRider 04:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you know if I find an image that is more general to the Mormon pioneer theme. I'd just like to have something visual in there about it, since it is a huge part of the legacy and history of the Church. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You moved Image:Salt Lake Temple, Utah - Sept 2004-2.jpg (edit summary: "format") to a section about Jesus Christ, while I think it is more applicable to the History section (the temple taking 40 years to build and serving as the focal point of the Church for many years). What was your rationale for this move? Space out pictures more? --Eustress (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Laziness mostly and not a strict preference or well-thought-out decision. Someone had deleted the TOCright command and after reviewing several different screen sizes I assumed that the Anon was motivated by a desire to not see a crowded front sections. I then looked for an empty section that was remotely close and got Jesus. I wouldn't mind you moving it at all to a more applicable place. Cheers and Happy New Year. --^StormRider 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I happen to agree with your stance about reverting the article to the correct spelling (and negating my own suggestion). I've been so bloodied in a couple of similar battles, I didn't think I had a chance of managing it on my own. (wry grin)

Thanks. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I'd like to suggest a gentler tone in your edit summaries instead of biting. First of all, I'm not sure it's "crap". Since I'm pretty ignorant on Mormonism, perhaps you can explain to me why it is crap. It gave the "Words of Joseph Smith" as a source. Now, that's a primary source and so it would be better to find a secondary source. However, is it crap because it's false or because it's poorly written and poorly sourced?

Even if it is crap, there are softer ways to explain why you're deleting something.--Richard (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Richard, sorry for the poor word choice. It was very early in the morning...when insomnia is around I pass time at times with Wikipedia. This was a very poorly written and poorly sourced piece of writing that somehow got passed most of us that watch this page. As a LDS, I don't mind have positive things written, but the editor who wrote this seemed to be writing an apologetic piece that was unnecessary. I am an apologist in that I am a faithful LDS, but there is a time and place for it; this was not one of them. Thanks for the chastisement; it is deserved. Cheers. --^StormRider 21:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I began a Request for Mediation here [7] and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here [8] to agree to participate. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For eloquently and articulately contributing to a discussion, working to ensure the ultimate success of Wikipedia as a whole. Cheers! Eustress (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well said on Talk:Criticism_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#What_about_a_title_change.3F. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just made a proposal here - your support is necessary, or could you propose an alternative? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so much recruiting you to support my position regarding the proposal to merge Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints back into Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement as I am asking you to review the discussion and weigh in as you deem appropriate. I think everyone agrees that Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement was too long but there are so many subsidiary articles that it is difficult to determine the best way to organize this material. Although I disagree with Descartes1979, I understand some of why he is frustrated with my boldly implemented solution. I look forward to hearing your opinion on his comments and my responses.

There is a similar discussion over at Talk:Criticism of Mormon sacred texts. I would appreciate it if you would weigh in on that discussion as well.

--Richard (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Storm Rider,

I confess to being something of an ignoramus regarding LDS movement and Mormonism. Could you explain what was wrong with this edit? I didn't understand your edit comment about "primary text does not define interpretation".

I have noticed that there are sporadic attempts to make edits regarding polygamy and Mormonism/LDS movement. Could you give me a short tutorial on what you see to be the more frequent types of undesirable edits and why they are undesirable? Thanx.

--Richard (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Richard, the reason I reverted that edit was twofold: 1) the editor is known to me and he was using a primary reference to support a specific interpretation of scripture. His interpretation is debatable and questionable. Further, that it was a doctrine of salvation, which it has never been. 2) the editor then went on to say that the reason all did not participate in polygamy was there was a dearth of women and the statement was supported by an anti-Mormon website and text. I have never heard any reputable historian support anything that remotely reassembles that position.

Historians have stated that there were anywhere from 4% to 30% (it depends on the historian and time period they wrote) of the Mormon people that participated in polygamy. The principle was based upon the concept to raise righteous seed unto the Lord. Individuals were generally asked to participate, to accept a plural wife. Those who did participate were the leaders of the church.

It was never taught that participating in polygamy was fundamental requirement to salvation. Salvation is open to all who follow Christ; that is the doctrine of the Church. LDS believe in a three major kingdoms or degrees of glory. Each kingdom is also divided into differing degrees of glory. Some leaders taught that those who achieved the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom would also participate in or have plural wives. What was being proposed is a twisting of LDS teaching and history, in addition to outright fabrication and fringe historical commentary.

The LDS Church formally abandoned polygamy in 1890 with the Manifesto. However, there were individual LDS who continued to enter into polygamous marriages after that date, most of them excommunicated for their actions. I don't believe it was absolute i.e. all were excommunicated. Some moved to Mexico or Canada where polygamy was allowed. Shortly thereafter the Church declared that all polygamists marriages were to cease. At this time men with plural wives stopped living as man and wife and monogamy was maintained.

When the topic is Mormonism we have to be respectful of those groups that never practiced polygamy. For example, the Community of Christ, previously the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, never taught or practiced polygamy. I think polygamy should be mentioned, but given the topic it should be linked so that the topic is discussed in detail and where it is most appropriate. D

Edits that I will revert are those I view as generally the ignorant, those editors who have just heard something, but are confused or ignorant of the subject matter. Those that are writing from a strong POV, pro or con, will motivate me to revert. Editors who interject concepts that are already discussed later in the article will also be reverted. Does this make sense to you? I appreciate the questions; if I have not been as thorough as you would desire please let me know.--^StormRider 18:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd love your input for a new policy for Wikipedia regarding religious articles. Take a look at what I've started and lend me any input you wish. It's at Wikipedia:Religion. Thanks, Twunchy (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Storm Rider, I have made a motion to close the mediation for reasons described here [9]. Please come and post either your agreement or disagreement at the same link. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd avoid making accusations like this. making things personal like that is almost never conductive to a friendly dispute resolution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Chris, thank you for the comment. However, I was very disappointed by this editor's desire to tie my request to a single article. I am not the only one who uses floating TOC. The current guidance is nil. From what I can gather some editors feel strongly that the default format is the default for a reason and it should be preserved. Others feel just as strongly that using alternative formating is beneficial. Consensus is always valuable, but it would seem that instead of getting consensus on each article, we should strive to gain consensus in the MOS, thus guiding all editors.

As an aside, why allow this editor to confuse the issue. I am offended that he is allowed the opportunity to spin my request into a petty dispute rather than a focus on the main topic. I feel very much hounded by this specific editor and I don't appreciated. Having been around since 2004 I am beginning to feel very unwelcome in the work I do here and it all revolves around this single editor. How does she get away with calling my religion a strange sect? Then after doing so, I am the only one singled out for "personal attacks". I don't seek out editing disputes, I have never been blocked, and I resent the feeling I get from being bullied by an editor I have never worked with, but who just pops up one day demanding that the default format be used. There is no clear direction from any MOS article on when to use a floating TOC. I can therefore only assume that it can be used when an editor thinks the article is improved by its use. If it is otherwise, let's clarify the directions and I will abide by it. --^StormRider 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I rather think you're confusing "there is no rule against it" with "there is no consensus against it". There definitely is consensus that the TOC's placement should not be overridden lightly, much as there is with everything conformity-wise in the MoS. I'm not going to get into your dispute with the other editor, save to say that your position will look a lot stronger if you personally refrain from making it personal. In my experience, "he started it" is one of the weakest arguments around on WP when it comes to resolving such things. The less personally one takes things around here the better. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the problem; MoS does state not to change the default lightly. However, it does not provide guidance as to when it may merit a change. I certainly agree with editors that see a latitude in a default setting. To have a default facilitates writing articles for all, but does not serve as an answer for all formatting issues. I see no reason not to use a floating TOC when it improves the presentation of data or narrative; however, that is far too subjective for a rule given the current verbiage.

Understood, this one is a little strange for me. I prefer to ignore these types of silly disputes particularly when I am focusing on a more global issue. I do not suffer fools lightly; a personal weakness that I acknowledge. I will attempt to completely ignore her until she tires of editing the articles I watch. If I limit my editing to recent changes, ignore my watchlist, it should then be easy to demonstrate if she is really hounding me or not. If I do see continued hounding, I will let you know. Cheers and thank you. --^StormRider 23:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Number one, I'm a man, and I'm not hounding you, I'm just using my huge watchlist (you are of course on it) and following this subject wherever it leads, since I too am interested in it. I have left a comment on the MOS page, and I think we are both interested in consistency most of all. That's all. This should be dealt with at the policy/guideline level, not at the article level. Go for it! It's worth a try. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you putting your two cents in the discussion about whether or not CIA activites should be put into the article about US Military History events. Your Einstein analogy was a good one. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. We're very excited that you signed up for our Wiki focus group. However, our confirmation email bounced. Could you contact us at commprac@u.washington.edu so that we can send you the directions? Thanks again for agreeing to participate! Commprac01 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider, we are voting at mediation on the name of the Church here [10]. Are you OK with changing the article name to Catholic Church and having a lead sentence that states "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church"? Please cast your vote so we can either find consensus or not for this suggestion. Thanks.

 

Hello, Storm Rider. You have new messages at Str1977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Storm Rider, if get a chance could you weigh in at this article's talk page? I am being bombarded by George Wythe College supporters (maybe just one using sockpuppets), as well as what may be Oliver DeMille himself editing his own article. The appropriate thing may be to just to delete the article at this point. Thanks! --TrustTruth (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This article does appear as if it has been written by the individual himself or is very close to him and his personal records. I question the notability of the article; are there any secondary sources to support his notability? If not, the article should probably be brought up for deletion. --^StormRider 20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

since he was a college president, he is by WP:PROF therefore notable. DGG (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added the This article is covered by the LDS work group template to temples 100-129, but for some reason it doesn't work on temple 104. 96.8.229.106 (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is working now; no?--^StormRider 23:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am IP 96.8.229.106 and I have completed temples 69-129. Tomorrow I will do the rest (I hope). LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Temple #50 does not belong to the Latter Day Saint movement project. Should I add it to the project and work group? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That is the Missouri temple; yes it belongs. Great work!#REDIRECT Target page name

All the temples are now complete. Should I also mark the temples that are currently announced or under construction? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have also added Temple #50 to the LDS movement Wikiproject and the LDS work group. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:John Carter (a coordinator for WP Christianity) has told me that I should remove the WP LDS movement templates and replace them with WP Christianity templates. I am going with his advice. Do you want me to do something different? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a wise decision. These templates work in order of priority and I can see why the Christianity template would supercede the LDS movement template. I personally do not work much with templates, but choose to focus on editing and correcting vandalism. John is a good editor and one that I trust. I am sorry that I did not think of it sooner, but I do appreciate your work. Cheers. --^StormRider 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to add the work group to the WP Christianity template? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I am now adding the LDS work group and the LDS movement Wikiproject to the WP Christianity templates which are located on temple talk pages. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please look over the WP Christianity template on the Salt Lake temple talk page. I labeled the importance for the work group at High, but it doesn't show. I will be back at the computer in 1 hour. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Jesus born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life free of sin, performed miracles, bled in the Garden, was crucified for our sins, rose on the third day, appeared again to his disciples, returned to sit on the right hand of the Father, and will return again one day" I was surprised to see a reference to Jesus bleeding in the garden given such prominence along with the high points of Jesus' life. Is there some interpretation that gives this scene particular importance? Leadwind (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

LDS believe that Jesus' experience in the Garden is vital to the Atonement. It is in the Garden that LDS believe Jesus accepts the full weight of sins of the world. He prays that not his will, but that of his Fathher takes precedence. The price was paid on the cross, but his passion in the Garden remains a pivatol point. Catholicism acknowledges the passion in the garden, but I sense a difference in the degree of weight placed on the event between the two groups. This is a spontaneous response; more often than not I do not use that phrase, it was more a spur of the moment thought. Does this help?--^StormRider 13:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Leadwind (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)