User talk:Pete Snowball

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Lsjzl 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Way International Pics

 * Pete, the Roman Catholic Church page has TWENTY-FIVE pictures on it ... including one of St. John's Basilica ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church ). And the Mormon Church page has 11 pictures on it, including 3 of their buildings ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Church ). What's the difference? Pictures enrich the encyclopedia experience ... what's wrong with 1 picture?


 * Nonetheless, I won't post the picture until we come to some kind of an agreement. Stanleygoodspeed777 13:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Way International rv
Hi, Pete. In Victor Paul Wierwille, you reverted my cleanup edits of moving the religion stub tag, calling it "deletions made by anonymous, opinionated person." How am I anonymous, and how is a simple cleanup opinionated? Did you revert the wrong edit? --Mike Straw 14:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to the content BEFORE your edit. I didn't mean to change YOUR edit in the process. In hindsight, I should just have manually retyped in the changes. The revert was from an anonymous person who deleted some links, and removed the cause of death-probably because this specific cause of death is controversial for reasons worth discussing at length. Pete Snowball 14:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You done good - looking back at it, it looks like someone else already re-added the cause of death and our edits just crossed in cyberspace. The whole set of TWI articles seems to be the target of some pro-TWI folks who are bent on removing all references to any negative publicity about them, regardless of the facts. --Mike Straw 15:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, have only seen the tip of the iceberg. Let me know if the Death Certificate is as appropriate as I think it is-and how to upload it. Next time-I'd prefer to go slowly until I'm really good at this, because haste makes for sloppy edits (as we just saw.) Pete Snowball 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Way International CPOV edits
"You guys can't make cultic assertions when 1) you've never read any material from The Way, 2) you don't know anyone who works there or has attended their fellowships, 3) you've never been to their headquarters or any of their fellowships, 4) you seem to have a clear bias against religious organizations you think might be a cult, and 5) it has already been deemed counterproductive to maintaining NPOV by throwing the "cult" word around (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_22).

You seem to be trying to define this organization by the rumors and stories from a handful of people who have clear bias and animosity towards TWI because of events that happened 10-15 years ago. Why not get some info from people who are attending their fellowships TODAY and who are working their TODAY ... you can even find some of Victor Paul Wierwille's books on eBay?" (Here ends the post by the anonymous coward.)

__________

"If any of that were true, then you might have something of value to add to the discussions. Since ALL of that is untrue, all you're doing is rumor-mongering, which is what TWI said that the minions of The Adversary do-they accuse innocent people of what they THEMSELVES do.

Rather than sneaking around editing things to suit your own personal POV, why not dare to actually JOIN THE DISCUSSIONS? Afraid to speak when you don't run the microphone? A level playing-field isn't to your liking?" Pete Snowball 06:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

__________

"What did I accuse you of?" [Here ends the post by the anonymous coward.]

"Scroll up, o anonymous coward, and see. Do you really need me to type back what you yourself wrote a few lines up? My best advice for you is only a few lines up-and below your own post. I trust you have a reading ability sufficient to read your posts and my own? Pete Snowball 13:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC) "Oh-and I'll be deleting ANONYMOUS comments from here on in. If you want to discuss anything with me, sign up and sign in. I don't debate random voices in the distance."Pete Snowball 13:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So I'm a coward because I'm not used to signing in? Thanks for the kind words, man. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop ripping me, dude. Let's find some common ground so we don't have any edit wars. Stanleygoodspeed777 00:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still open to dialogue, as I said. Now, if "common ground" means "must agree with you in spite of logic and evidence", we're not going to find any common ground. Otherwise, we have a chance to find some. Please note that it is often very difficult for TWI insiders to dialogue and agree to disagree with people, or respect them and also not control the microphone. This means that you will need to make a special effort to overcome this if you want to have a civil discussion. As least one current editor has been consistent and successful in doing so-and is a TWI insider. This means it is an attainable goal.  Oh, and one of the least successful ways to earn my respect is to try to pass lies or deceptive behavior past me.  Protestations of innocence cut little ice with me in the face of evidence.  Then again, I do believe in second/third/fourth chances, so you may still earn my respect if you put in the effort to "reform."Pete Snowball 13:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank God - we're talking ... don't appreciate the condescension or the assumption that I cannot communicate reasonably ... but we're talking. By common ground I mean that we are going to have inherent points of logic that we agree on, so let's find 'em and move forward from there. Stanleygoodspeed777 13:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)