User talk:Ren Sydrick/Archive 1

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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Amalthea Talk 17:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Re: the Pantheism entry
Hi Ren Sydrick. Somebody emailed me about helping to improve the Pantheism entry. My spam program deleted it before I could read it. If this was you, please could you resend it? I am interested and can get other interested people involved. It's badly needed, the article has been the focus of many edit wars, some of them highly uninformed and very tendentious. Naturalistic Talk 09:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reverting edits
Of course, that's why I left it there. An easy way to revert to a specific version is clicking on the date in the page history you want to revert to, then just click "edit" (it will display a warning that you are editing an older revision) & "save" (with some edit summary, even if it's just "revert" or "rv"). There are more advanced tools that can be used if you find yourself reverting vandalism often, check out "Navigation Popups" and "Twinkle" in the gadgets tab in Special:Preferences. With NavPopups, you can point on the revision in the history you want to revert to and click "actions"&rarr;"revert". That should of course only be used to revert clear vandalism, if good faith edits are undone you should always provide a meaningful edit summary. HTH & Cheers, Amalthea Talk 18:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I notice you already use Twinkle? In that case, here's how to do it with that:
 * If you look at the diff you want to undo, the older revision has a brown "restore this version" link you can click. It will revert, and ask you for an additional edit summary. If you're undoing vandalism or blatantly unconstructive edits, just press return.
 * If you're looking at a diff and the newer revision is the current revision, like with this, you also have three links right above the current revision that you can use. Those will undo all consecutive edits made by the user who saved the revision. The Vandal-link will use an automatic edit summary, the other two will let you add something to it. They will also open the users talk page so that you can add a notice or a warning.
 * See WP:Twinkle/doc. -- Amalthea Talk 18:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jediism
Sorry, I'm really quite busy right now, so I still haven't gotten around to look into it in depth. In general I agree with Jerzy's initial concerns, the problem with that topic is that there are hardly any reliable secondary sources that can be used to build an article from, last I looked (You'll notice that very early on the talk page I suggested redirecting it to Jedi altogether). The few non-primary sources seem to always focus on the "nerds in costumes" rather then the ideas behind it. Also, I don't think it's treated unfairly. If you look at Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism or even Rastafari, the first references provided are to support that those are considered religions, and quite naturally, the more contentious a topic is, the more it needs reliable sources to back its statements, the lead section of Scientology for example is bursting with references. I'll comment on the talk page once I find the time to work through it, but that won't be before December I'm afraid. You two seem to be working on it constructively, but if you want other opinions on the matter you could ask at WT:RELIGION or request a WP:third opinion. I hope that helps at least a little, sorry again. Cheers, Amalthea Talk 16:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Jediism Article
Greetings again... I apologize if this sounds petty, but I would request that you please not remove the external link for the Oklahoma Temple of the Jedi(The Jedi Praxeum) again. This website is a valid, official website for a Jediism Temple(church), and thereby according to WP:EL, is eligible for inclusion. "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." I understand that it may seem like I have a biased view concerning this link, but it is above all else a stable link. Both the Temple of the Jedi Force website, and the Temple of the Jedi Order website, while also valid and eligible for inclusion in the external links section have been experiencing a number of server/administrator-related difficulties resulting in varying periods of downtime for both sites, usually simultaneously as they are both on the same server. Considering this fact, it is especially important to keep another stable external link.

I have also been working on archiving old and out of date material on the Oklahoma Temple of the Jedi(The Jedi Praxeum) website, and replacing it with updated and more complete material. There is now a more complete, updated version of Jediism Doctrine on said website, which I have also referenced in the Jediism article. With the holidays, I am a bit behind schedule, but I am working on more updated material both for the Oklahoma Temple of the Jedi(The Jedi Praxeum) website and for the Jediism article.

Incidentally, the Jediism Doctrine reference I added includes the following copyright disclaimer: "This Doctrine was written and compiled by the Council of Masters of the Oklahoma Temple of the Jedi, also known as the Jedi Praxeum. It contains original works which are copyright of the Oklahoma Temple of the Jedi, also known as the Jedi Praxeum, as well as materials which are copyright of Lucasfilm used under fair use for educational and religious purposes. This Doctrine may be used freely and without permission provided due credit is given to both the the Oklahoma Temple of the Jedi, also known as the Jedi Praxeum, and all other respective copyright holders including Lucasfilm." There are other Jediism groups which are considering updating their own Jediism Doctrine with this version, and it includes significantly more real-world applicable material than previous versions. If it would be acceptable to do so, relevant portions or the entire copy of this version of the Jediism Doctrine is available for inclusion in the Jediism article. May the Force be with you. Jedimasterkyp (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to your reply, I mainly read which sites could be included. Considering the criteria under which the The Jedi Praxeum - Oklahoma Jedi Temple website is considered ineligible, I assert that the The Jedi order - Canada - Canadian order branch (Primarily a social networking forum, see http://www.orderofthejedi.ca/webapps/site/70879/98235/chat/forum.html), the The Jediism Way - Features a website, Blog section, and FAQ's (See Blog Section, on the main page), Temple Of The Jedi Order - Beaumont, Texas Jedi Temple website and Temple Of The Jedi Force - A sister group of the TOTJO, this website focuses primarily on "Pure Jediism" (These are both social networking sites, both sites' main pages are "portals" for their respective forums and blogs),  as well as The Jedi Sanctuary - A Jedi congregation of the Universal Life Church (ULC) (Primarily a social networking forum, see http://www.jedisanctuary.org/forum) sites are all ineligible under the same guidelines for which the The Jedi Praxeum - Oklahoma Jedi Temple website was removed. The only external link which has no "obvious" social networking(community) forum is The Jedi church - World's first worldwide Jedi church,  and even it has an oddly formatted forum (see http://www.jedichurch.org/webapps/site/4448/5936/chat/forum.html). I am not suggesting that all of these sites be removed, of course, but make it equal.

I will also add that it should not be considered link spamming, as the article is about Jediism, and the The Jedi Praxeum - Oklahoma Jedi Temple website is not advertising or selling anything. Like all other active Jediism sites, it is a valid part of the often dynamic Jediism community. The unique nature of Jediism's dynamic and primarily online community should preclude such links(including the other links I myself listed) from the WP:ELNO, as it is a unique and not a "normal" situation. Furthermore, the The Jedi Praxeum - Oklahoma Jedi Temple website is not the full extent of the Oklahoma Jedi Temple's activity. The Oklahoma Jedi Temple also has an "offline" presence as well, which makes it notable along with such sites as the Holyhead Jedi Church.

As for the copyright information, I will do a bit more research and get back to you. It strikes me as peculiar, because most Jediism sites utilize material which is copyright of Lucasfilm, yet are considered valid. If we're really concerned about copyright issues in the Jediism article, then all copyrights of Lucasfilm should be treated equally, which includes Jedi, the Jedi Code, the "Dark Side" and "Lights Side" of "The Force", etc. The word Jediism itself is not copyright of Lucasfilm as far as I know, but as no profit is being made or sought from the concept and religion of Jediism, including it's references to the Star Wars(copyright Lucasfilm) fiction, Lucasfilm allows it. Especially since many consider Jediism to be a fan-based offshoot, and Lucasfilm unlike some other franchises are very supportive of fan endeavors. Jedimasterkyp (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I'll remove the article. Shii (tock) 19:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ace of Spades (junction)
You made an edit to this page suggesting it was non-notable. The page already contains a reference to an enquiry made in the UK Parliament with a reply by a Government ministry explicitly referencing the Ace of Spades as a road junction. There are plenty of other sources on the web referencing the Ace of Spades as a road junction, but a reference by central Govt as an answer to a question in Parliament seems the strongest source - repetition of multiple sources for the sake of it seems unnecessary. Could you explain what additional feature you deem necessary for notability ? Pmbma (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Pmbma

Tampa Bay Rays Radio Network
You've said that the page is confusing. How is it confusing? It's a list of radio stations that air the Tampa Bay Rays broadcasts. It's a network. Also, some of the users on WP:WPRS have established that radio networks are notable. Thanks for your time.Stereorock (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see now. Yeah, it was a starter article until more information is included-time permitting.  Somebody deleted the station list saying Wikipedia is not a directory but I say, how can you have an article about a network without listing the stations, especially when it's on other pages.  There are other sports radio network pages that are more in-depth.  I just haven't yet gotten around to the Rays yet.  It'll be better! ;)Stereorock (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi there, I'd just like to say thank you for your contribution to the list of New Religious Movements and involvement with the discussion with Cirt. He has removed Jediism from the list of NRMs twice now, and each time I have cited several references which show it is a new religious movement. Although they do not use the words 'new religious movement', they all claim it was founded 'recently' or 'last year', and they are articles written within the 21st Century - surely that means it is a new religious movement, right? I once again thank you for your co-operation, I appreciate it. Kai Tatsu (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to thank you for pointing out my misunderstanding on the addition on the List of religious founders. Many thanks, Kai Tatsu (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your comment on my Talk Page. Please go here:User Talk:Kai Tatsu to view the message. Many thanks, May the Force be with you. Kai Tatsu (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your comment on my Talk Page. Please go here:User Talk:Kai Tatsu to view the message. Many thanks, May the Force be with you. Kai Tatsu (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your comment on my Talk Page. Please go here:User Talk:Kai Tatsu to view the message. Many thanks, May the Force be with you. Kai Tatsu (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of Jediism
Hi Ren, what did 84.0.108.107 do to the Jediism page? I saw his abusive, disrespectful comment on the discussion page, but did he edit the article itself? Kai Tatsu (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

languages by number of speakers
Off topic: my wife speaks Hebrew better than English but writes English better than Hebrew. My elder son’s best language is his third one – English. My other two children were bilingual Hebrew-English until my middle child had an autistic regression, totally lost his language skills and actually has no language. Eddau (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

NPA
I won't bother with a template. You're experienced enough to know the policy. Personal attacks, such as you made on the Jediism talk page, are not allowed. Consider this a friendly reminder. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Neo-Pantheism
Hi Ren, I am not sure if you are part of the WIkipedia hierarchy, however I have serious concerns about the article on Neo-Pantheism. This is no different from Pantheism in general, and the author(s) of this article are primarily trying to promote one version of Pantheism (by one individual) to oust all the others. I would not suggest merging (that's what went wrong with adding in "Classical Pantheism") but that article should be tagged with all kinds of warnings about original research, bias and so on. You might also consider removing tags from the Pantheism article in a week or so when it's in better shape. I don't know how to do any of that tagging stuff. Please respond here or on my user talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalistic (talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ren, I totally revised the Neo-Pantheism entry removing all the contentious material. What little is left shows plainly that the phrase has been coined multiple times simply to refer to the latest pantheism of the day, and the references have little or nothing in common. The rest of the material was either 1. Pantheist in general or 2. Tendentiously making grandiose claims and assertions about neo-Pantheism and generally murkying up the conceptual waters. There has never been a persistent or notable school of neo-pantheism, and most of the article was written by a single user with a self-published website. Whether what remains is worth preserving is disputable - I think the only material that is respectably sourced simply shows that this term has no clear meaning at all other than maybe "the latest version(s) of Pantheism." Naturalistic (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)