User talk:Storm Rider/Archive 5

Mormons and Anti-Semitism
Storm. I do not know what is missing. I do cite my source, the book in which it is published. Are you stating that calling Jews "Christ killers" is not necessarily an anti-Semitic statement? What I describe it is not the opinion of an individual if the Mormon Church officially published it. No religion would allow something to be published under its banner if it violatd their doctrine or policy. I deliberately exactly quoted the source so that the reader could determine for him/herself whether my claim that the Church published a book that states the Jews killed Christ. Furthermore, the writer of the book is not an individual. During his lifetime he was one of the highest ranking members of the Church hierarchy; ranking no less than 15th in the Church. Had he lived longer, he might have asumed the Preidency of the Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryMokotoff (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Civility
Please remember that civility is a requirement at Wikipedia. Your comments at Talk:Cult 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)

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 times. 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)

Roman Catholic Church
FAC has restarted, if you would like to vote, please go here 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)

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)

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)

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)
 * Fyzix supported the idea of removing "fourth largest" from the summary paragraph. I agree with him since I am looking at several different sources, and they say different things - on says tenth largest, others say lower than that.  Why are we relying on one particular source to call it the fourth largest?  I will concede your point on the church reported numbers, but "fourth largest" appears to be at least factually incorrect, or at most a disputed statement.  Please let me know what you think - if you don't agree to removing that phrase, I would think we would have to say something like "Some sources state it is the fourth largest *ref*, while others state it is the tenth largest *ref* etc." --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's look at some of the citations for the others; if you supply them to me I will look at them and let's talk more. As soon as I saw a minor editing dispute happen in that same section I was prompted to revert. Until then I was letting it ride. Also, we should eventually get other editors to contribute to the conversation; the three of us are a bit thin on portraying concensus for a decision; however, that can wait. Let me look at your references for other summaries and let's go from there for now. Cheers.--Storm Rider (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal comment
Hence not on the Christianity page. Unusual was not meant unkindly. I am rather sympathetic to your point about doctrine being overdone. Also to your approach. Personally I am far less concerned about LDS not conforming to a 4th century bit of dogma (what does it really mean anyway) than the addition of other dogma. Given we see through the glass darkly I have a slightly wary view of people who can apparently see too much details... Best wishes :) --BozMo talk 17:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Boz, suffice it to say that I hold you in very high regard and did not feel slighted by your comment. My edit was more a desire to influence wording early, rather than allow certain words to float through the conscience of editors to eventually be found in the article.
 * The 4th century issue is personally very interesting. It is the difference between the time of Christ and the beginning of the major Councils. This period was dynamic and full of a broad range of beliefs all under the umbrella of the Christian cult. Today, mainstream Christianity speaks often as if their beliefs (read Trinity, etc.) were always the essential doctrines. For a Restorationists, this distinction is important and valid.
 * Regardless, my position is that we primarily address Christianity today and the majority position while allowing the minority positions to round out the full picture of Christianity. BTW, we used to address all of the extra writings not just the LDS scripture. Peace. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regard appreciated but undisserved. I have a line of books on early church history unread and likely to be binned. I just about have a grasp on the reformation (so whether or not either the Roman Catholic or Anglican church is Catholic in any meaningful way) but I kind of ran out of energy a decade ago in this piece of the jigsaw... this is about as far as I got on the church. --BozMo talk 18:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I had to laugh out loud. My wife chastises me endlessly about the number of books I own and the number of books I continue to purchase. She does not understand why I would buy additional books, many on the same topics, when I have not read all of the ones I currently own. Certainly there is a motivation out of a love for books and being surrounded by them. I still read books from cover to cover, but I do more spot reading or consistently referring to books as I learn something new.
 * The question of what it means to be catholic; that is a topic indeed. When you have some time I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on what the role of authority plays in this area. What role does authority play in the life of a believer in Jesus Christ? Wonderful chapter cited above! This was written by an individual who knows God; there is more than just a string of pearls found therein. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice to have the compliment about the chapter I wrote, it was a decade ago for my godson. Authority is tricky: in times past the church would tell you exactly what to do and think, these days here they seem to defer to the individual too much and never lay down the law. I know the US has a rather different religious scene. --BozMo talk 09:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

response
i responded on my talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please justify 3RR and "edit war" accusation

 * I made two reversions here and here in the past 24 hours. I have also contacted [[User:Taivo about avoiding an edit war. Please indicate any more reversions than these two in the past 24 hours, or retract immediately the accusation that I am engaged in an edit war. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations of a WP:3RR violation and edit warring are provably false, and you have been notified that they are false and requested to retract them. I will continue to assume good faith and that you simply made a mistake in making these false accusations. But now that you have been informed that they are false, you are obligated to acknowledge your mistake. Making false accusations, especially public ones, while deleting material from an article is a violation of WP:CIV, WP:DE, and WP:PRESERVE, no less reasons than WP:3RR for blocking a user's account. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * • I suggest that you do not hold your breath while waiting for an apology ... I still haven't received an apology from him when he falsely accused me of using sockpuppets many moons ago. Some editors are known to use such false accusations as a tool in intimidating others and casting doubts on other editors' reputations. Having an ax to grind makes some editors use some awfully questionable tactics here at WP. Good Luck to you. Duke53 | Talk 13:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Storm Rider, do you know how to get the Book of Mormon article locked so that Ecrasez cannot continue his edit war? I would be happy to discuss the issues with him on the talk page, but he seems unwilling to respect the other editors and insists on making the edits in the article before discussing them. (Taivo (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Please see my response to your comment at my talk page: "stop your edit war. (Taivo (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)) No one is being uncivil to you. … (Taivo (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)) Taivo, please read my comments very carefully. You have accused me falsely of edit warring. I have informed you that this accusation is false and unsubstantiated, and requested that you withdraw it. You have not yet done so. According to Wikipedia policy on incivility, your behavior adheres to the very definition of incivility: Ill-considered accusations of impropriety" For now I will continue to assume good faith and that you simply made a mistake in making these false accusations. But now that you have been informed that they are false, you are obligated to acknowledge your mistake. I recommend that the most civil and wisest course of action is for you to retract your false accusation promptly. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ecrasez, you might want to do some reading on warnings and why they are issued. We generally prefer to see at least three warnings before blocking an editor. In the last two days you have reverted six (6) times in three days. You reverted three times on the 22. The warning I gave you was the first warning; you should have received others. You have repeatedly reverted and seem intent on ignoring every editor's request to take the edit to the discussion page. I hope that position changes. Working cooperatively with others is really not that hard to do. Your resistance to working with others does not bode well for editing on Wikipedia and should that continue you will be blocked eventually. The warning I gave you was appropriate and if you continue the warnings will escalate, which will result in your being blocked.
 * Your first edit misrepresented factual history and was POV. You recognized this when you wrote, "This also avoids the obviously erroneous connection with the change of Church policy in 1981" on the discussion page. When it is so obviously wrong and you admit it, why not work with the other editors to produce something that works. I think your position has merit, though not as you write it, and would improve the article. However, that will take you working with them. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Storm Rider, Even if we were to accept your version of the events, please explain how "revert[ing] three times on the 22" or "revert[ing] six (6) times in three days" violates Wiki's no more than three revert rule per day: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." If you do believe that I should have been issued warning for any edit of mine, please provide specific page links that illustrate this claim immediately. If you cannot do so, I expect a prompt correction and retraction of your false accusations. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to think that demanding something on Wikipedia will result in your getting your wish. Look at the [|Notice Board] for 3RR violations. Do you see where a violator, that would be you, is required to receive warnings. Please pay special attention to, and I quote, "If you find yourself in a revert war, you should ensure that the "other side" is aware of the three-revert rule, especially if they are new, by leaving a warning about the rule on their talk page, for example using the template [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. . In the past it has been required to give multiple warnings, which the offender continues to ignore as you did, and then the editor would be blocked. The current Board seems to only require a single warning. A warning is not given after 3RR, which seems to be your position. It is an incorrect understanding of Wikipedia policy. Are you now rejecting your admission of multiple reverts? Did you not violate the 3RR rule? Quit being silly and focus on the discussion page until an acceptable edit is produced. If you do not understand Wikipedia policies, then read them. And for goodness sake, quit demanding someone do something that you know is not going to happen. I followed policy, you should have received more than one warning, and I was remiss in issuing it the first time. Here is some advice; don't revert more than once in any single day. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Storm Rider: Did you not violate the 3RR rule? No, I did not, by your own count above, and therefore your charge of edit warring is demonstrably false. I see that another editor testifies above that you have elsewhere attempted to use "false accusations as a tool in intimidating others and casting doubts on other editors' reputations." Please desist in this incivil behavior. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you; when caught with your pants down, don't admit that your pants are down, and divert attention elsewhere. Mixing metaphors; if the bloody shoe fits, wear it. If you don't like the shoe, stop it! My advice, if you think you are made better by working with the likes of Duke, you have a lot to learn. Look at his contentious edit history and judge for yourself. I don't see how we are improving Wikipedia and you certainly are not learning a bloody thing from me; this conversation is at an end. Unless you would like to have the absolute last word. Maybe accuse me of eating children, or that I have a forked tail and horns. Or maybe something really juicy like I am a vegetarian and own far too many books. If so, please help yourself. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * • Storm, are you now denying that you falsely accused me of using sockpuppets here at Wikipedia? (be careful of how you respond to this). You did</U> make the accusations and have <U>never apologized; seems you expect others to adhere to civility that you dismiss for yourself out of hand. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 19:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * • BTW, " the phrase <I>... the likes of Duke</i>" could be considered a personal attack, another of your weapons of choice. :) <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 19:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Duke, you always bring a good laugh! Exactly what is your purpose here? Why are you even in this conversation? You weren't editing the article in question and have no relationship to the Ecrasez. To falsely accuse someone would first demand that you know the accusation is false; that was not the case (how long ago was it, a year?) then and is not the case now. If you think I have done something wrong, report it immediately. Otherwise, shut up i.e. don't talk to me. Is that clear or do you need it spelled out in more crass terms? Second, I have not demanded civility from anyone in this silly dispute over stupidity. Can you please share with the world where that request was given? Third, if you think it was a personal attack, again report it immediately. I hold you in less than high esteem. You do not contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia, but rather you instigate and enjoy contention. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is no secret that you are on my watchlist ... I felt that it was my duty to point out your M.O. to this editor, so he can see your pattern of editing here at WP. This latest burst of incivility by you reinforces the fact that you only follow the rules at WP that suit you, when they suit you. A good case could be made that I am a much better Wikipedian than you, when all your actions are taken into account. Cheers<font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 04:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am glad I am on your watch list, maybe you will eventually learn something about the purpose of Wikipedia and editing in a neutral manner. BTW, if you think I would waste my time following you about, please rest assured there is not a chance in blue hell. As far as being a productive editor, the proof is in the pudding, Bubba. Your words to the contrary are worth a plug nickel, same as for everyone else. Opinions are worth nothing. Cheers and may you continue to be a fount of joy for others as you are for me. Still worth at least a chuckle. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "<I>To falsely accuse someone would first demand that you know the accusation is false ...</I>". Nice try, but <I>your</I> definition doesn't hold water. When Richard Jewell was <B><I>falsely</B> accused</i> of the Olympic bombings, did the authorities <B><I>know</I></B> that he hadn't done it? (<I>that's only one example of many I could provide</I>). <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A <B>H-U-G-E</B> difference between the two of us is that I have <I>never</I> lied at WP ... I wish that <I>you</I> could say the same, sport. Cheers. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You not lie; please. Almost everything you edit twists history to reflect your POV. If we are going to have fun with this, please don't exaggerate so much that it takes what little pleasure I derive totally out the interaction. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, Duke, I think you have mistaken Storm Rider for someone else. Storm Rider did not initiate the issue with Escrasez, I did.  And there were at least two other editors who took Storm's side in the matter.  The new editor needed to be trained in how to participate in the consentual environment here at Wikipedia and we're happy to say that he/she is participating in the teamwork now and not trying to fly solo.  Perhaps you should learn a lesson from Escrasez.  (Taivo (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Taivo, I appreciate your kindness, but this is a hopeless cause. It amuses me to interact with Duke occasionally, but I realize it is only for amusement and even that fades quickly. Please don't waste your valuable time. Of course, if you have a hankering for amusement go for it. This editor is not serious about improving Wikipedia; he only seeks contention and argument. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Taivo, it is possible to get an article frozen or locked, which prevents all editors from editing, but I would recommend not seeking this yet. Ecrasez has not carried this so far that it would merit such a strong action. However, he should be reported to [|3RR notice board], doing so will cause him to be blocked much quicker should he revert again. I do think the topic he is covering has merit and should be worked on to produce an improved article. Maybe you could start by redrafting his edits on the dicussion page and seeking comments? --Storm Rider (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1831 polygamy revelation
Storm Rider: I'm looking to draw in some of the regular editors of LDS-related articles to this new one by Écrasez l'infâme &mdash; 1831 polygamy revelation. The article isn't very balanced and appears agenda-driven. Any chance you could drop by and help out? (And bring a few others, too?) --MrWhipple (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I only just became aware of it. I am having to do further research before I am ready to participate. As far as I am aware currently, this was not a revelation about polygamy. The way the article is currently written sure reads like an agenda and does not begin to reflect history. What is worse, is that it was used to report on "Did you know"; I absolutely hate when someone reports something as fact, which is a complete distortion of reality. It is very odd that it was picked up as fact? Strange. I will be assisting in editing the article.
 * Thanks; I appreciate it. It looks like you've had encounteres with Écrasez l'infâme before, so I think you'll understand where he's coming from. I've pretty much given up on WP edit wars, but I'll hang around to support a decent article for this one. See the talk page for the water under the bridge thus far.--MrWhipple (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do so; I think you have knowledge that can add to the discussion. I would not give up too quickly on Ecrasez; he/she is new, but I would think after some additional experience with policies and working with editors a valuable editor will be gained. A bumpy road at the beginning does not mean that it will stay bumpy. Let's put forth some effort and see how it goes. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I've been active in editing LDS Wikipedia articles. Do you know any other "major players" in the group? If we could bring in two or three others, I think we might be able to make some progress here. I'm just not in the mood to play "yes it is"/"no it isn't" with someone who is likely to revert any edits I make to his obviously agenda-driven article.--MrWhipple (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please cite one sentence or fact presented in the article that is not fairly represented in list of reliable sources cited:
 * Historian Fawn Brodie was informed in 1943 by the Utah Church historian Joseph F. Smith that a revelation foreshadowing polygamy had been written in 1831, but that it had never been published, and that though its existence in the church library is acknowledged, "in conformity with the church policy," Brodie would not not be permitted to examine it.
 * Lawrence Foster asserts that "references to the revelation by a knowledgeable contemporary apostate, Ezra Booth, only five months after its alleged delivery, tends to confirm its authenticity."
 * Instead of arranging for a gang of like-minded editors, perhaps it would be best to simply propose edits that would improve the article, or document with reliable sources why you believe this article does not fairly represent the facts. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of arranging for a gang of like-minded editors, perhaps it would be best to simply propose edits that would improve the article, or document with reliable sources why you believe this article does not fairly represent the facts. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of arranging for a gang of like-minded editors, perhaps it would be best to simply propose edits that would improve the article, or document with reliable sources why you believe this article does not fairly represent the facts. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of arranging for a gang of like-minded editors, perhaps it would be best to simply propose edits that would improve the article, or document with reliable sources why you believe this article does not fairly represent the facts. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not opposed to your references, but you do seem to cherry pick what you present and how. It has to do with tone and omitting important information that sheds significant light on the topic that causes me to be uncomfortable with your editing. When people do that it is becuase they POV; that is not bad because we all have a POV. A good editor realizes his POV and tries to balance it. You are not yet balancing it, but actively pushing your agenda.

The mere fact that you present this as a revelation, but no adherent calls it a revelation is strange. Of course, I disagree with others who do so also, so this is not personal. However, you presented it so strongly as fact that some editor picked up your edits and presented them in "Do You Know". The problem is it is not reality; at best it is disputed recounting of history. The only comments about this alleged revelation that happened at the time was from Ezra Booth and he did not even mention polygamy; not a word. His perception of the "revelation" was that it was about missionary work among Native Americans. It was not until 1861 that Phelps writes about it to Brigham Young. Here are two recountings diametrically opposed, but Booth, a known agitator against the Mormons, is ignored and Phelps writing 30 years later is taken as if it was recorded word for word. Of course, even your references state that he was adding to it. This topic is not just cut and dried; it is much, much fuzzier than you are presenting it or how you have written it in the article. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And doesn't it stand to reason that Ezra Booth -- an apostate who was looking to "muck rake" the LDS Church as much as possible -- would use a polygamy revelation to full effect? His complete ignorance of any such revelation says quite a bit.--MrWhipple (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see some movement on merging this article with Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy. Is there some way to start a discussion leading to a vote? (I'm unclear on the procedure for this.)--MrWhipple (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your desires are already being realized. There is a vote going on and a few editors have already voted. These articles are a little specialized to catch a lot of attention from others, which could complicate identifying concensus.--Storm Rider (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

:)
If we knew each other in the 'real world', I'd take you out for a milkshake. Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I would be happy to go! Sometimes it is tedious dealing with a few editors, thankfully they are few and far between. However, those that are in that category are monumental jackasses. They are to be pitied because they can not begin to be happy given the about of venom they spew into the world. Keep up the good work. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

wikiquette thingee
hey Storm... hope you don't mind, but I'm trying to figure out what's going on between you and Juden. He found some of your comments over on Joseph Smith a little strong, and I can see why, though I have to admit you've got an artistic flair. :-) is this something that will blow over by itself, or is there anything I can do to set it right?  -- Ludwigs 2  04:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If I made even one person smile or laugh, I will have achieved my objective. I don't really think there is anything that can be done; though I do appreciate your thoughtful interest. It generally goes away when Juden goes away. He is not really a serious editor, but occasionally pops his head up, makes highly POV edits and then moves on. The LDS topics, like many religious topics on Wikipedia, attracts those with strong emotions. We can more easily handle those who are zealously supportive, but those on the negative side usually offer more resistance. For them it is a question of black and white and they are positive, all facts tot he contrary, this topic must be painted black. What is really needed is a prominent, skilled editor that has an obvious negative perspective, but still neutral were to actively participate who also is willing to support these negative editors in helping them to realize the difference between an encyclopedia and an Evangelical tract. We do have a few good ones, but they have yet to be able to raise to the standard of being able to guide the very few who come along like Juden.
 * Most times it is easy to maintain the position that these minor events of gross silliness will pass, respective articles will return to NPOV, and Wikipedia quality standards will continue to improve. However, at other times I come to the conclusion that some editors should be banned indefinitely because they demonstrate no desire to improve Wikipedia, but only seek a personal blog, soapbox, or communal yammering square to attract attention to themselves. One of my short comings is that I do bite at people who I find disruptive and purposively antagonistic. Let's just hold tight, I will support policy and keep my personal thoughts about the quality of editors to myself. Cheers!--Storm Rider (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ok, sounds good. if you try not to bite for a while, I'll take a look at his edits and see if I can give him some pointers on getting his thoughts across in a more effective, balanced way.  he seems like a reasonable guy in general, so...  :-)  -- Ludwigs 2  18:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out his long term edits on articles relating to anything in the Latter Day Saint movement. His current yammering about civility is comical ploy; he could not care less about treating others with civility. The few times I meet these types I simply refuse to be cowed by their bullying ways. In this instance he is learning that I will not tolerate his methods and he has sought for someone to save him from the recompense of his own actions. Though intermittent, I have a long history with him and I have learned over time to deal harshly with him. IMHO, there is a difference in having a disagreement over editing and someone that demands only their perspective being the only perspective in an article. The vast majority of editors will listen to the input of others and find a middle ground. There is no middle ground with him. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling the removal of insults an "unconstructive edit" is just another violation of WP:Civility. Using VP to revert it is an abuse of VP. I will report the abuse on the appropriate page. - Juden (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You make me laugh! Is that a broken record or is it that you really think people are listening? I would invite you not to edit anymore; and please if you don't know the right people to yammer to, just ask and I will direct you. I am shaking in my boots. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing more evidence. - Juden (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything I can do to make you feel better. Is there something else I can do for you or do you always following after editors; we call that stalking by the way. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By "we" you mean "you", I suppose. Responding to comments made in conversations about oneself is most certainly not stalking. Calling such responses "stalking" is a distortion, and yet another violation of WP:Civility. - Juden (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

laughing
This pretty much says it all for me this evening.--Storm Rider (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It does indeed say a lot, though perhaps not about the person you think it does. - Juden (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you on my page? What are you contributing to Wikipedia by this incessant stalking behavior? Please stop. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My goal is only to have you conform to the rules of Wikipedia, specifically WP:Civility. That will make Wikipedia a more pleasant working environment, which should enable the kind of collaboration necessary to improve the articles. If you stop being insulting, I will have no reason for further posting here. That would be nice. - Juden (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are doing nothing but harassing me on this page. I view it as both harrasement and stalking because you are saying nothing, you don't respond to questions, and never stop. I will ask you again, to please stop. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Abortion allegations of Smith's polygamous children at Talk:Joseph_Smith, Jr.
Please see the new section at Talk:Joseph_Smith, Jr.. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI: Informal Mediation Requested: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07 Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly done with construction of Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late 19th century, could use your help
Per the restructuring initiative, I have finished my first cut at the new article Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late 19th century, and could really use some help in filling out the content for things that I have missed, and general wiki style article revision. There are also two sections that I don't have as much info on right now, (you will see them towards the end of the article) which, again, I could use some help filling out. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My question
Hi. You must be a lot smarter than me concerning LDS history. Do you have any comments on User talk:WikiWes77? --WikiWes77 (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sainthood in the LDS tradition
Yes it does, I had a faint idea that the LDS-Church was led by a living saint- but after reading your message it came back to me that the office is Prophet not saint. Thanks for your answer it cleared the matter up nicely. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

An Apology
Storm, I just wanted to make a quick note to apologize. I had just had my second article completely hijacked and watched Alaistar wikilawyered to death by Ilkali, and I was rubbed pretty raw by the time you came in and had the misfortune of agreeing with Ilkali. My tone was harsh to you and unfair. It wasn't about you, really. I was just rubbed pretty raw in general, and after being bullied by one person and watching Alastair being bullied by another (with my bully helping) my defenses were up way too high.

I do think that the use of terms needs to be worked out on Wikipedia. But I don't think it will happen any time soon. There's abundant use of your approach in the articles, and abundant use of mine. No doubt the clashes and contradictions will go on for a very long time (as they apparently have been doing for thousands of years).

In any case, I just wanted to say that you didn't deserve to inherit my defenses against Ilkali. The fact that you agreed with him was a reason for me to tone down, not for me to simply spread my annoyance onto you.Tim (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I suspected that was some of what was going on and not really a conflict over positions between us. Each of us has done the same thing in the past; I know that I have. I can react very strongly to new editors that have strong opinions that ignore all the previous work done on an article. Don't' give it another thought.
 * The terms orthodox or mainstream seem to be used most often and I am comfortable with those terms. I also agree that when discussing Christianity we first focus on the the positions held by the majority and then alternative positions held by smaller, though still significant, groups being briefly discussed. We do not need to include every fringe group unless they have a major impact on the whole. I hope this makes sense. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also (I didn't want o put this on the page)... the heretical teachings of the Christian Arius are making two absolute statements of Arius, that 1) he is a heretic and 2) he is a Christian. Wikipedia isn't really geared for absolute statements of ultimate truth. It's almost like saying there really is a God. Wikipedia can't say that, but it CAN say that God is the deity of thus and so. So, "the teachings of the Christian heretic" actually makes no claims of ultimate reality of all. Did he teach? Well, sure. But this way he is ONLY a "heretic" to "Christians." The first wording makes Wikipedia say he is wrong. The second wording makes Christians say he is wrong.Tim (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have played with that type of wording in the past, but I have since pulled back from it. Is a heretic Christian? To a large extent we deny the Christianity of the individual, which made me rethink the position. To deny someone their Christianity is to put them beyond salvation; that goes too far for me. I would be comfortable stating, "Arius, judged a heretic by ..." with a reference as more acceptable. Then it clearly does what you are stating above. Another way would be, "Arius was a Christian theologian active in Alexandria; he was declared a heretic for his doctrines about God...". If we can just identify who calls him a heretic rather than just leveling the claim and leaving it as if absolute judgment has been made I think it a better wording.--Storm Rider (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. We need to attach "heretic" to something, and that's certainly a way to do it. I think we need to be careful about "To deny someone their Christianity is to put them beyond salvation". I have no opinion about Arius' salvation, and Wikipedia isn't supposed to either. My only real concerns here are twofold.


 * 1) "Christian" needs to line up with Christian, in whatever permutation that page will rotate around at any given moment. We know that all these articles are continually in flux, but we also know that they fluctuate around the mainstream.  I've seen editors try to change definitions in other articles to match their usage in another place, but they won't stick.
 * 2) "Heretic" needs to be attached to some mainstream definition that is excluding him. My wording tried to do that, and I think you're onto another way of doing it.

Also, bear in mind that you have to slip in something that other editors won't yank away when you go on vacation. I'll help you get something initially stuck in there, but it has to be something everyone can live with, and the first line is the one EVERYONE reads.Tim (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Storm, did that last edit work? If not, you want a crack at it?  I'm trying to avoid flat out calling him a Christian and flat out calling him a heretic.Tim (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That works for me! --Storm Rider (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I liked your points. :-)Tim (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)