User talk:Storm Rider

If you leave a message here, I will respond here, unless you ask for a response on your talk page. Utter silliness will simply be deleted.

Archives
Archive 1 - Oct 2004 - Apr 2006 Archive 2 - May 2006 - Dec 2006 Archive 3 - Dec 2006 - Jul 2007 Archive 4 - Jul 2007 - Apr 2008 Archive 5 - Apr 2008 - Jul 2008 Archive 6 - Jul 2008 - Apr 2009 Archive 7 - Apr 2009 - Sep 2009

Naming Conventions Attack

I am again being targetted by the clique for daring to oppose a vital change being made to the Naming Conventions policy to back up their assault on the Naming conflict page.

I have been reported for "edit-warring" (pot and kettle) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Xandar. Can you explain some of the background? Xandar 02:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

COPY of response to your post:

StormRider, I think the RfC is a step on the way to getting wider community participation in this. Of course all the editors of articles and groups of articles likely to be affected by this STILL aren't getting contacted - except for those seeing the RfC and the notices to past participants. Really there needs to be a way of getting all interested parties involved, rather than any party of policy-wallahs who happen to be sitting on the page enforcing their view. Focussing on me shows that they are not so confident in the validity of their arguments for imposing what is a very top-down proscriptive policy - no matter what Hesperian now claims. I agree that some of the behaviour needs to be sanctioned. And I am complaining about User: YellowMonkey who one-sidedly sanctioned me and no one else. I don't think that sort of behaviour by Admins should be let rest - or it will continue. Xandar 22:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xandar"

The RfC section at WP:NAME has been made so messy by people putting in sub-sections etc. that I am sure it is confusing people and putting them off commenting. Is there any way we can sort it out? Xandar 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Locking of Naming Conflict

While I could live with the last lock, which left a half-and-half version of the guidance up, with dispute notices. This latest lock by LaserBrain is totally wrong. It puts a non-consensus draft which is strongly opposed as the main guideline indefinitely and with no dispute tags. If LB does not do the right thing, where is the best place to go in the WP bureaucracy to challenge this? Xandar 23:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I warned him on the page and on his discussion page. His lock is inappropriate because it blatantly demonstrates his bias and in doing so should have prevented him from participation as an admin. If he acts again, I will move for him to be disciplined by admins. --^StormRider 23:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:PREFER definitely applies to the protected version. We need the last ChrisO edit protected - but where is best place to bring this up? . Xandar 23:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at WP:ADMIN, which you will find helpful. I have warned Andy already; he poorly played his cards because he admitted that he is biased. Two editors are needed to report him for possible discipline. --^StormRider 23:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The page was "protected" just 3 minutes after Ohms Law changed it again... Hmmm. Xandar 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New suggestion

I have suggested the following specific wording to try to resove the "naming conflict" dispute...

In the majority of cases the name that a self-identifying entity uses of itself is identical with the most common name for that entity as found in reliable sources. In some cases they will differ. When conflicts arise over such differences there are certain criteria that Wikipedia editors consider in order to determine which to use in an article:

• Is the most commonly used name considered by the person or entity concerned to be offensive or derogatory?
• Is the most commonly used name significantly less accurate or precise than the official or self-identifying name? For example Canadian Navy actually redirects to the more accurate Canadian Forces Maritime Command
• Has the name of a person or entity recently been officially changed by that person or entity - as verified by reliable sources?

In such cases Wikipedia editors give consideration to using the current self-identifying name of the person or entity concerned, as verified by reliable sources.

What do you think? Xandar 22:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This reads very well to me and it summarizes what I think is important about proper names for articles. Good job and thank you for sharing. --^StormRider 22:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I've put it up at the Naming conflict talk page. PMA is ardently opposed of course. See current discussion. Xandar 23:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Christianity

Just want to thank you for your excellent, even-handed appeal on Talk:Christianity today. It was wise, mature, and tactful--not easy to find on Wikipedia. Afaprof01 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Request

Thanks for your help earlier. I was wondering if you would give your opinion on the criticism of the LDS movement article, specifically the talk page, under the Title section. My view may be wrong, but it would be helpful if you would let me know. Its a long debate and I'm sorry for how tedious it may be to read, but If I am wrong, I'd prefer not to spend hours and hours debating about it, which is why I'm requesting your input on the talk page. Thanks Stormrider. Sharpsr1990 (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Latter Day v Latter-Day. <http://www.lds.org/> hyphenates it, and it's their name. Hence, it should be hyphenated. It seems they want it to be an adjective which hyphenating it would achieve.

Please see http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ca07ae4af9c7e010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD which is their official Style Guide to the name of the church. An interesting decision-logic table as to when to use each term.

I note that Talk Page #13, Merge with Mormonism, is unresolved, but was posted only 9/26. If there is anything else in particular you'd like me to look at, pls let me know. I don't mind wading through Talk if I know more specifically what areas (like Title) you like commented. Regards, Afaprof01 (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Care should be made with capitalization. Latter-day Saint only refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while Latter Day Saint refers to the entire Latter Day Saint movement, i.e. all of the groups that decended from the teachings of Joseph Smith. Thank you for your efforts; they are much appreciated. I will look at the merge proposal. --^StormRider 03:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Kotniski and Blueboar are now proposing merging Naming conflict into Wikipedia:Naming conventions along with some other guidelines. What do you think of the idea, and of Kotniski's suggested draft of a merged page, which is at User:Kotniski/NC? At the moment I think a merge could avoid the claims of so-called "conflicts" between guideline and policy, but the version of K could do with more on self-identification and conflict resolution. Xandar 08:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's

Hello Stormrider, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here [1] Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 01:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I also responded to your kind words here [2]. NancyHeise ^talk 04:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

invitation

Can you please come here [3] and discuss. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Rick Edwards

Hey,

I think we're gonna get a few people adding unsourced material to this article. Danny Wallace just told his followers on Twitter to update it with 'interesting facts'. JuneGloom07 (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for the fast revert on my talk page - faster than the speed of light. Enjoy your delectable baked goods! :) SMC (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Mormonism and Judaism page

Well, there are lots of uncited claims on the page, most of the same 'mormons love jews really' bent. So, while removing the whole mess might solve the mormons-offer-their-space-for-jews-to-worship absurdity, it also opens up a whole other can of worms. FiveRings (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason for uncited claims to remain in the article. If there has been a cite request for longer than a month, let's just delete it. If there are statements that need to be referenced, but don't yet have a cite request, then let's put them on there.

LDS have a some very definite beliefs about the House of Israel and there certainly is a belief that LDS are either adopted into it or are descendants. This foundational belief should be acknowledged, but the fluff needs to limited to cited statements and the rest should be deleted. Are we on the same page or are you thinking of something else? -^StormRider 21:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I you're right Storm. NancyHeise ^talk 19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Hi StormRider, we are discussing the sex abuse paragraph here [4]. I am trying to get some past editors to come to the discussion so we can discover what others think. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

StormRider, I am new to Wikipedia. I work at the Church Office Building and have been asked by Elder Bruce C. Hafen to help with his Wiki bio (Bruce C. Hafen). The last two sentences of his bio were pasted from the Salt Lake Tribune following his September 2009 address to Evergreen about same-gender attraction. He feels that these last two sentences need more context if they are to remain in his bio. He has given me some suggested text that includes the information from those two sentences but with added sentences for more context. He has citations (the online transcript of his address from LDS.org Newsroom and the biography section of LDS.org Newsroom). I'm not sure how best to proceed. Can you help? If possible, please respond to my talk page. Thanks. CedricMalone (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming policy again

Can you go to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Unagreed_change and look at the discussion there? PMA has significantly changed the wording on self-identifying names that was agreed when "Naming conflict" was "merged" into the "Naming conventions" policy page. The regulars on the page seem to be supporting his unilateral change. I think it needs wider attention. Xandar 03:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)