| Revision as of 20:41, 15 October 2009 editRacepacket (talk | contribs)16,693 edits →Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Racepacket← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:17, 21 October 2009 edit undoRacepacket (talk | contribs)16,693 edits →Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RacepacketNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| Your input here would be helpful.—] (]) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | Your input here would be helpful.—] (]) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| * Thank you for your message. I don't take it personally, although I suggest you read what is there now because Ryulong seems to be changing it. It is very difficult to work with certain editors that don't use edit summaries, and don't follow procedures on handling {{tl|copyvio}} and {{tl|pov}} templates. We are trying to work that out at ANI, WP:UNI and WP:POVN. We worked through a major revision of ] with only two serious disagreements, and I suspect that if the people start talking to each other, we will work through most of the problems in ]. I know that each of us assumes good faith on behalf of the other, and I know that you are trying to be a fair-minded person. Thanks, ] (]) 20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | * Thank you for your message. I don't take it personally, although I suggest you read what is there now because Ryulong seems to be changing it. It is very difficult to work with certain editors that don't use edit summaries, and don't follow procedures on handling {{tl|copyvio}} and {{tl|pov}} templates. We are trying to work that out at ANI, WP:UNI and WP:POVN. We worked through a major revision of ] with only two serious disagreements, and I suspect that if the people start talking to each other, we will work through most of the problems in ]. I know that each of us assumes good faith on behalf of the other, and I know that you are trying to be a fair-minded person. Thanks, ] (]) 20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| * Thank you for your comment. I did read through the UM talk page before making any edits, and my comments discussing the edits to the lead sentence were made under the heading "Also Known As" that you created. My comments were moved later to a different location on the talk page by Ryulong. I personally disagree that a consensus approach was used on the UM page, because I found that my early edits were quickly reverted without discussion or explanation. The issue being raised is one of motive. The RFC sponsors imply that I am deliberately disrupting things to get attention, and that I am deliberately verbose to hide my true motives and concerns. (The implied motive is to denegrate UM). That is simply not true. I have added a lot of content, about the campus, research, programs, etc., some of which was summarily deleted. NPOV means stating things factually without trying to "sell" the facts one way or the other. You have been a relatively stabilizing force in the evolution of the article, and I am sure that you can see the biases in the article toward the aspects of UM that are most important to undergraduates. Thanks, ] (]) 18:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:17, 21 October 2009
Christian Science Board of Directors Page
Although adding links to Christian Way is possibly appropriate to articles on Christian Science beliefs and theology, it is absolutely irrelevant to discussion of the Christian Science Board of Directors. Were it criticism it would be appropriately direct criticism on the Way the Church of Christian Science and associated institutions are run by the Christian Science Board of Directors.
Digitalican 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Mary Baker Eddy
Again, while adding links to Christian Way is possibly appropriate to articles on Christian Science beliefs and theology, it is inappropriate to a biographical article on Mary Baker Eddy. While I recognize, and respect, that your faith demands a certain level of evangelicalism (and have not attempted to remove the appropriate placement of a link to Christian Way) adding your link to the Mary Baker Eddy article has nothing to do with balance and is not relevant (nor in any way a direct response) to the article. It smacks of an agenda and is thus NPOV. Digitalican 03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Science & Health
Do go be man, please see the comments I left for you on the Discussion page for S&H. I did not remove the link in question, but I proposed that we do so. --Soapergem 20:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Soapergem, I saw your comments. I did not consider them persuasive and have not yet had time to respond properly. I still think that there are inexorable links between Christian Science, Science & Health, Mary Baker Eddy, First Church of Christ, Scientist, etc. Perhaps there should be an article strictly on the controversies of Christian Science from which the other articles could link. In the meantime, I consider a simple link to be relevant and to have precedence.
I studied Christian Science for more than 30 years before coming to understand the flaws of its teachings. Frankly, it's not so much that I'm adamant, I'm just surprised that Christian Scientists find so threatening the inclusion of one simple link that provides access to alternative perspectives based on, in many cases, decades of study of Science & Health, living in Christian Science, and following the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy. Perhaps you might consider moving this discussion to the Christian Way forums - . --Do go be man 21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Miami
Tell me. Is this too much to ask?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You have to be careful with old versions of pages, because you undid all of the archiving I did to Talk:University of Miami for reasons I can't ascertain at the moment. I also don't know what you mean about this as it appears to be completely the opposite of what you stated on the talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I realize what you meant now. My own reply was somewhat confusing, so I have corrected it. However, it has nothing to do with the article so I've removed it from the talk page and I will be pasting it below.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Language and Respect
Ryulong, in general, I respect your approach and my perception of your motives to editing even when I disagree. I can't say that about all editors. I can sympathize with the frustration reflected by your recent summary, however, do not believe your choice of words was appropriate for this venue. Do go be man (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Racepacket
Your input here would be helpful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. I don't take it personally, although I suggest you read what is there now because Ryulong seems to be changing it. It is very difficult to work with certain editors that don't use edit summaries, and don't follow procedures on handling {{copyvio}} and {{pov}} templates. We are trying to work that out at ANI, WP:UNI and WP:POVN. We worked through a major revision of University of Miami with only two serious disagreements, and I suspect that if the people start talking to each other, we will work through most of the problems in Miami Hurricanes football. I know that each of us assumes good faith on behalf of the other, and I know that you are trying to be a fair-minded person. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. I did read through the UM talk page before making any edits, and my comments discussing the edits to the lead sentence were made under the heading "Also Known As" that you created. My comments were moved later to a different location on the talk page by Ryulong. I personally disagree that a consensus approach was used on the UM page, because I found that my early edits were quickly reverted without discussion or explanation. The issue being raised is one of motive. The RFC sponsors imply that I am deliberately disrupting things to get attention, and that I am deliberately verbose to hide my true motives and concerns. (The implied motive is to denegrate UM). That is simply not true. I have added a lot of content, about the campus, research, programs, etc., some of which was summarily deleted. NPOV means stating things factually without trying to "sell" the facts one way or the other. You have been a relatively stabilizing force in the evolution of the article, and I am sure that you can see the biases in the article toward the aspects of UM that are most important to undergraduates. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)