This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DoyleCB (talk | contribs) at 21:34, 13 June 2009 (→June 2009 warnings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:34, 13 June 2009 by DoyleCB (talk | contribs) (→June 2009 warnings)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) If you leave a message here, I will respond here, unless you ask for a response on your talk page. Archives |
|---|
Rollback
I have Rider granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback and Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | 00:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you.--Rider 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Umm...
This was a valid bot edit. I've restored it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- My bad; I misread the edit and thought an error was made. Sorry and thank you for catching and correcting it.--Rider 21:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's okay; just try to be careful with Huggle. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think it demonstrates a weakness of mine; I just did not recognize that connotation as a proper edit. It is not a formatting or type of editing I have done in the past. Of course, had I looked at who was making the edit I would have also understood and been able to research it and learn in the process. I will keep my head up for these types of edits in the future. Cheers. --Rider 21:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay; thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think it demonstrates a weakness of mine; I just did not recognize that connotation as a proper edit. It is not a formatting or type of editing I have done in the past. Of course, had I looked at who was making the edit I would have also understood and been able to research it and learn in the process. I will keep my head up for these types of edits in the future. Cheers. --Rider 21:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's okay; just try to be careful with Huggle. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie
Hallo Storm Rider, you left a message:
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Your test on the page SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing and its related help page for more information. Thank you. Rider 16:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
My edit wasn't a test. I wanted to correct an error. SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie was built at Vulcan shipyard in Stettin as also stated in the infobox. "Aktiengesellschaft" just means "(stock) corporation". Greetings --89.247.252.5 (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- If it is an acutal shipyard there is no need to put the name in quotes. Your edit read, "Kronprinzessin Cecilie, built at Stettin, Germany, in 1906 by Vulcan shipyard, was the last of a set four liners built for North German... With the recent release of a new Star Trek movie, this appeard like a typical prank. Go ahead and make the edit, but don't use quotes on the name, but rather link to the actual article AG Vulcan Stettin. Sorry for the error.--Rider 16:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
sorry
sorry for the edit, you guys find the edits fast. Atm in the garage (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Try not to use Misplaced Pages as a personal blog or a way to discuss some of your more personal sexual desires. --Rider 17:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you are really good. Ill stop because it seems i will get no where whentheedits stay for 20 secentsAtm in the garage (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Why was the account on hair club deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.211.95 (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please sign your posts on discussion pages using four "~" (tildes). The reason it was delted was explained on your talk page. It is opinion from a non-expert source. There is no way anyone can verify the accurateness of the statements being made. Misplaced Pages requires reliable sources be used in writing articles. Given that we are an encyclopedia, articles demand a higher degree of verifiability than what is acceptable on personal blogs. Good luck. --Rider 06:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
RCC mediation
A draft of the note under mediation is up for comments here . Thanks, NancyHeise 11:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for removing the vandalism from my talk page multiple times. I was starting to get confused through all the reverts and additions. peace ☮ 19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Storm Rider, Blurpeace has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Discussion of Denominational Groupings on Christianity Talk Page
I just wanted to take a moment to apologize for any additional confusion I may have caused on the Christianity talk page. In retrospect, it's pretty clear to me that I managed to step into a messier discussion that I had realized. It's also clear that you're trying to maintain a voice of reason and balance (which I appreciate).
We may disagree on the substance of the discussion regarding the term "Restorationism" (I have an interest in the Second Great Awakening in general, and the Restoration Movement in particular, and neither one strikes me as a good "catch-all" category for everything that isn't part of the "big three"), but I do agree with what your goals seem to be: to find a workable solution that doesn't imply a point of view, limits the number of new or renamed categories to a manageable number, and disrupts the page as little as possible.
Anyway, when I first saw the discussion and responded, I had no idea that it would spin out of control the way it did - and the last thing I wanted to do was contribute to that. Even though I'm sometimes responsible for "friendly fire" incidents, I would like to be on the side of reason. EastTN (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- We have no problems. I respect your participation and your interest in the term Restoration Movement; I suspect that there is an overall discomfort with the term Restorationism also. I am not opposed to changing the terms, but I would oppose creating a broad range of subcategories/sections just to accomodate the smaller groups. Using the term "Other" does seem to work. I would also discourage attempts to segregate the JWs and LDS from all other forms of Christianity. This article is not the place to demonstrate who disagrees what and why, but rather an article that focuses on Christianity as a whole.
- The other editor was more focused upon what he was saying and achieving his objectives. I could have also been more clear about my objective to maintain a single section. Let's see what we can do about imroving the article and move on. Cheers. --Rider 22:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - I knew you'd understand, but sometimes it's still important to apologize. Your concern about segregating the LDS and JWs makes sense to me - the only purpose for categorizing churches in this article is to help the reader understand how they're related, not to score points for or against a particular group.
- Amen to improving and moving on. EastTN (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Vandal patrol
I reverted the blanking on Guitar Hero 5. I went for page blanking rather than vandalism but it looks like we both hit the same button at the same time and so the IP got 2 warnings for the price of one! A tb on my own talk page would be appreciated btw. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. With some luck, he'll take the hint! HJMitchell You rang? 23:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
RCC mediation: Conversely
To NancyHeise's comment:Yes— stick to what the cited references state— AND the cited references does NOT use the term "Protestants," NOR does it use the term "other Christians." The cited reference does not blaim the term on anyone and we don't have to blaim the term on anyone. --Carlaude 08:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think that is an acceptable position. Essentially, it is when "others" use the term, and given the context in which it is used, that offense is meant and taken. My comment was generated more from common knowledge than an argument over reference. We have really pushed this issue on references to an extreme. If something is common knowledge, then a reference is not needed. I do not believe there is a legitimate rejection of the concept that Catholics can be offended by the term Roman Catholic. Also, I do not believe it is a contested fact that some people use the term as an epithet. If that is the case, then a reference is not needed. --Rider 21:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Help
I was just adding a useful label, what's wrong with that? :-)
- Best to support it with a reference; without a reliable source, it will be reverted. Cheers.--Rider 21:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD
I'm nominating an article you have worked on for deletion. Please see: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christian cult (2nd nomination). Borock (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that the discussion has already ended. Seems a very quick determination; should have waited a week. --Rider 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Scapular
A scapular isn't a talisman? 132.237.245.15 (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think you have a few things wrong with your edit: 1) A scapular is not a talisman; it is not believed to have any magical or occult or supernatural powers, 2) the Catholic Church is not a sect of Christianity, but it is the largest church within Christianity. Thus, you had factual errors and and POV spin on the rightful place of Catholicism within Christianity. You might want to review WP:NPOV. Cheers. --Rider 22:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then it's an amulet? Anyhow, the majority of the article was written by History 2007, who uses Misplaced Pages as a Catholic teachings disemination tool. The Scapular article sounds like it came out of a Catholic text book. I was just trying to make the article more objective. Objective, you know, like an encyclopedia is supposed to be? This little encyclopedia experiment is getting to be a joke. 132.237.245.15 (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am not a Catholic and I have not reviewed the article. Please read the link above for neutrality; your edits were not only misleading but they also were "spiinning" in a negative sense. A scapular is not an amulet either; essentially it is simply an article of clothing that denotes being a religious or a monk. Check me on that, but that is what I recall of it. Look it up in a dictionary and then come back and align the article to that definition in a neutral manner. Cheers. --Rider 22:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then it's an amulet? Anyhow, the majority of the article was written by History 2007, who uses Misplaced Pages as a Catholic teachings disemination tool. The Scapular article sounds like it came out of a Catholic text book. I was just trying to make the article more objective. Objective, you know, like an encyclopedia is supposed to be? This little encyclopedia experiment is getting to be a joke. 132.237.245.15 (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
More vandalism to your user page
I am proud to say that I have gotten rid of vandalism on your user page, again! --Frozen4322 23:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I've semi-protected your userpage for 1 month. If you wish to request unprotection sooner, feel free to ask me or at WP:RFUP. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing so! Given recent vandalism, the semi-protection is probably the best thing to do. Cheers.--Rider 00:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Galápagos tortoise
Please be careful with the use of huggle, especially when a reasonale edit summary has been provided. Note that, as mentioned on its page, Huggle is an application for dealing with vandalism. I have "re-reverted" this. • Rabo³ • 21:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I was careful; the entry was incorrect. Geochelone Nigra is one of eleven species of giant tortoises on the islands. This subspecies has a single living example today. It is not appropriate to cite this at the beginning of an article, unless all eleven are being cited. Cheers. --Rider 22:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Upon further review, Geochelone Nigra is the correct species name; there are eleven sub-species.--Rider 22:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can see you noticed the issue, but as I already wrote this reply, I am adding it anyway as it may be of some use. A brief intro to scientific names: Geochelone nigra is the species (small note; specific epithet always in lower case). Subspecies are always represented by a trinomial - not a binomial (e.g. G. n. nigra is the nominate subspecies of the species G. nigra). The scientific name is generally included in the intro, as can also be seen if checking the featuered articles of the WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. • Rabo³ • 22:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Upon further review, Geochelone Nigra is the correct species name; there are eleven sub-species.--Rider 22:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Racist edits
I got a message saying my edit of a south african rugby player's was reverted, but i've never been on the page and i absolutely would not post racist remarks, or decrease the quality of his page by deleting stuff for no good reason. could someone else have been on my IP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.232.188 (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, someone from your computer vandalized the article and was appropriately warned for it. You might want to consider registering; it will assist in stopping this kind of confusion. If this IP address is a private computer then you might also want to consider implementing security measures to prevent others from using it when you are not around. No one can use this IP address except your computer. --Rider 15:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
RCC Mediation
Your input is needed here to decide on one of three options. Thanks, NancyHeise 03:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
RCC mediation
Sorry to bother you again, we now have an option 4 to consider since no one could agree on 1,2 or 3. Can you please come vote again? Thanks, NancyHeise 18:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Request to participate in University of Washington survey based on ideas gathered during the Misplaced Pages focus group you were invited to attend
Hello. Back in March, you expressed interest in attending our Misplaced Pages focus group sessions but were unable to attend. The goal of those sessions was to gather feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you.
To take the survey, click this link.
Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.
Thank you for your interest in our research! Commprac01 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
--Rider 01:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)==Thanks, Storm Rider== How strange to find ourselves on the same page for once. :) Thank you for your comments defending me on most recent issue at ANI. I agree with you that Alan's complaint has resulted in far more disruption to actual progress than my "conflict" ever would have, and it reflects poorly on the administrative aspect of WP. Alansohn has been generally critical of my actions on WP for some time now, so it's hardly a context-specific issue that we need to be concerned about there. Good Ol’factory 22:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know Alan, but only from the context of both of us like to work against vandalism. However, this is only my fist encounter with him where both of us are editing the same "article". I am very dismayed with this type of allegation and what follows is an example of the worst of Misplaced Pages and something I reject totally and completely. IF he only knew how often we are on opposite sides of an issue, any issue, he would at least begin to understand how outlandish and inappropriate his action was. I am sorry you have attracted his attention; I have been there before and it makes working on Misplaced Pages not nearly as enjoyable as it once was. In time, his attention will become focused elsewhere, at least I hope so. Regardless, in that you seem to be needlessly hampered acting as an admin, your efforts as a editor are still very much needed on that article. Cheers. --Rider 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm considering a return to it, though I think I will avoid any involvement at least as long as the ANI is ongoing—to try to comply with the whole "avoid even the appearance of conflict" idea. I'm actually sensing some of the edits by some of the editors to be a bit on the "trying to prove a point" side. (That may be an understatement.) I wonder if a compromise would be in order: perhaps you could accept the application of the Wikiproject tag if it was agreed that the Category:Mormonism wouldn't be applied to that article itself. Good Ol’factory 23:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, things are really heating up there now. Venturing into "hopeless muddle" territory. Good Ol’factory 00:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm considering a return to it, though I think I will avoid any involvement at least as long as the ANI is ongoing—to try to comply with the whole "avoid even the appearance of conflict" idea. I'm actually sensing some of the edits by some of the editors to be a bit on the "trying to prove a point" side. (That may be an understatement.) I wonder if a compromise would be in order: perhaps you could accept the application of the Wikiproject tag if it was agreed that the Category:Mormonism wouldn't be applied to that article itself. Good Ol’factory 23:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have resisted editing too much; I think with a diverse group of editors a good article will eventually result. Sometimes the process does look a little muddy, but I remain hopeful.
- I really am a purist on the category/wikiproject deals. To be fair I may also be reacting to the strong intent of the Gulag group to tie this Academy to the LDS Church. I think it is stretching and there is only a peripheral relationship at best. However, given that a question has been raised on the LDS project page, I will abide by the will of editors. I will remain open. Cheers. --Rider 01:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
West Ridge mediation notification
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Mediation case name, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, DoyleCB (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think you will be happy with the result, but I am eager to participate. Thank you for letting me know. BTW, your link does not work above. --Rider 18:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/WestRidgeAcademy, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, DoyleCB (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not revert my edits. Please refer to the Three Revert rule. Try to reach a consensus on the talk page instead of edit warring. Thank you. --DoyleCB (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Doyle, if you want to play this silly little game, it is not going to end well for you. While an article is up for arbitration, no edits should be made. Please read some policies, READ THEM, because your assumptions demonstrate you have no understanting of them. Cheers. --Rider 18:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not revert my edits. Please refer to the Three Revert rule. Try to reach a consensus on the talk page instead of edit warring. Thank you. --DoyleCB (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Storm, no one is playing any games. Please be civil and avoid bullying. Those are also Wiki policies that you are in violation of. Perhaps you should take a step back if you are so emotionally involved with this issue. At the end of the day, it's just an article. No need to lose your cool! --DoyleCB (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Haven't lost my cool, not even close. You make me laugh so often I have trouble keeping myself off the floor. I am sorry, but your edits are more joke than anything. Do you realize how far you are from reality or how one-sided you obviously see life? Pity is the next thing that comes to mind. --Rider 19:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Storm, no one is playing any games. Please be civil and avoid bullying. Those are also Wiki policies that you are in violation of. Perhaps you should take a step back if you are so emotionally involved with this issue. At the end of the day, it's just an article. No need to lose your cool! --DoyleCB (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- For someone that hasn't lost their cool, you sure are being very uncivil and combative towards me. Those comments above are certainly not without serious emotion. Take a chill pill and come back later. I refuse to get into name calling and other immature acts over something so ridiculous. In the meantime, please review the following Assume Good Faith, civil DoyleCB (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- StormRider - at Wiki Request, name changed to DoonRay WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please refrain from making disruptive edits on the West Ridge Academy page. If you are too emotionally involved with the article, perhaps you should take a break from it. Please also review the following Assume Good Faith, civil DoyleCB (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Roman Catholic Church mediation outcome
Hi, you are receiving this message because you were an original party to the mediation process regarding the Catholic Church name issue. The mediation outcome has been summarized and moved to the Catholic Church talk page here . Please feel free to come join our discussion of the outcome taking place now before making the actual changes in the article. Thanks for your help and kind cooperation toward a mutually agreeable solution. NancyHeise 14:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
June 2009 warnings
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on West Ridge Academy. 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. --
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on West Ridge Academy. 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. --