User talk:Juden
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Such nice chatter. One would almost think you are sarcastic. However, to excel at the approach while speaking or writing in French, it is always best to write properly. Chou is masculine; thus, mon petit chou. Making such a faux pas is too gauche to achieve real sarcasm. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Which is worse: poor French, or pretending that you don't know that "Pay Lay Ale" was part of the endowment ceremony until 1990 and disingenuously requesting references for it? I'd say it was the dishonest behavior. I wouldn't have thought of you as a stickler for spelling in any language, but now we know French is the one. - Juden 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- The difficulty is finding the source for the information. Since it is not published by the LDS church one is faced with a difficulty of finding a proper source. Also, is that the correct spelling or is it phonetic? You don't know, nor does any of the sources you quoted. So now we arrive at not evening knowing if spelling is correct about something where there is not a reputable source. Wikipedia has policies that address all of these issues. So put the shoe on the other foot, what's worse allowing information from unreliable sources, but meets the POV of an editor. You response was to attack and demean another editor, which is totally against policy. In addition, you project a thoughtless reason demonstrating that the axe you carry around may need to be put down for awhile until you gain a greater understanding of how to write excellent articles rather than just using wikipedia as a soap box for your pet issues. Have a great New Year and better editing for all of us. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Mon petit chou" is in no way demeaning, and you weren't attacked, much less with an axe. Of course, you know the spelling of "Pay Lay Ale" is correct. That "Pay Lay Ale" was part of Mormon endowment ceremonies until 1990 is a fact, not a point of view. An encyclopedia is in the business of providing facts, not hiding them. Of course I'd be interested in any references you have that say "Pay Lay Ale" was not part of the endowment ritual, or that it's improperly spelled. They would certainly make interesting additions to the article. - Juden 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your assumption is incorrect. I never say those words spelled out. The typical LDS who attended the temple prior to 1990 also never so those words spelled out. The most you can say is that the quotes you used spelled it that way, but I also suspect they do not know the correct spelling.
- Mon petit chou is typically used for small children; occaisionally it is used between a man and a women to denote affection. To prove a negative is an interestng turn; your logic leads one to think that any editor could state in an encyclopedia that green men live under the crust of the moon. Since no one can point to an article that says it is not truek, then it must be true. This logic is beneath you and you are far brighter than this. Stop it. You know the importance of references in articles and it is appropriate to ask for refernces.
- Nothing a fact just because something is written, it is a fact because a reputable source says it is. This is editing 101; quit arguing about something you know to be accurate policy. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- When I join your army, it will be appropriate for you to issue orders to me. When I sign up for one of your classes, your didactic tone will be appropriate. But I don't anticipate doing either. I'm glad I was able to enlighten you about "Pay Lay Ale", and I'm glad to hear that your doubts about the spelling are unsupported by any references you care to reveal. And I'm overjoyed that I was able to supply the references you requested and so serve our mutual goal of enlightening our readers about the various Mormon rites. - Juden 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Mon petit chou" is in no way demeaning, and you weren't attacked, much less with an axe. Of course, you know the spelling of "Pay Lay Ale" is correct. That "Pay Lay Ale" was part of Mormon endowment ceremonies until 1990 is a fact, not a point of view. An encyclopedia is in the business of providing facts, not hiding them. Of course I'd be interested in any references you have that say "Pay Lay Ale" was not part of the endowment ritual, or that it's improperly spelled. They would certainly make interesting additions to the article. - Juden 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- The difficulty is finding the source for the information. Since it is not published by the LDS church one is faced with a difficulty of finding a proper source. Also, is that the correct spelling or is it phonetic? You don't know, nor does any of the sources you quoted. So now we arrive at not evening knowing if spelling is correct about something where there is not a reputable source. Wikipedia has policies that address all of these issues. So put the shoe on the other foot, what's worse allowing information from unreliable sources, but meets the POV of an editor. You response was to attack and demean another editor, which is totally against policy. In addition, you project a thoughtless reason demonstrating that the axe you carry around may need to be put down for awhile until you gain a greater understanding of how to write excellent articles rather than just using wikipedia as a soap box for your pet issues. Have a great New Year and better editing for all of us. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- <condescension>Poor child, you seem deluded and out of touch with reality; however, if you are amused with such thoughts please continue. One day the light will shine through and little minds will perceive the utter, pathetic nature of one's ego. I am sure mommy and daddy find enjoyment in such behavior, but I assure you that it does not play well in the world. If it continues to work for you, good luck, but in the off chance that you find that your behavior ceases to be humorous to others, change.</condescension> --Storm Rider (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your unsolicited life advice has been noted, and filed in an appropriate spot. - Juden 19:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- <condescension>Poor child, you seem deluded and out of touch with reality; however, if you are amused with such thoughts please continue. One day the light will shine through and little minds will perceive the utter, pathetic nature of one's ego. I am sure mommy and daddy find enjoyment in such behavior, but I assure you that it does not play well in the world. If it continues to work for you, good luck, but in the off chance that you find that your behavior ceases to be humorous to others, change.</condescension> --Storm Rider (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Contents |
[edit] Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
Wow... there's a lot of love on this wall... haha I just had a question regarding your citation request. I'd really like to get it resolved and move the section towards NPOV. If you don't mind... I'd appreciate your help in rewording/adding citation or whatever your concern happens to be. At this point however, it seems that your objection is primarily based on an implicit belief that "scientists know the Book of Mormon is wrong" or something to that effect. Of course this doesn't merit a tag, but if you have concerns beyond this, please let other editors know what they are so they can work to resolve them. Thanks! gdavies 07:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to explain to you again on the talk page in question. You certainly have mistated my concerns (above) which are based on the science underlying the study of migrations and not on "implicit beliefs". - Juden 06:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I responded to your concern on the talk page quite some time ago, but you restored the tag without explanation. Please feel free to add to the article, but "tag-and-running" a section that you ambiguously feel is too friendly to LDS apologetics isn't really helping anything. gdavies 00:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- The explanation was provided on the talk page. Please stop mischaracterizing my objections to the article as it stands. - Juden 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I responded to your concern on the talk page quite some time ago, but you restored the tag without explanation. Please feel free to add to the article, but "tag-and-running" a section that you ambiguously feel is too friendly to LDS apologetics isn't really helping anything. gdavies 00:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
My request for a proper citation on Joseph Smith, Jr. was not an attempt at censorship. I'm just trying like I'm sure you are to improve the article. It looks like you had the sources available to you, so that's exactly what should happen. That's why I put the citation tag rather than removing the statement, in hopes that someone had something to back it up. Note that WP:RS puts the burden on those adding or restoring info, not on those removing it. The referenced site [1] doesn't seem to match the guidelines of a reliable source. For example, is it peer-reviewed? Do we know their publication process? Arthur 02:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Answered at your talk page. Your request followed the elimination of all mention of Masonry from the article (by another user). I think you can understand why your request immediately following that elimination might be construed as part of an attempt to continue to exclude it. - Juden 06:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I understand, and I see the symptoms of what you're talking about. All the more reason to make sure the article is solid on sources so that such issues can be mitigated as much as possible. It will never be possible to satisfy the mormon point-of-view as they view such material as sacred and will likely have strong objections to its publication. Bring good sources to the table helps avoid problems and hopefully the article will be as correct as possible. Arthur 17:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Objectivity
Jurden: You claim that the ONLY valid question regarding my edits to the Book of Abraham article is how long they will be tolerated. I admit that I am a relative newcomer here and could use some help with regards to the proper method of adding footnotes, sources, etc., however objectivity and neutrality implies putting all pertinent facts on the table and letting them speak for themselves. The article as written is hopelessly bogged down in a straw man argument concerning Joseph Smith. If the article was objective, it would have a form like the Wiki articles on the Bhagavad Gita or the Torah or the Bardo Thodol and stick to what the text has to say for itself. Let's not kid ourselves - objectivity would demand the whole critic - response section to be parsed out into an article on criticism of the Book of Abraham. I'd be pleased to take on that task - although I suspect you'd call my objectivity into question... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DWmFrancis (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Great work on Joseph Smith
Juden: I've never edited the wikipedia (I work mostly on the fiction wikis), and today looked up Joe Smith on a whim. After reading the article, I clicked on to the talk page to unload. I was amazed to find you had already said everything I wanted to. Good on you, keep up the fight. 138.163.0.41 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
