User talk:Do go be man

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 - [1]. --Do go be man 21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miami

Tell me. Is this too much to ask?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

You are right that my frustration and my vernacular has gotten the best of me. This conversation is also more suited to my talk page than this one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket

Your input here would be helpful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Baechter

He has four edits to the English Wikipedia. The third and fourth are to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket. This is an issue with WP:SOCK, not censorship. I've also moved your commentary on the page to its talk per the rules of an RFC/U.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I have proposed to User:Ryulong that we use a mediator to resolve the content concerns at the UM articles. I hope that you will agree to this avenue. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A mediator is not needed. Please read your talk page, Racepacket.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that mediation is needed, just need the time to figure out where to express that effectively and appropriately. BTW, I'm not a great fan of the manner in which either of you have approached this. Perceived and demonstrated attitude, however, should be irrelevant. The content needs to reflect Wikipedia standards and practices even if we disagree with those policies. I think that deleting all the local character from an article does not serve readers well, but also agree that "boosterism" is boring. Unless it saved the University from bankruptcy and closing the doors, I find nothing worthwhile in discussing a particular fundraising campaign. The use of "South Campus" by the CIA, however, is something unique and interesting. That's a story that will someday be told and understood in the broader context of the history of South Florida becoming the capital of Latin America and the Caribbean. Do go be man (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a mediator for content that most of the users of the pages have no issue with. If he wants to change the tone of the text, that is fine with me. His edits to make these articles conform to a neutral point of view are okay in my book. His edits to remove neutral and reliably sourced statements that he simply does not like or edit warring over the inclusion or exclusion of neutral and reliably sourced statements is what is NOT okay, and what the RFC is intended to solve.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to clearly state my thoughts on mediation to Racepacket. He has outright ignored or has not understood what I have said. If bold, large, red, capital letters cannot put my point across, then I don't know what will, because I've tried everything else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two missing users are User:PassionoftheDamon (wikibreak from Oct. 22 until Nov. 30) and User:ObiWan353 (wikibreak from Oct. 18 to present). If there is a mediation, they should be a part of it. Please review Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing, which states, "Where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use." I agree with you that we are wasting time that could be better spent improving Wikipedia or otherwise advancing higher education in our respective locations. Racepacket (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Blocking

While I have much to do on my Sunday Morning I like to bring something to your attention:

For Several months this war has been taking place on the Mary Baker Eddy page. Our IP address is that of all US Service Members in Kuwait. Can't you or someone semi-lock the page so vandals whom are unregistered cant make edits.

I went to do some work on a page this morning when I found out the IP was blocked for half a year!!

I took the morning to read the entire page, it's history and it's discussion page. I have no opinion whatsoever on the article however, it's completly biased, and managed by a flock of Christain Science Crusaders (SpinningSpark) WHO EVEN DELETED DISCUSSION FROM THE TALK PAGE??? Is that not vandalisim of another sort! No more free discussion?

Again, in no way advocation for the trolls, but when the page is so 1 sided, I can see why!

I'll have you know I will sign up today for my own accout (which is still linked to this IP) and will be blocked when the IP gets blocked again.

I was going to donate to Wiki-- But certainly not now.

Thanks, I'll be sending you my unblock requests once my account gets shut down. You can judge me by my edit history linked to my personal account.

Thank you, Martin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.81.248.53 (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, thank you for your service to our country. I am just another editor as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I have no power to lock or unlock pages. I also have no patience for trolls or censorship, so this latest attack was very conflicting for me. You are wise to sign up for your own account and use it. Anonymous editors have less credibility and less control of their reputations. As the co-moderator of a Christian web forum representing former Christian Scientists, I often deal with Christian Science Crusaders. I also deal with those who go too far in their criticisms of Christian Science, which has many serious problems. Spurious claims such as Mary Baker Eddy being "retarded" serve no one. Do go be man (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]