User talk:Jedimasterkyp

Welcome!

Hello, Jedimasterkyp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jediism

Hi and thank you for your much appreciated contribs. I do have some questions though as how Jediism and Shintoism are related. Also I would really like to keep some sort of mention to the fact that websites keep disappearing, which an annoying yet important trait of the Jedi community.

Also, in the sources, I would like to keep anything that looks a bit like RPG away. See for the shadow Jedi sources for example.Ren ✉ 02:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I feel I have much more to contribute to this endeavor if allowed, as I have been a practicing Jedi for fourteen years now.

What Shintoism contributed to Jediism was the love and reverence for nature(and all life in general), as well as the importance of tradition. One could argue that Jediism also borrowed heavily from the importance which Shintoism places on family, as many Jedi have family themselves. One common error people make when heckling Jediism is that the believe Jedi are not allowed to feel love, or be involved in any way with family or a signifigant other, which is simply not true. Another facet of Shintoism which Jediism may have borrowed is the Ceremonial Robe, though Shintoism is certainly not the only religion to utilize robes for ceremonial purposes. One last thing which Jediism may have borrowed from Shintoism is the focus on the current life rather than the afterlife.

As for Jediism websites dissappearing, I agree that it is an annoying trait of the online Jedi community. That is why I am endeavoring to provide only stable websites for reference and/or external links. Jediism gets enough "bad publicity" without emphasizing websites which have dissappeared, in my opinion. Those of us who are currently active within the Jedi community are doing what we can to keep things stable.

I also agree with keeping RPG out of this article. However, I do not quite understand what you mean by the Shadow Jedi source I cited. The Temple of the Jedi Order website is not an RPG site... however, if you can provide a more concise source for the Shadow Jedi reference, feel free to add it, or replace my cited source. Jedimasterkyp (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have the time to go through it again, but as I recall this thread mentioned shadow Jedi powers, which could be from the dark side or light side (or something like this). This sounds very... fiction-centered, RPG-like, etc... I'm not delusional, I am a Shadow Jedi (as in Jediism), and well, I don't want to be seen as a guy who claims to be able to use dark and light side powers. I'm sure you understand what I mean :)

I had given up looking for sources as I was the main/only contributor to the article, especially as some of my sources disappeared as early as a week later :( but I'll get involved in this article properly again if I have the time.Ren ✉ 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC) (fixed)[reply]

Yes, I see... well, I assure you that the Temple of the Jedi Order is definitely not an RPG site. That being said, as one who is purely Jedi, I do not agree 100% with everything they have there. Concerning "Shadow Jedi", I would prefer to remove them from the article altogether. Shadow Jedi is more of a fictional approach to the path... a more appropriate, real-world term would be Balance. I believe you fall under this category yourself from what you've said. Since there are not other references to "Shadow Jedi" outside of the fiction//mythos, I think it would be best if I/we worked on re-writing that portion to better fir reality. If you'll permit me, I'd be more than happy to continue adding to this valuable article.

As far as sources, I'll do what I can to continue bringing stable sources to the article. I would like to be able to communicate with you off-wiki, if you go to the Praxeum site listed under references and external links, you can find my other online contact information there.Jedimasterkyp (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to keep mentions of shadow Jedi, and, as a matter of fact, would consider any "classification" of the path as valuable to the article. I know some people keep saying "we're all Jedi" (including the Sith sometimes), but I really feel the ideologies are very distinct and this must be noted. We can't say "this is how (light) Jedi act" when in fact you'll get people like me, or some Sith, who according to some, are Jedi, yet act and think in an opposite way. You mentioned families, and then again I feel that loving your family or having one or not has got nothing to do with Jediism, as most humans have a family and love it, and some (light)Jedi actually believe such attachments are wrong, can lead to the DS, and will inevitably take you away from the Jedi path (as obviously having a family is a full time job). I'm not criticizing either side, just pointing things out. I just don't want to see the article say: things are done this way, this is right, and this is wrong. There are no official "policies" in Jediism other than we should keep it close to Star Wars. The other particular views should be covered in Jedi realism ( As some christian Jedi may, for example, live by the rule of the bible, possibly conflicting with some views in Jediism)Ren ✉ 07:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jediism talk page

I am reverting all three of your edits starting 03:03, 23 November 2008 on the talk page, and i urge you recover the appropriate material that they included from the page history and fit that in, after i complete my next edit following the reversion. Don't ever insert your talk contributions between the beginning of another editor's signed contrib and its end, even temporarily. It is true that your second edit attempted to ameliorate some of the problems with your having done that, but not in a good way, especially in light of your failure to consult me before undertaking those changes. I am reverting all three edits because they are so interlocked, and i believe i would be presumptuous to try to deduce how you would want the later ones to appear in light of the change from the environment you placed them in.
The edit i was working on at the time you edited addresses the problem you faced, without corrupting the record, so you will probably find it simpler now to meet the goals you had.
--Jerzy•t 05:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. As I said on that talk page, I am working on better material for the article. I understand that you are an admin, but I really wish you would allow those of us who are familiar with the article's topic to do our work instead of finding baseless reasons to be destructive to the article. Just because you personally do not agree with or believe in the topic in the article does not make it less valid. As it has been pointed out in several articles, personal opinion does not denote fact, validity, or the lack thereof. On a more personal note, I find it very difficult to read your comments(on the article's talk page)... Please make an effort to make your comments legible and understandable, for all our sakes.Jedimasterkyp (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jediism Article

I just saw the message you left on my talkpage, I sent you an email before to see it. The site is definitely not compliant with WP:EL. Read it again. from WP:ELNO, I can say that it *could* be #4 in regards to #1 and #2, and most importantly definitely is #10

regarding copyright: Make sure you are not breaking the GFDL. I won't add things which I don't own, because I legally can't. Also note that you probably cannot give anyone any rights to distribute G. Lucas' property, if property there is. Also "Fair Use" is something wikipedia doesn't like. Ren ✉ 12:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]