User talk:Routerone/Archive 2

First Vision-second opinion

I'm planning to request a Second opinion about our differences over First Vision. You may apply first if you'd like.--John Foxe (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on doing so, I'd prefer that than having more reverting on the cards. Routerone (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've conceded the elimination of the sentences to which you've objected. Once Storm expressed his objections, I couldn't go for a Second opinion anyway because that possible resolution exists only when disagreement occurs between just two editors. All the best,--John Foxe (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Routerone,

First, thanks for hanging out on the article. Second, I am shocked at the misinformation and flawed (manipulated) research out there. My favorite is the argument secondary evidence is more reliable than primary evidence because Wikipedia says so. Probably thrown out because I was using primary evidence at the time.

So what keeps you going on this article. I keep getting real frustrated with the Orwellian elitism going on here. I will give the individual contributors benefit of the doubt, but it seems the goal of the group is to use the article to disperse anti-mormon pamphlets in electronic form. Using Brodie in this article (especially her speculative quotes) is in my opinion tantamount to quoting Hitler in an article about the Jewish people. Brodie used questionable research methods, displayed a strong negative bias, and appears to have held a deep hatred towards the Mormon Church. But because she is popular, er, prominent, she seems to be worshiped by contributors here and her bias is never questioned.

So, keep up the great effort.

Canadiandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Routerone.

Me again (Canadiandy). As I have been discussing on the article, I think we would actually be better to step away from this one and leave it to burn up inside the firewall. Let the present editors own this mess. In fact, I would in some ways rather see it maintain its horrible bias. Such a bias is obvious to the fair-spirited readers. In fact, I suspect making it a little more neutral might make it almost seem reliable and accurate which is actually worse than now. See, now most readers will read the article and see it is obviously published by skeptics. Or almost as likely, readers will think the article was vandalized by anti-Mormons. Either way, with the incredible number of bitter anti-Mormons out there, I don't think they will ever stand for an accurate depiction of Joseph as a kind, caring, honorable, inspired, and humble leader. Doesn't matter how much whip cream they add to this article, it will always be a mud pie. Like your US political attack ads, they may get a candidate elected, but over time the truth will out and the public will only remember the mud on the candidate's own hands. Time is on the side of truth.

Oh yeah, what is it with the huge defensiveness from editors around Brodie? Her research is suspect, outdated, and clearly manipulated. But questioning her "Dominance" seems tantamount to denying Global Warming at a Democratic convention in San Francisco. Smiles.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy[reply]

WP:NOTVAND

While I agree that your edit is "not vandalism", that doesn't make another user a troll- it'd be better to stay well on the nice side of WP:CIVIL so you can't be accused of crossing WP:NPA. I'm saying this because I am supporting your right to remove the recently-added content from the Joseph Smith page- not because we agree, or because I support your viewpoint, but because you have the right to do so and not be called a vandal. tedder (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I do not mean to be uncivil, but I generally feel that Duke53 is a troll by the way he is behaving, because he isn't of any good faith. He repeatedly reverts constructive edits for no reason and is often incredibly rude to LDS editors, and to be honest its quite annoying when you're trying to solve problems with an article. I justified my change on the talkpage, however he's now trying to push an edit war on me and blame me by repeatedly reverting me and passing my edit off as "vandalism" when it clearly isn't. Routerone (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I understand, and agree with you that it is not vandalism. I protected the page. Obviously I'm not a neutral editor/admin, but I am protecting for your side (aka the 'pro-mormon' side), so I don't mind squelching the edit war. Thanks for taking it to the article talk page. tedder (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war report

Please don't remove reports at the message boards, especially when they are about you. If the report is groundless, an admin will take a look at it and throw it out. In addition, admins also look at the conduct of the reporter, so if he's been edit warring, he may be blocked also. Dayewalker (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing another user's user page

You should not be removing images from other editor's user pages. If they offend you, take it to WP:ANI - it's been made clear in the past that deciding if an image shouldn't be on a user page is a matter for the community, not individual editors. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, forgive my ignorance - what's the story behind the images at User:Duke53? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Temple undergarments??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "problem", I just wondered what it's about, as I don't know much about the finer points of Mormonism. Is this something that the people wear when they attend services? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. It's basically something you wear as part of going to temple. I would say it compares to Jews with their yarmulkes and prayer shawls. Presumably they are issued to a member once they are "confirmed" or whatever, and they are a part (albeit invisibly) of their "Sunday best". It occurs to me that a practical matter would be that this would ensure relatively clean underwear when going to temple, given that folks were not so fastidious in the pioneer days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this in article offhand: Would I be correct in assuming that a deceased Mormon would be buried in those garments? Much as a Jew might be buried with his prayer shawl. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, moving left) Bugs- no, they wear them all of the time. They begin wearing them after being allowed to go to the temple the first time. And yes, they wear more than just the underwear in the temple, in church, and elsewhere, so get your mind out of the gutter . And yes, buried in them. tedder (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously, underneath suits or dresses or whatever. So they wear them all the time? That's opposite from what I was assuming. So in that case, hopefully they wash them occasionally. As for "protests" against these garments, maybe this is a little hard-nosed, but if you don't like a religion's rituals, you can either learn to like it, or find another denomination. In America, at least, no one's got an anchor on you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to see a bit more of what this dispute is about. Let me ask you this: Are these photos an accurate representation of these garments? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page editing warning

You were warned above, please don't remove things from other people's user pages, as you did here. [1] I know you reverted yourself, but you should know better than to remove it in the first place. If that image bothers you, please bring up a discussion at the WP:ANI noticeboard. Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duke53

Routerone, I strongly suggest that you avoid any further interaction with Duke53. Stay away from his user page and his talk page. There's no need for you to be the one to revert, remove, or change anything on those pages, and no further commentary addressed to him will be of any benefit to the encyclopedia. Right now, no matter how well you might mean, you are giving the appearance of trying to inflame the situation and taking advantage of his blocked status. That will get yourself blocked quickly, and rightly so. Please just leave him alone and direct your attention elsewhere. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Routerone (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Routerone and I are certainly not allies, it's fairly clear Routerone's intention was not to make things worse. tedder (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To merge both viewpoints, I removed that unblock request because quite clearly it was bad faith and contained personal attacks, meaning it was never going to be met with approval by an administrator. However, I was naive in doing it as it was pretty obvious that he would restore it. Hence, even though it wasn't intentionally bad faith, I suppose it was unintentionally stirring up trouble on that page and I should have avoided it. However, after he restored the unblock request I went quickly to IRC and shown the page to an admin (Petersymonds) who then revoked Duke53's editing priviledge on that page to prevent further trouble. Routerone (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're on the same page now. I was perhaps a bit strong in my wording to you, but I wanted to impress on you that you (or I), with a history of conflict with a blocked user, should be the last ones on the wiki to revert or interfere with what he says on his own talk page. If there's a problem, get someone neutral and uninvolved to take a look, but be hands-off yourself...and I think you were right in eventually taking that approach. No hard feelings, I hope. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are under scrutiny at AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

{{unblock|I endorse that I was wrong to edit war, the policy states that no more than 3 reverts should be made within 24 hours on a single page excluding vandal reversions. But this was over a content dispute, something which could be quite easily discussed on the talkpage, but I failed to do so. I endorse that I can contribute properly to this encyclopedia, and then if I step out of line with this policy again then I truly do deserve an indefinate block.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Not quite the letter of instructions, but close enough for horseshoes.

Request handled by: —Kww(talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Comment

I think it is aunfair that the blocking admin should review and decline the block, I would like another to review the initial request please. Routerone (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True enough: new at this, so I screwed up. Your unblock request has been restored. I will stand behind my original statement, however: you were given an incredibly simple task to perform that will result in an immediate unblock. It doesn't even require apology, much less anything embarrassing or demeaning. Why not just do it?—Kww(talk) 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1895297 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: —Kww(talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

First time I've dealt with an autoblock: should be working now.—Kww(talk) 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that that's over

Please understand that I'm not fond of any of the edit-warring that takes place by either side on the LDS articles. I'm about as neutral as you will find on the topic: not having any religious beliefs, I don't consider the LDS movement to be any more or less deserving of criticism than any other religion. If you feel backed into a corner, drop me a note, but don't edit-war in kind. I have most LDS articles on my watchlist because of vandalism problems, but it's easy for me to miss the ebb-and-flow of non-vandalistic edits, and I might miss inappropriate behaviour..—Kww(talk) 21:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I agree. Routerone (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than edit warring

Feel free to ask for my participation in any disputes you may find yourself in. This isn't a promise that I'll back you up, but I certainly will try to help find a reasonable solution to the dispute. Other, more formal, avenues of dispute resolution are available if you feel that a particular editor is POV pushing or whatnot. Remember how you felt when you tried to make changes to the JSJr article, only to be reverted? It's usually wiser to respond to problematic edits by taking it slow rather than using the shiny undo button. ...comments? ~BF izz 00:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]