User talk:Scottdude2000

Welcome to Wikipedia

From a new editor on wikipedia I have a couple of thoughts about your joseph smith article. first, shouldn't that fact that he was a wanted criminal suspect many times over be mentioned in the summary section? When I look at the wiki entries for any celebrity or politician who had any criminal or suspected criminal dealings, be they HR Haldamen, richard nixon, charles manson, bill clinton, oj simpson, martha stewart or what-have-you, they all, regardless of their guilt or innocence, have a note about it in their summary paragraphs. Shouldn't the same be true of J smith if this article is to be fair and balanced (to quote the old attage)? the second thought I had was when I ran across this sentence: "Some secular scholars argue that the witnesses thought they saw the plates with their "spiritual eyes," or that Smith showed them something physical like fabricated tin plates, or that they signed the statement out of loyalty or under pressure from Smith." why are the scholars referenced as secular? if they're reputable scholars shouldn't it just read, "scholars argue" rather than "secular scholars argue"? Firstly, I highly doubt the only people who question the validity of the twelve witness' signatures are secular. I'd be willing to bet that some are christians, muslims, jews, et al. I don't see why this concern has to be relegated to secularists only. in fact I would say that to claim the scholars are secular requires proof in and of itself. Also I thought of a third thing while I was writing this regarding the synopsis again. shouldn't it mention that he is also an insurrectionist? he did try to overthrow the government according to the facts established in your own article.

thanks for listening to the thoughts of a noob. ttyl scottdude2000 —Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Scott. If Joseph Smith, Jr. were truly my article, it would read much differently; but at Wikipedia, articles are cooperative pieces, especially those that concern controversial figures like founders of religions. Furthermore, unlike the political or cultural figures you've mentioned above, articles about religious figures tend to attract believers in significant numbers. (Few people would stake their soul on the testimony of Richard Nixon, plenty would for Mohammad.) So, at some religious articles, believers outnumber non-believers (which is the case at Joseph Smith), and this tends to slight negative aspects of the subject.

Nevertheless, all things considered, the Joseph Smith article is pretty evenhanded. Mormons complain that that the article's too anti-Mormon, and non-Mormons complain that it's too pro-Mormon. That's a pretty good sign that the article is relatively neutral in its point of view.

If would be fine if you'd like to join the conversation at the Joseph Smith article, but I usually recommend that those new to Wikipedia start editing at a fairly non-controversial article, like the one about their home town, until they feel comfortable with Wikipedia rules and procedures. Doubtless, wherever you live, you can find errors in the information or writing style in the Wikipedia article about your town or city.

Generally speaking, Wikipedia editors leave replies on their own talk pages, but I thought I'd put some comments here to start you off. You can sign your posts (rather than have a bot have to do it) by typing four tildes (~) at the end. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Scottdude2000. You have new messages at Magog the Ogre's talk page.
Message added 12:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rules of chess. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did use the talk page. I used the talk page every step of the way. Quale only used the talk page to say that he hates my personality and the article would be better off without me. one sentance. then he went and destroyed everything we took a week to accomplish. I don't want to engage in an edit war. and the consensus was in favor of all the edits that went up. I've done everything right here djang. Scottdude2000 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." I will explain to Quale, though, about what he did.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a general note, please type your comments with correct grammar.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

huh? you mean the comments on the talk page or like the actual edits? if you mean the edits I promise I'm doing my absolute best and I have a fair sense of grammar. if you mean the talk page I couldn't care less since it's shorthand and not really meant to be seen by the public.Scottdude2000 (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you should capitalize your talk page comments correctly, just to be formal, which Wikipedia is.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith

It seems that you are not assuming good faith with Quale on Talk:Rules of chess. Please do so in the future. Quale is an experienced editor and is very unlikely to be a sockpuppet. Please don't accuse other editors of freaking out when they aren't. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thats mostly fair. but you should recognize all i knew about him is he said: "So far you haven't improved the article very much ... I also have to say that your attitude sucks. The article would probably be better if you just left it and checkmate alone." then showed up and deleted everything I and others did... I'm not normally one to jump to conclusions but as far as first impressions go I've gotta say he didn't do well... is there a wikipedia rule against being a gigantic dick? if not then I'll just go back to assuming good faith and all that jazz. lol no actually I'm just kidding there. in seriousness though he opened with that rude comment and even at that point I took it at the chin and offered him the chance to give constructive criticisms. instead he chose not to and vandalized the chess page. right after I said he was a sock-puppet I looked up his accolades and imediately deleted what I said because clearly he is not. You don't need to tell me this. btw did you ever send him a snippy letter about being rude to others as opposed to constructively contributing to -- oh whatever. clearly this website is designed to be a giant poke in the eye. keep on truckin. Scottdude2000 (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already left Quale a stern note about biting you. You must never assume bad faith, except in extreme cases, none of which apply here. The website is not supposed to be a "giant poke in the eye." However, if you receive a rude comment, ignore it, and report it if it continues.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saddleback Church

Hey Scott, I was wondering if by any chance you wrote or know the author of the SaddleBack Church page. I am currently writing one for "Rockford First" and was wanting a few pointers if you had a chance. Let me know. Thank you! Amandaallard05 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]