User talk:Rockstone35

Archives: [1]

Welcome to my talkpage, which should start on 8/30/09

Please enter any concerns or responses below but please be courteous.

Also, I've recently started using Huggle, and therefore I've been fighting a LOT of Vandalism. If however, I accidentally make a mistake, please let me know so I don't continue to do the same.

Your restoration of "Catholic Position" on Sola Scriptura article is unwarranted

Rockstone, the section "Catholic Position" in the sola scriptura article was totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. The article already noted that Roman Catholic doctrine and how it differed from the Protestant idea, and the "Catholic position" section was a sprawling debate-section that had apologists debating obscure arguments pro and con. This was totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. There was a definite trend for Catholic apologists to expand the section by adding information that was indisputably false according to all reputable scholarly consensus. I am removing this section again, and if you have a problem with that, then I suggest we take that dispute to administrators. If I haven't made myself clear, then let me put it another way - do you think it would be fair if 50% of the article about the Papacy was devoted to Protestant fundamentalist arguments AGAINST the Papacy, including assertions that the RCC is a Babylonian cult and the Whore of Babylon described in Rev. 17? Of course not. In the same way, Catholic fundamentalists shouldn't hijack articles about other people's religious views.--ManicBrit (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, good point! Maybe I should consider making a fork called Sola Scriptura and the Catholic Church instead? However, I implore you to not insult other people's religious beliefs or call them false without proof. --Rockstone (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent RfA

I am sorry, but I have closed your Request for adminship prematurely. Simply put, you only have 900 edits on Wikipedia; while your edit count isn't the only determining factor, and numerous people have their own personal standards by which they judge RfA candidates, this particular RfA was all but assured of not passing.

I am sorry about this, and I hope you don't take it personally. If you continue to contribute to the project in a positive fashion, I am confident that you would be able to submit a successful RfA in the future. You may wish to consider applying for an evaluation by other Wikipedia editors for feedback on how to obtain the necessary experience. Once you are ready to request adminship again, there is a great admin coaching program available, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

If you have any other questions about becoming an administrator, please don't hesitate to ask me. Good luck! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your statement at Wikipedia:Editor review/Rockstone35, what you can do to boost your edit count is simply edit more. Get a couple thousand edits, write some articles, learn the ins and outs (and one "out" is debating--WP is not a debate society!), then apply again. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I expected... thank you both! --Rockstone (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rockdtone35, can you explain what "sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (RattyPussFACE (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC))" means? or at least how it works. In truth i am very new to this and need some guidance. Thanks Template:RattyPussFACE.[reply]

OK, I just saw, at least in part what it means as i saved the page. How it works i have no idea yet.{{RattyPussFACE (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Arbitration

You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CCatholic_Church_and_Renaming.3E --Rockstone (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you choose names for this? There are quite a few involved editors not listed. Gimmetrow 04:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the way you've linked the Catholic Church article and Naming-convention issues in this request is a good idea at all. Apart from motivations, the naming-conventions issue - ie people attempting to radically change the convention without proper consensus or community involvement, is a completely separate one. Confusing the two helps nobody. Xandar 20:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quad-Core

I redirected it because I found that Quad-core was already a redirect to Multi-core where various multiple core (2-10) are discussed. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arb.

I think you got the wrong Richard. I think you meant this guy. Richard (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To our newest Rollbacker

I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! upstate NYer_{formerly wadester16} 21:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Very very much. --Rockstone (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Okumkpa

Hello Rockstone35, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Okumkpa has been removed. It was removed by MrsPorter with the following edit summary '(Remove propose-deletion tag. Content edits, add reference and external link.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with MrsPorter before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Catholic church criticism

At first, it did seem to me that the church was being singled out, but most of the criticism is historical, which is okay, the church wasn't always right. They had humans in them too. Modern criticism tends to be humanistic and offers a chance to contrast religious thought with those who think man is the center of everything. The article would need a bit of restructuring for that and, worse luck, place the church at odds with Protestantism which seems (to me) to yield to humanism when it should not. Anyway, this is a "long term" goal.

But I wouldn't get too upset by this article which is not too pov IMO. There are much worse ones (pov) which I will not point you to just yet! Student7 (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with you [I believe the Church has always been right at least as a whole] (though that isn't the purpose of my comments on the article anyway) --Rockstone (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

Being previously an uninvolved editor is not a blank cheque for edit warring. Uninvolved users are supposed to first read the discussion and then elaborate their justification in the talk page (before doing any drastic edit). Alefbe (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rockstone35. I had to disagree with your post on Christianity, where it says that the Catholic Church was the first church. Dbachman removed the first national church line, so therefore, I did the same about your edit regarding the Catholic Church as well. Actually if you read The Journal of Ecclesiastical History – Page 268 by Cambridge University Press, Gale Group, C.W. Dugmore, the facts are clearly stated in an unbias way. Nareg510 (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Commandments move

Rockstone35, obviously **I** have a problem with the move that you made for the page formerly known as Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism (Gimmetrow was also against any page moves). You were bold, I reverted you, and I left a note on the article talk page explaining my reasons. It was inappropriate of you to then remove the page without engaging in a discussion on the talk page, and with an edit summary saying that no one objected (was I not clear enough?). This article cannot be labelled just "Catholicism" because that term does not solely mean the (Roman) Catholic Church (look at the WP article). Please move the article to a different title ASAP. Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the title you are edit-warring over was never discussed on the article talk page; there is no consensus for that title and obviously dissent. Karanacs (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]