User talk:Sterlingbates

Welcome

Sterlingbates, welcome to the wikipedia. And thank you for your contributions to Mormonism and Christianity. We are aware that much work is needed on that article. It has come a long way, but is still rather unwieldy and rambling. Be bold and edit in any good way you see fit. Tom 15:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thoughts on NPOV

I have maybe a new twist on NPOV. I don't want to write for Wikipedia in vain. If I write articles that people take exception to, my writing will eventually disappear or be replaced by other points of view. But if I succeed in writing in a way that all reasonable people have to concede is NPOV, then my writing endures. At Wikipedia, you are only as successful as your ability to think and write NPOV. I think this is good for us personally.

As we write carefully and respectfully, we begin to see increasingly which of our edits are not sticking. We have a chance to rephrase ourselves, and in the process to become less partisan. I think Mkmcconn has done a good job of internalizing NPOV. He has very strong feelings about Mormonism (as somthing to be avoided). But his edits and comments are always fair, and he even speaks well for the Mormon POV in so far as he understands it.

I think this whole philosophy, process, and principle at Wikipedia is very harmonious with the purpose of our mortal life, and it excites me to explore the minds of my adversaries and to try to agree with them quickly. I have no doubt that it makes me a better disciple of Christ (See also Wikipedia:wikilove. Tom 22:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I think I've had similar experiences with being able to think and rethink my position, and how I present that position. I've always had very strong opinions, but have rarely had the opportunity to discuss them with trustworthy people who could correct me while still caring about me. I think this forum gives me a chance to continue balancing my perspective, and to further refine my beliefs, and understanding of them. The challenge is doing so without embarassing myself 10 years from now :-) Sterlingbates 05:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As an additional note, perhaps a better abbreviation is BPOV -- both points of view? Sterlingbates 05:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

APOV? All Points of View?  :-D Sometimes I like to think of it as how a caring and informed parent would explain something to an inquiring teenager or to a child. Actually, NPOV is a good descriptor, because the neutral point of view realizes that some points of view are marginal, some ar key, and others are at least mentionable. It is thus NPOV to say, "a very small minority of Americans believes that USA has never sent a man to the moon." And you would want, if you were sufficiently alert at the right time, to inform your teenager of that fact. Tom 22:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity

The current intro (with magic and all) was a rework by COGDEN of a major article rework I did some time back. You might want to click on History and go back to some of the versions right before the major editing flurries to get an idea of where we've been. Specifically, perhaps you might take some of the old material and incorporate it again in your own way. But I still have great hopes for Mkmcconn's project, which will be another major rework. On that vein, you might want to drop by his scratchpad and help out with the brainstorming. Tom 23:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Human

Hey, S. Have you seen the human page? Wow! It is funny. Species status: secure ROTFL Any ideas? Tom 23:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Miss you

S, I hope to see you again at Wikipedia some time. Thanks for the help you gave us with Mormonism and Christianity. Tom - Talk 04:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)