Talk:Church of the New World

From eRepublik Official Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Also,

There is a shockingly large amount of strange and devious wording in the article, trying to stray away from key points. The only clear view I can see is that you all are against Dioism.

Can one of you "Churchists" clean this up, and make your views a little more, well, unified? - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star PPP! B / C / D / F / P / S 19:06, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Another thing, why the hell is the "doctrine" almost entirely about sexuality? This is a game, in which you cannot have sex with another user. What relevance does this have to Erepublik? - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star PPP! B / C / D / F / P / S 19:09, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Sorry haven't been active within the wiki for a while. was getting a little bored I guess. I will clean that up (get it?)!
Dohohoho, that's a real knee-slapper. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star PPP! B / C / D / F / P / S 20:00, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Hi Chieftain

Why are you changing this text to make it Dio-friendly? This is the religious views of them, they hate Dioism and Dio so they have the right to write it, just like you wrote things in your so called fake book. I am reverting changes that you made to make it "dio-friendly" unless the owners of this idea want to have it your way.--Aryamehr Flag of Iran talk 19:37, 7 September 2008 (BST)

I didn't make it "Dio-friendly", I reworded a bit of it and corrected a typo. Also, keep in mind that insults are not allowed. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star PPP! B / C / D / F / P / S 19:55, 7 September 2008 (BST)
No, you did it Dio friendly. It's their religious view, you don't need to reword anything. Do you see anyone rewording your fake book? If insults are not allowed then wait until things are a bit more relaxed for me and I will make sure book of dio is removed forever from this wiki. Stop crying. ;) I am reverting. Do not change their religious views. --Aryamehr Flag of Iran talk 20:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)
"Do you see anyone rewording your fake book?"
Yes, The Book of Dio has been reworded.
Also, keep in mind that I asked you to add the section back without reverting it, since you're reverting a constructive edit. You're readding a typo, removing a link, and readding an awkward clause to a sentence. However, I want "cult" changed to "religion", as it's factually accurate and more appropriate for the page.
Please, take your bias elsewhere and don't interfere with a well-meaning edit. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star PPP! B / C / D / F / P / S
Again, you don't change the religious views of someone. Don't worry, this will be taken care of tomorrow. :lol: As you don't seem to have learned anything at all from your friends doing the same thing as you do. --Aryamehr Flag of Iran talk 23:48, 7 September 2008 (BST)
I did not change their views. I corrected errors in the article. Why are you failing to see this? Does changing "Diosm" to "Dioism" change their religious beliefs? I didn't think so. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star PPP! B / C / D / F / P / S

Awesome, read this and stop changing the article kiddo

"Any user reading an article tagged with this template should take into consideration that the article pertains to the religious views of The Church of the New World, and not the views of Eerepublik as a whole. "
Again, you don't change the views of someone. If they believe Dioism is a evil cult then it is for them, maybe not for you, thus see the "and not the views of Erepublik as a whole" Awesome, this is nothing new though a bunch of video gamers can't be intelligent.

The same way your comical book called book of dio insults (even insulted) swedes, spainiards, iran and a few number of people and getting away with it. Like:
",Bob, this last Pakistani did some many horrible things that he is no longer called by his name and it is forbidden to say its name out loud. Instead, Pakistani will use "he-who-must-not-be-named" or another disambiguation. " Insulting.
"The third to leave was Tagaro, the weak and the coward who could only be respected by his stolen go" Insulting.
"For years Koroush would rule with terror." Insulting
"The followers of Koroush were violent and menacing" Insulting
Dio then moved to Iran where He-who-will-never-be-named-anymore had made his nation grow from forced sexual relationships. Womens were unhappy for they had to bear babies all the time. Men were slave workers, and children were not willingly conceived, leading sometimes to sinister individuals. Insulting
.. and a lot more. Be careful what games you play mate, it will backfire in a bad way... Don't forget, I am trying to discuss here bringing valid points as you just ignore them and continue reverting. But as I said, be careful. :mrgreen: --Aryamehr Flag of Iran talk 00:01, 8 September 2008 (BST)


First of all, The Book of Dio has had many insults removed since it was first introduced, all of which were at your request. The Book is not the issue at hand.
Also, are you saying that I am not adding valid points? You're reverting my constructive edits. Tell me why:
  • Dioism is remaining misspelled
  • The clause is phrased improperly
  • The message is still the same, with the only thing changed being "cult" to "religion"
In other words, you're only arguing for the sake of arguing. Not only is The Book of Dio irrelevant, but I didn't change their religious views besides changing one word and correcting typos. Why are you making such a fuss over a religion that isn't yours, let alone a constructive edit? Please find something else to do besides trying to undo well-meaning edits on the Wiki. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star PPP! B / C / D / F / P / S 06:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)

ALSO


"This project page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. "
Thanks for respecting someone, I for one have not seen anyone change a page while that was displayed, and then you act like you are respectful and all that. Maybe I should go edit all your pages next time you have that. :) --Aryamehr Flag of Iran talk 00:04, 8 September 2008 (BST)

This has never stopped you from editing any pages in the past. Last I checked, at least three of the pages in your last little edit war were tagged with {{InUse}} (Sand, Sandworm, User:Ma1kel), and this didn't stop you. In addition, you fail to show respect when you vandalized four pages of The Book, as well as when you insult me every time you disagree. You are in no place to discuss courtest when you continue to be rude and belligerent to me and the other editors of the wiki. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star PPP! B / C / D / F / P / S 06:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)


Argument Resolution

Here, Aryamehr, I have a list of rules for you to read. Since you are behaving poorly by arguing, insulting, and reverting, I'm going to turn the other cheek and enlighten you with some policies that you should keep in mind when trying to talk to other editors. Note that you are breaking every single one of the rules in this list with your actions in this article, so read all of them to ensure you act in a more mature and constructive manner in the future.

Directly from Erepublik:

Erepublik Terms of Service: "You must NOT use attacks on other participants"
  • Example: You've insulted me twice (Calling me "Kiddo" and unintelligent), and you've threaten to have The Book of Dio deleted and my account banned.
Truth of Dio Ruling: "Fictional content should not insult other Citizens, be ironic to other Citizens, or be a form of attack towards other Citizens."

From Wikipedia (Which are de facto):

WP:3RR: "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances."
  • Example: You've reverted the page four times (Your initial revert of Ma1kel's edit, then three reverts of my edits).
WP:AGF: "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives. "
  • Example: You asserted that I was trying to add bias in favor of Dioism to the article, ignoring the constructive edits that I made.
WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."
  • Example: As mentioned above, you've insulted me numerous times in this talk page alone (Calling me "kiddo" and "unintelligent").
WP:CIV: "Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible."
  • Example: You are entirely ignoring my opinion, reverting my changes regardless of my willingness to reason with you and come to a compromise. You're also behaving in an uppity, snarky manner, which is completely uncalled for. You claim that I am doing the same, which contradicts the fact that i've attempted to appease your views (By adding the insulting bit back into the article).
WP:OWN: "You do not own articles. If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so."
  • Example: You assume that articles cannot be changed by anyone else besides the "primary" author, even though they contain flaws. This is especially relevant on your biography, but I'm sticking to this article alone.
WP:GAME: "Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden."
  • Example: You've resorted to citing {{InUse}} to make my edits appear to be rude, even though they were in good faith. You're also trying to advocate that (Tl|Church/Views) gives the article complete freedom from rules, even though this has proven not to be the case by Admin's rulings.
WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias."
  • Example: You're trying keep a Dioism references in a negative point of view, and you're even going as far as making sure it's spelled incorrectly.

I've also asked a few other editors to voice their opinions on the matter, so a consensus can be established as to how the article will remain. By the way, I didn't be asking any Pakistani, so assuming bad faith will not work. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star PPP! B / C / D / F / P / S 06:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)

YAWN, please don't bring me wikipedia rules that are not in effect here. Thanks. Now I am going to make a nice version of book of dio by requesting everything insulting and offensive to be deleted. --Aryamehr Flag of Iran talk 14:30, 8 September 2008 (BST)
WP:POINT
Btw, we always used wikipedia rules(and templates) as a mean of inspiration, with the implicit thought "they are many, and they have rules that are working, we can use them!" --Mini "Template boy" Bill Italian in the deep core wanna chat? 20:57, 8 September 2008 (BST)
That's not the right way to resolve a dispute now, is it?
Also, note that you're breaking Erepublik rules as well as Wikipedia rules (de facto:Virtual, being such in effect or essence though not formally or wholly taken for granted.) - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star PPP! B / C / D / F / P / S 16:49, 8 September 2008 (BST)


First of all, I think all of these religion articles are ridiculous creative writing exercises. I don't read them... So this is my opinion as a writer looking at the wikipedia rules. I would choose the version created by Agent Chieftain because it is more neutral. It puts the beliefs of the Church into the pattern of "this is what they believe and this is how they see things. Ayranmher's edit states things from the point of view of a follower.--Q J Lincoln 06:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)



"The Church of the New World was discovered on the 26th of July, 2008. The mission of members of The First Church is to promote happiness and well being. They want a peaceful world where everyone lives under their god and free from poverty, misfortune, and corruption. This mission also includes saving the innocent from Diosm, an evil cult started by one of Gods most faithful servants, who was disgusted with the creation of humans and turned against the religion."

  • If the "Churchists" claim that they "discovered" this religion, the should state also where and how they discovered it.
  • I think that should be God or "god" instead of simple god.
  • "This mission also includes saving the innocent from Diosm, an evil cult started by one of Gods most faithful servants, who was disgusted with the creation of humans and turned against the religion." - I think Dioism should be written there. And another thing, this statement should go to "Beliefs of this religion" section or something like that. Rephrase idea: <<They believe that Dioism is "an evil cult" and that Dio is "one of Gods most faithful servants" and created Dioism because "was disgusted with the creation of humans.">>.

On the other hand, I think that "As such it is one of the worlds largest religions having many adherents from across the whole world, only competing with Capitalism for number of followers." (from Dioism page) should be rephrased too.

  • "worlds largest religions" - what other "largest religions" are in Erepublik? What makes a religion "large"?
Followers, books, frequency of practice, etc. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star PPP! B / C / D / F / P / S
  • "many adherents from across the whole world" - estimated number? Have yout thought of doing a statistic about the number of Dioists in Erepublik?
600-800 Pakistani, 10-20 Greeks/Turks/Mexicans, 10 Italians, 4 Portuguese, 3 Spaniards, 2 Canadians, 2 Americans, 1 Brazillian, and 1 Swede. I'm not sure at all how many Indonesian followers we have. So, that falls around 633-843. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star PPP! B / C / D / F / P / S
  • I didn't know Capitalism is a religion. Dioism competes with "The Path", "The Curch of the New World" and "Lidoxa".
That was a joke. Also, we don't really compete with The Path or Lidoxa, since many of them are also Dioists. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star PPP! B / C / D / F / P / S

Just my 2 eurocents! --Belea2008 Hail eSouth Africa! chew the fat 10:52, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Doctrine

I find the first 5 items on the doctrine list to have nothing to do with this game at all Actually, I don't know why they bother even calling this "Church of the New World" instead of "Rebranded-Catholicism". I find may of the doctrines to be offensive and out of place in this game. --Q J Lincoln 18:14, 8 September 2008 (BST)

yeah sorry this page will be going through a HUGE re-edit over a few days. a lot of it was choppy cuts and pastes. tbh voltare is turning the whole thing around from multi-religious with catholic branding to just all catholic. i don't have enough in me to be pope though so im just the edit guy.

Argument resolution, part two

So it seems tha that User:Aryamehr insists that all of the EREP:UBER are wrong, and that his opinions matter more than what everyone else has already agreed upon. He's going directly to Admin to try to have his changes made, even though his changes are against reason against consensus, and ultimately against the rules.

You can see his full complaint on Admin's talk page, but responding to it will send him into a hissy-fit, so you can reply to it here. Below, you can find my response, which is of course open to discussion.


Admin said to take any and all issues with The Book to me to have them fixed. Please do not try to bypass proper consensus building by taking your problem to them instead of resolving it with the person in charge of the project. If you disagree with me, you should try and come to a compromise, rather than push against consensus and have Admin enforce your opinions as law.

1. The same argument you are using for the preservation of the Church of the New World's page can be applied to the censorship of The Book of Dio. Since it contains our views, it cannot be changed by anyone else, right?
Wrong. We are censoring The Book, and making our views less explicit as well. Ergo, the Churchists should be informed to do the same.
2. The changes that I made to the Churchism article were mostly improvements on the formatting, spelling and grammar fixes, and the rewording of this particular sentence. I didn't "change their views" at all, and I kept this in mind as I made the changes. Also, note the lengthy discussion page where the consensus is in favor of my changes.
3. Truth of dio is not the same case as The Book of Dio. Whereas The Book is important to Pakistani society, Truth of dio is not. Also, Khashayar Pars refused to censor it, so it was removed. Restoring it in it's original form is in direct violation of Admin's ruling.
4. You were previously satisfied with Altnabla's changes, but now you're not? Anyways, if you wish to have it censored further, then you should tell Altnabla and User talk:William Walker to continue their work with censoring The Book. They are the original authors, and as the original authors, they are the best candidates to make the changes so their original message is preserved.

On a further note, I find it a bit immature of you to go to Admin after consensus has been reached, only to try and go against the opinions of the other editors. Please refrain from misbehaving and using Admin as a tool to have things your way, especially when everyone else disagrees with you.


Ta,

AgentChieftain
21:52, 16 September 2008 (BST)

What to do

What are we going to do about the no relevence bar on all of the religion pages? -Joey