User talk:Antaeus Feldspar

This user may have left Wikipedia. Antaeus Feldspar has not edited Wikipedia since April 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Note: if you leave a comment here that you want me to reply to, here's where I'll reply to it. (The one exception, whose comments will be deleted unread whether he signs them as himself or as his sockpuppet, knows who he is.) Leave new comments at the bottom.

I reserve the right to refactor this page as I see fit, and if you are planning to post the exact same complaints to my user page and to the talk page of the article you're upset about, don't be surprised when it's deleted from here.

Re: Metaphoric use of "Siberia"?[edit]

Here you've written

In the United States at least, there is a wide association of "Siberia" with "punishing exile in everything but name", based on a belief that underlings in the Soviet system failed, they were re-assigned to Siberia.

Would you explane the meaning of this piece, please? Ъыь 15:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try. Many American television shows and movies during the existence of the Soviet Union made reference to Siberia. When Siberia was referenced, it was always as a punishment: for instance, if a Soviet agent failed in a mission against the United States, the end of the program might show the agent receiving news from his superiors that he was being sent to Siberia. This became so frequent that "Siberia" came to be used as metaphor for exile and punishment: "a bureaucratic Siberia" ([1],[2]), for example. I think that explaining this metaphorical use will help the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now it's clear. Any suggestion on commonplaces/myths cleanup? :) I think this your description will be just fine. Ъыь 16:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant IMDb links[edit]

The film U.S. Marshals (film) has its own page, the {{imdb title|id=0120873|title=U.S. Marshals}} isn't necessary for the The Fugitive (1993 film) article. It belongs in the U.S. Marshals (film) article. —Gabbe 19:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long talk page[edit]

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done (whew!). BD2412 T 02:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New cult article[edit]

Hi Antaeus. We met recently in another editor’s talk page. Since you seem to be an expert in the field I’d like to ask you a question about a cult that destroyed part of my life. Eschatology (religious movement) is a minority sect that became into existence at the beginning of the 20th century after a schism with Christian Science (though eschatologists are atheists). Besides the cult’s official web site I can find no information about it on the Internet but I have some inside information (alas, that’s Original Research). The cult is flourishing in Mexico and other countries. It needs to be exposed. I have no idea how to write a NPOV article for Wikipedia. Is there a guide for such difficult articles? —Cesar Tort 18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cesar. I typed the two words Eschatology and cult into Google and this was the first result: The Curse of Eschatology. There's lots more. The best source of information about cults on the internet is http://rickross.net/. BTW, I wrote you a message on my talk page. -- Bookish 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, all of those critical links refer to Christian eschatology, not to William W. Walter’s cult called “Eschatology”. —Cesar Tort 22:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I realized that after I read through some of them. See my talk page for an update. -- Bookish 00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antaeus. Thanks for the advice in my user page. I have already created the article Eschatology (religious movement)). Any criticism from you is most welcome. —Cesar Tort 08:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing[edit]

Hi Antaeus. I am interested in any suggestions to improve my referencing. Please feel free to list them on my disucssion page. Best regards, --Fahrenheit451 18:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, Antaeus! LOL! Actually, the online current version of the St. Pete Times is redacted from the print version, but when it gets archived, it is all there. The lecture excerptions were right from the editions compared side by side. It is appalling what rtc is censoring.--Fahrenheit451 16:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo editing again?[edit]

Hey..... I saw your observation that the anon IP that recently edited Altered texts in Scientology doctrine was making the exact same point that Terryeo has been making on the talk page... I checked the IP, and sure enough, the anon IP is 65.147.84.76, which comes from the same block of Qwest servers as Terryeo's IP (which he publicly displayed recently as being 65.146.30.209). wikipediatrix 20:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's quite interesting... I notice he's been choosing smaller and smaller things to dev-T us with, as if he's trying to make sure we know that he's acting in bad faith but can't (he thinks) do anything about it. He might just wind up with a surprise, if it's so... -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys ! Terryeo 06:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARC (Scientology)[edit]

we have several instances of exactly duplicated references that should be consolidated here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Antaeus: Just to let you know I've done the reference consolidation (and put back a few references that seemed to have somehow gone missing). Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, excellent! You're one of the best, Nicholas. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ross[edit]

In all of my editing of Rick Ross (consultant), and in all of my interaction with user:Herschelkrustofsky (HK), I hadn't realized until this moment that HK wrote the first draft of the Ross article.[3] Wikipedia famously has over a million editors. Yet, there always seem to be fewer than I'd thought. Thanks for letting me share my epiphany. Cheers, -Will Beback 11:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of copyright related to Scientology as a business[edit]

Your edit [4] re-added a link to probable copyright violations. Even though the information is not hosted on Wikipedia, a link to it may be illegal. Note that WP:EL says "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States". It's important to note, that neither of the "convenience" links are needed for people to verify the information. In one case, the full content is available for free, with a simple registration. This issue has occurred in a number of other articles, and such links have been removed repeatedly. In the case of time.com, it's an eggregious breach of copyright, because Time is actively selling that story for profit, and the free copy directly competes with Time, and has no potential for fair use justification. Copyright violation is a serious issue for the Foundation, and I suggest you respect Wikipedia policy on this issue. Note, my edits had *no* effect on the actual prose of the article, and there was no justification for your revert. --Rob 15:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your opinion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of POV fork[edit]

You mentioned that the Scientology as a business article was the "opposite of a POV fork." I can see from WP:POV_fork#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles that it's not a POV fork, but am curious about your use of the term "opposite." I'm still relatively new here and would like to learn the terminology. Thanks. JChap 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, calling something a "POV fork", especially as opposed to "content fork", makes a statement about the motives of whoever created it. It implies that someone made the new article for the purposes of getting around the process of editor consensus. In this case, though, if you compare the first version of Scientology as a business with how the section Scientology#Scientology as a commercial venture looked at the time the new article was created -- I haven't taken the two files and run a diff on them but I'd bet twenty cents to one that you'd find they were identical. It's hard to claim that someone's trying to dodge consensus when all they're doing is taking the results that consensus has already produced and moving it to a new location for the process of consensus editing to continue. (It is possible to produce a POV fork that way, but it involves shunting the full discussion to a new article and leaving an inadequate or non-NPOV summary behind, which wasn't the case here.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on categories and subcategories[edit]

In reply to your comment on Talk:Ubuntu_(Linux_distribution),

because it came up in peer review;
guidelines are not policy;
the editor in question argued for the article to be included in two categories additional to the one it was defining.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I saw the recent edit history, filled with edit summaries about "added category" "rv, Ubuntu is a sub-cat" "cat" "have we completely abandoned the idea of hierarchical categorisation now?" "rv vandal rmv of cat" and I did not step through every edit to see exactly what each side was advocating for. The mistake I thought someone was making was the mistake I see people make over and over and over and over, and which certainly sounded like what Localzuk (talk · contribs) was saying: that if an article is in a sub-category it should never be in any of the parent categories of that sub-cat. Exceptions to that rule are very clearly stated, but I have seen people quote the entire rule in full including the exceptions and still say "And therefore Article X-Y-Z shouldn't be in any other category except Category:X-Y-Z!"

You point out that "guidelines are not policy". I prefer a formulation which, I think, encourages good behavior more than it merely enables behavior which might be good: "rules have exceptions." The reason behind the exception for defining articles is that if a subject is important enough as to merit its own category, the article defining that subject is surely important enough that readers should be able to navigate to it in one step from the parent category, rather than having to go from parent-cat to the sub-cat and only then from the sub-cat to the article. And the same logic is what led me, the last time I addressed this issue, to add Category:Linux distributions to Ubuntu (Linux distribution) and Category:Ubuntu, even though it was already in Category:Debian-based distributions. Articles which are important should be easy to navigate to and yet a reader starting at Category:Linux distributions has an easier time getting to Taprobane Linux, whose sole distinction seems to be its country of origin, than they do getting to Ubuntu (Linux distribution) -- all because Ubuntu is based on Debian and Taprobane isn't? How much sense does that make? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: citations[edit]

I think I got carried away... desolé Lsjzl 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you did it in good faith. It's already gotten me started thinking about ways that that section could be rephrased for the better, so that's good... -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on the chiro page[edit]

Antaeus, thanks for your help on the chiro page. I'm sure he has good intentions;) Please feel free to check in anytime! --Dematt 02:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally deleted material[edit]

Just saw what happened in the Scientology article with my edits of yesterday, sorry about it, and thanks for restoring the material I deleted by mistake. I have no idea what happened, but from now on I will make it a rule to diff myself to be sure I don't unexpectedly damage articles. Raymond Hill 14:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. I've certainly had my own share of edits where I would have sworn on a Bible that I'd made a very simple edit but an actual diff showed huge changes. Sometimes I did the diff myself and found out immediately ... sometimes, unfortunately, it wasn't me who found out. So, hey, we all look out for each other, and it's cool. Enjoy the weekend! -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Buell Anderson[edit]

Not an attack? Whereas the extensively cited facts about Gregory Lauder Frost's conviction is? Curious... Just zis Guy you know? 22:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who the fuck Gregory Lauder Frost is, so your attempt to drag him into this seems a very dubious tactic indeed. Sticking with the article in question, Charles Buell Anderson, the idea that a page which has information a person does not wish to be said about him is automatically an "attack page" in the sense of speedy deletion criteria A6 is utterly absurd. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this when it was posted and I can't remember the context any more anyway, so feel free to expunge it. I'm sure it was either (a) a profound and meaningful comment or (b) me getting two of the dozzens of open browser windows confused (again). Of the two, b is probably more likely... Just zis Guy you know? 11:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ste4k[edit]

Is it just me or is this person out of control? I agree with all the comments you have made concerning her nonsense AfDs and her removal of valuable info from articles, citing it as POV. Nice work on restoring the ACIM link in the Charles Buell Anderson article. I'm currently having a long, and apparently pointless, argument with her on my talk page, but if her behavior continues like this I'm contemplating an RfC. Keep up the good work. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: your latest addition[edit]

Regarding your comment: "Ste4k's excuse for removing it was preposterous"

Adding unsourced information to an article is distinctly different than removing unsourced information from an article.

Per policy: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

In the future, please provide reputable sources that justify the link that you provided. And please assume good faith. Thank you. Ste4k

Ste4k, the reason I have not been able to assume good faith of you in this regard is because the only other explanation that is possible is stupidity. And even that is not a convincing explanation, because it stretches credulity that you could just by chance be misstating the facts and misrepresenting policy in a way so precisely suited to promoting your POV.

Example #1: Your entire diatribe here revolves around "adding unsourced information", "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources", "please provide reputable sources". Anyone reading that, if they thought that you were operating with reasonable competence and in good faith, would assume you were actually talking about information or material that had been added to the article. And since you only quoted half my edit summary, the half that read "Ste4k's excuse for removing it was preposterous", anyone reading this and not knowing the truth might actually fall for your pretense that this is a dispute about information or material that was added to the article with sources that some might see as inadequate.

They would never guess that what you were referring to was a link to the article about A Course in Miracles in the "See also" section, a link that you removed under the pretext that it was "POV": [5] And why would they never guess this? Gee, I wonder if it could have anything to do with you cutting out the part of my edit summary which explained what you removed and put the lie to your claim that it was "unsourced information"? [6] "restore A Course in Miracles to See also; Ste4k's excuse for removing it was preposterous"

Would you care to explain just what you think is necessary in the way of sourcing in order to include the main text used by an organization in a "See also" entry? Gee, I wonder if http://www.endeavoracademy.com/ could just possibly be a source we could use! I mean, they mention it in the second sentence on their index page: "The principal catalyst for this adventure into the enlightenment of humanity is the spiritual mind training of A Course In Miracles." Oh, but I'm sure you'll have some reason to object to that. It just won't be a good reason or one that leaves it possible to assume that you are arguing it in good faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have explained your action anywhere, nor have you justified your action. Please state your reasons in English rather than pointing to URL's without any explanation. If you are having difficulties understanding explanations regarding the content, please refer to the discussion pages. [7][8][9][10]Thanks. Ste4k 17:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it is your actions which have been bizarre and which have violated policy, a fact which your dishonest and selective attempts to rewrite history and policy do not hide. I do not believe you are having difficulty comprehending why your actions are incorrect and wrong; you simply don't wish to follow the same rules as everyone else. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: your latest reverts[edit]

You recently reverted the following twenty relevent wikilinks from an article. Can you please explain how each is irrelevent to the article? Using the discussion are for content you feel is disputed would be more appropriate. Thanks.

Ste4k 17:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've got a better idea. Why don't you explain why each of those twenty links which you added in a single edit is worth including in the See also of the article? Is nuclear weapon a link that we add to the article of every single person who ever had something to say about it? Is Heaven a link that we add to the article of every single person who had their theories on it? Stop being disruptive. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read this man's biography? First you say that we should be including things people may want to visit. Now you are saying the opposite. Which is the correct way? Each of these are very relevant to this man. Please use the discussion areas rather than simply forcing your point of view into edit summarys. Thank you. Ste4k 19:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take your straw man argument elsewhere. I never said "we should be including things people may want to visit" in "See also". I said that we should be including "A Course In Miracles" because it is what Anderson's organization identifies as its primary text. Even though I did not also add "-- and that is a distinction that cannot be said of several hundreds of millions of people over several centuries," I think that goes without saying to anyone who is not trying to be disruptive. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source reference that agrees with your statement? I asked this of you earlier. If you do not have a source reference then your hypothesis about this man is simply original research. Thanks. Ste4k 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans of Foreign Wars - At least 3/4's of this biography discusses Anderson's involvement iin WWII
Harry S. Truman - A link to an excellent article for people intereste in Anderson's military past context
Nuclear weapon - Another link to context regarding Anderson's landing with the marines on Nagasaki in 1945
Attitudinal healing - Related to A Course in Miracles
Nagasaki - Related to 3/4's of the biography discussing Andersons landing with the marines here in '45
Forgiveness - Related to A Course in Miracles
United States Marine Corps - Anderson was a Private First Class in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1945
Foundation for A Course in Miracles - Related to A Course in Miracles
District court - Related to Anderson's involvment in litigation over A Course in Miracles
Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin - Anderson's Home Town. Please read the biography/
Schucman, Helen - Author of A Course in Miracles
Teacher - Anderson is a teacher by trade.
Thetford, William - Editor of A Course in Miracles
Heaven - Related to Religious Figures
Wapnick, Kenneth - Editor of A Course in Miracles
Hell - Related to Religious Figures
Williamson, Marianne - Related to A Course in Miracles in an equal way as Anderson.
Australia - Geographic location centered around the 2nd half of the biography.
Lawsuit - Related to Anderson's involvment with A Course in Miracles
Penguin Books - Company which sued Anderson over A Course in Miracles

Per your request. Please learn to study the subject before making blind edits, and please discuss your hopes to improve the page with other editors in discussion. Thanks. Ste4k 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fugitive[edit]

Your comment on the rv was This is the article about the TV series; details about *that series* should come first, then the remake and the movie - If you look at what I did, I demarcated a section for the original 1963 tv series first, then the 2000 tv series remake, then the movie. How is that not what you're saying should be done? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:The Fugitive (TV series). -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ste4k's incorrect assertions of personal attacks[edit]

Please assume good faith and refrain from making personal attacks. Thanks. Ste4k 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made no personal attacks. I merely noted something that was the complete and utter truth: you marked a particular fact as being "not in citation given", but you had known for more than a week about a citation which addressed that fact. Perhaps you are getting confused and thinking there was a personal attack because you are aware that what you did would be regarded negatively by most people? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ste4k's claim that changing a header to more accurately reflect a discussion counts as "personal attacks"[edit]

Regarding this comment, pleaseassume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. Regarding this modification of my comments, again, please refrain from personal attacks. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ste4k 00:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Ste4k, you seem to think that anything directed at your editing that you don't like is a "personal attack". So sorry to tell you, it's not true; when you remove well-cited information that a particular party made a claim very relevant to the article because you have information from a different source (which you have not cited) and you choose to believe your source and choose to remove from the article the information that anyone disagrees with your source's view of the matter -- that is disruption, my friend. If you try to argue to an admin that you aren't disrupting when you remove verifiable information because you disagree with it, but that I am disruptive if I criticize you for that editing behavior -- let me know when you plan to make the report, because I would love to see the look on that admin's face. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ste4k's general impression that user talk pages are for the purpose of harassing other users with pointless false accusations[edit]

Regarding this edit changing my comments and being generally argumentative: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ste4k 01:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ste4k? Let's focus on the issues here. Those issues being: when you remove well-cited information about the subject of the article, that they claim a particular state of affairs, and your "explanation" on the talk page of why you would do such a thing is that you view their claim as already disproven and so wish to deny the reader the opportunity of deciding whether they believe the claim or not -- you are in flagrant, massive violation of Wikipedia policy and no amount of harassing other people via their user talk pages will cover that up. Comprende? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issues are:

Personal attacks referring to me rather than the article, here on your talk page, in the discussion of the article and in the edit summarys of the article.
Continuous assumption of bad faith.
Failing to discuss or recognize the issues on the talk page of the article.
Removing direct quotes from a cited source supplied by Nscheffey (talk · contribs)
Reverting back to a primary source what two other editors agreed was an external link.

Please refer to policy listed at WP:3RR. If you do not have a copy of the cited source, then I suggest that you get one. Thanks. Ste4k 05:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-12_Raymond_Hill[edit]

Hi Antaeus. You were named in this particular mediation case. You may want to add your insights. -- Raymond Hill 23:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abby[edit]

Please do not delete movie posters from their wikipedia entries. Thank you. (Sugar Bear 00:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry about that. It was not intentional; when trying to delete a vanity reference inserted by the poster before you, I must have accidentally edited a different revision than I thought I was editing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ste4k RfC[edit]

Just letting you know there is an RfC open on Ste4k. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:L. Ron Hubbard[edit]

Hi, consensus has actually been moving in the other direction over the last year for eponymous categories. See Category talk:Categories named after people ("Should these categories be placed in other categories?") and dicussions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization (Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 15#Categorising "Categories by name" categories, Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Eponymous categories (again), etc.) Most users have agreed that eponymous categories should generally only contain Category:Categories named after people or one of its subcategories and that eponymous categories should not be placed in the same categories as their articles. --musicpvm 23:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opertion Colorblind and Wade Watts[edit]

I see you have added Prod notices to both these articles. However you did not provide a reason in either case. It is very important that you provide reasons when using the Prod template otherwise it is impossible for other editors to react to your proposed deletion. I have removed the Prod notices from the articles; if you feel they should still be deleted, please use the AfD process, providing a reason based in policy. Thanks, Gwernol 01:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Template talk:Prod for why I am placing the {{prod}} template on the articles again. If I had neglected to give a reason for proposing deletion because I didn't have one, that would be one thing, but I wrote out my reasons for both articles, and I don't think the fact that they were lost by technical difficulties should be penalized. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Henson explosives[edit]

See my comment on Talk:Keith_Henson about why I removed the explosives sentence from the Druid Days section. Sentence is a non-sequitor unless it is somehow linked to Keith himself. ChrisLawson 14:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology[edit]

NubbinTom is just inserting the name of the site 'YTMND' into the article. See wikicodesscientology.ytmnd.com . -- Saaber 17:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southpark episode[edit]

Sir, you have reverted three times already, not me. A record album that sold millions of copies is a valid form of reference. This has passed the point of rationality. This isn't a conspiracy theory, just a subtle bit of interesting trivia. Since you admit that it is at best "trivia," why can't it sit in the trivia section?

R. Kelly is an "appliance fetishist" with his gun, and he goes into the closet with the other two. What do you think R. Kelly is in the episode for??? to Play with Tom Cruise's alleged gayness, of course. Travolta is thrown in just to obscure things. But, he is in the closet. I am telling you that the 'cement' is the Zappa song. I will take it upon myself to get this published by Trey Parker himself if you so desire. If no one gets to read it on Wikipedia until then, at least you will know where you learned it first.

Give me a few examples of "verifiable sources" that would have cushioned my fall from us having crossed spears, mighty Ant.

Maybe I need to be writing fiction, but its easier just to observe the reputable sources on television and radio.

OK, there's two issues: one is reliable sourcing. Harsh as it may seem, Wikipedia is not interested if you or I think that there's some connection between Zappa's song and the South Park episode. If Trey Parker says it, that's a reliable source -- Trey knows what he's talking about. If Roger Ebert says it, that's a reliable source -- Ebert doesn't have the inside knowledge that Trey does, of course, but he's a published writer acclaimed for his perception and expertise in the field of entertainment. If Josh Gura says it... well, pardon my French, but who the hell is Josh Gura? Why does "Josh Gura thinks this is meaningful" carry any more weight than "My Aunt Flo thinks it's not meaningful"?

The other is verifiability. It has to be possible, at least in theory, for anyone to verify that your source says what you say it says. Therefore, if you bump into Trey Parker at a party and ask him "Dude, what inspired you to make an episode about Scientology and the closet?" and he says "That Zappa song" -- you still can't use it on Wikipedia. If, however, someone from a newspaper or magazine is at the party and happens to catch Parker saying that, and puts that in print -- then anyone can look up that newspaper/magazine, read that article, and find out that yes, Parker did confirm that connection, and thus it's verifiable.

There it is, in a nutshell. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. At this juncture, I am no longer claiming that there is a connection between the Zappa song and South Park's episode OTHER than the content of those two pieces themselves, which are both reliable sources because they are themselves the original sources. We may as well the synopsis of the episode if we cannot rely on the episode as a source. Wikipedia nferring that Tom Cruise is being called gay from the show is a potential libellous mistake since Travolta and Kelly are also in the closet. As base as SP are, they are also clever (South Park, not Suppressive Persons.) Just as the very words we use are verifiable, so are the lyrics in the Zappa song, which L. Ron "Hoover"'s voice is depicted instructing a 'recruit' to go into the closet. Maybe you can assume good faith with me and help find a way to present this interesting bit of trivia to the community instead of lopping off my work.

The South Park episode has only a remote connection to Star Wars. This is a movie cliche' that has been beaten to death. No other entertainment product has combined Scientology and 'being in the closet' but Zappa's song "token of my extreme." For some reason, original research like the ephemeral Star Wars reference is retained, and at the same time banning the Zappa stuff. I don't worship Zappa, but it is definitely a strong link. Is this article someone's pet, or are we in the information business? The facts are the facts. Star Wars parodies itself with using old cliches. Other SP episodes make references to Star Wars, but not this one. The Zappa reference is good. Not everyone has seen any of this, but to one who has seen them all, they would know.

The idea that someone apparently quite ordinary/humble turns out to be The Prophesied One -- that is a cliche. The idea that "extraordinary high <Treknobabble> levels in the blood" identify that special person is a definite reference to The Phantom Empire. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point is, there is no source that verifies what you are saying. Not even Phantom Empire... wait, is there even a movie called that?

Again, I suggest that you read WP:POINT and realize that you are responsible for abiding by it. I also suggest that you try to comprehend that the fact that someone else used the phrase "in the closet" in a work satirizing Scientology before South Park did just means that someone else used a very common phrase, and does not point to any great significant secret meaning or understanding that must be noted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have captured the essence of the argument exactly, there is NO secret meaning, all that must be done is to see the notable sources themselves. This is no more a co-incidence than your precious Star Wars brainchild. Zappa wrote about the exact circumstances of this episode, and since Zappa happened before Star Wars part ten (your generation,) it is antiquated, arcane information... the scary vinyl record jacket peels off the pile of cobweb and dust covered ancient tunes of yesteryear under the prying eyes of a sleuthing science fiction writer that's only desire is to ruin antonio felspar's day with adding UNREFERENCE-able, impossible to locate illegal "truth." It takes a preacher to bless this as truth, because there is no technology left to listen to a vinyl record that belonged to your grand daddy. no eyes of your own to watch the south park episode, and no brain of your own to see the uncanny similarity between the two original sources. Does your job feel thankless?

links to read: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/03/out_of_the_park.html http://www.mlyrics.com/lyrics/Frank_Zappa/Unknown/A_Token_of_My_Extreme/ http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060721181742AA2gkqY

You know, if someone wanted to be a completely anal-retentive anorak, they could measure an exact time in sixtieths-of-a-second from the time the first line of dialog starts to the time that the last line of dialog ends. They could then find some other television program that, measured by the same standard, comes out to exactly the same figure. Would that be significant and worth including? No. And all your violations of WP:CIVIL will not make it so. My advice: quit while you're ahead, and I will be more charitable than you deserve and not report your childish personal attacks on me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your childish actions started ,and maintain, this revert war. To you, Wikipedia is not a collective, inclusive project. It is a forum of petty competition and sport. In time, your energy will wane. You are the perpetrator of attacks. I only dignify them by speaking with you on your talk page. You lack in more 'good Wikipedia qualities' than you make up for with your select knowledge of disciplinary proceedings. If you are going to enforce rules in this community, try to follow them yourself. You broke rule #1, but that doesnt give you the green light to break all the others. Quit while you are ahead, as you are just as succeptible to being banned as anyone else. Stop threatening other Wikipedians, please. Must you 'lord over' each detail discussed in this article? Where is your 'good faith?'

"Good faith" refers only to the spirit in which a contributor makes their edits; thus, "assume good faith" would be the rule that you are violating when you presume to tell me the contents of my own mind and tell me that I view Wikipedia as a "forum of petty competition and sport". It does not refer to the quality of edits; thus, if you are insistently adding a dull, unimportant "coincidence" which is not in any way important or notable, it does not mean that I am to "assume good faith" and pretend that there is actually merit to it. As for your threat that you will try to get me banned, I will suggest again that before you do far more damage to yourself than to me, you quit while you're ahead and find some contribution to make to Wikipedia besides the dubious "contribution" of a very unimportant factoid to the episode article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who is josh gura: http://www.gpeters.com/celeb/celebrity-ranker.php?name=Josh+Gura

i think both of you are right in your own way, but i dont think that 'dullness' is a reason to censor an edit. there are other wikipedia articles with trivia more 'dull' than josh gura's zappa parallel. if you dont agree, i'll just assume you havent checked wikipedia out in much depth. if you'll pardon my intrusion folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.241.119 (talk • contribs)

Are there other Wikipedia articles with trivia more dull? Yes. Does this mean that all trivia which is not as dull as that trivia should be kept? I don't think so. See WP:AVTRIV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

antaeus feldspar is the central scrutinizer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.216.234 (talk) 07:04, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

The snow white program[edit]

I am trying to find one or more documents written by Hubbard that would be primary sources to support the idea that: "The 'Snow White Program' was written by L. Ron Hubbard"
Can you indicate the part of Bare-faced Messiah that associates something Hubbard wrote to the "Snow White Program"? I tried searching the online version and came up empty.
I found this website which shows a document called "Project Hunter" that Chris Owen said was, "written by L. Ron Hubbard himself on 20 April 1973" and was "the original Snow White plan".
Do you know of any other similar documents written by Hubbard and that might represent the Snow White Program as written by Hubbard? --JWSchmidt 03:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you came up empty with Bare-Faced Messiah, actually. Even if you didn't see the page numbers in the comment, the online version does have the index, where you can look up "Operation Snow White". Checking those occurences would have shown you the text at the end of page 317 and the beginning of 318: "Hubbard, who had never been fettered by convention or strict observance of the law, conceived a simple, but startlingly audacious, plan to improve his own image and that of his church for the benefit of future generations of Scientologists. All that needed to be done, he decided, was to infiltrate the agencies concerned, steal the relevant files and either destroy or launder any damaging information they contained. To a man who had founded both a church and a" -- page 317 ends, page 318 begins -- "private navy this was a perfectly feasible scheme. The operation was given the code name Snow White - two words that would figure ever more prominently over the next few months in the communications between the Guardian's Office in Los Angeles and the Commodore's hiding place in Queens, New York." There you go, a perfectly suitable secondary source, and of course secondary sources are actually preferable to primary sources. However, if you'd like a secondary source that quotes the primary source more directly, try this article from The Globe and Mail: [11]. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for one or more documents that were written by Hubbard. The Operation Snow White article indicates that Hubbard wrote the Snow White Program. The only way to understand what this means and verify it is to find the documents. If we cannot find the original docuents, then we might be able to say, "Mr. X claimed to have seen documents written by Hubbard....."
What document written by Hubbard suggested a plan that was to, "steal the relevant files and either destroy or launder any damaging information they contained"? The one document I found so far ("Project Hunter") contains plans for law suits and says, "Any action taken against this area must also be very polite and not abusive". --JWSchmidt 05:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry for your poor understanding of WP:RS, then. You might want to correct that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscavige the pauper[edit]

Anateus, I was examining the Scientology_beliefs_and_practices#Salaries. I have no problem with the statement that they recieve "modest" (or rather, what Americans would call modest) salaries, however I feel that this chapter could mislead readers into thinking that Mr. Miscavige lives a (relatively) spartan life. The pope recieves no salary, and I am sure scientologists are as, if not more, lavish with their leader. For instance, his villa (seen in aerial photographs) is definitely not of the kind usually associated with that salary range.I feel that adding a few sentences to this chapter could help clear things up, what do you think? Yandman 12:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, when I looked at that section I asked myself "What is it doing in an article about Scientology beliefs and practices in the first place?" I almost moved it to Scientology as a business immediately, but decided to wait and think about it. The more I think about it, though, the more moving it makes sense; Scientology beliefs and practices is supposed to be about Scientology the religion/belief-system/philosophy/whatever, as specifically opposed to being about the Church of Scientology. Wherever the "Salaries" section ends up going, though, I agree that adding referenced material on "in-kind" rewards Miscavige receives would add valuable context. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in that this chapter has no place on Scientology beliefs and practices, moreover its inclusion there seems highly suspicious. Is there any way to see who added a particular word/sentence/paragraph without manually going through the history? Yandman 13:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no, there isn't such a way, though it's been proposed many times. I don't think it's actually suspicious, however. When you have a whole nest of closely related articles (as we have on Scientology and the Church of Scientology) it's very hard to always remember how the sub-topics are demarcated. If we accused of bad faith any editor who has ever inserted material into a Scientology-related article that would have been more appropriate in a different Scientology-related article, I have no doubt that we'd be pointing the finger at no less than forty percent of the editors who have ever edited Scientology-related articles -- pro-Scientology and critical viewpoint alike. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

63.209.226.69 added that paragraph. All of his contributions to wikipedia are, to my complete lack of surprise, pro-scientology. Editing wikipedia seems to be a popular pastime for scientologists.... Yandman 14:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell about beliefs, as in the religion/philosophy as opposed to secular corporation... but it sure is interesting material concerning their practices, and I'd like to know if what those who still believe after breaking away from the church do any differently... What's yu view about this angle? --Svartalf 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you interpret "practices" in that sense, then there's nothing the Church of Scientology does which can't be called a "practice" of Scientology. Which would, unfortunately, rather nullify the point of the Scientology beliefs and practices article, which is to document the belief system insofar as it exists independent of any organization which practices it.

This isn't to say that there isn't anything to be said about Scientology salaries which wouldn't be appropriate for Scientology beliefs and practices; for instance, someone might have information about how the doctrine of exchange relates to provision of salaries. However, none of that is the material that's in the article now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a completely trivial-to-your-viewpoint comment, since Scientology (the philosophy) purports no belief by anyone, (no tenets of faith belief, no leap of conciousness belief) then of course "beliefs and practices" necessarily fall within religious practices. Why not drop back to the goal line that can be defended and present "education" in the template (as once was) because that is an arrangement of information which both Scientologists can not argue with and which (whatever you call that point of view, you know?) can contribute to, also. Terryeo 06:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For once, Terryeo, you've said something which is completely correct. Meaningless blathering based on the false premise that Scientology has no beliefs is completely trivial to my viewpoint and I daresay that of everyone who likes to stick with the real world. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Iqbal (Guantanamo detainee 87) --> Asif Iqbal (detainee) ?[edit]

Could you please explain, more fully, why you moved Asif Iqbal (Guantanamo detainee 87) to Asif Iqbal (detainee) ? Your edit summary said you moved it because it was "simpler".

Asif Iqbal is, apparently, a common name. Asif Iqbal (detainee) is an insufficiently precise article title, because it could be about Asif Iqbal (Ayodhya bombing suspect), arrested on suspicion of involvement in the 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya, or this Asif Iqbal, detained on suspicion of religious extremism.

If you can't offer a better explanation than simplicity, I think the article title Asif Iqbal (Guantanamo detainee 87) should be restored. It is not only precise enough to distinguish between any other detainee named Asif Iqbal, but it has the advantage that it is consistent with the names of the articles of several dozen other Guantanamo detainees whose names required disambiguation.

FWIW, when you move an article to a new name you are supposed to click on the "what links here" button, and resolve double redirects. In this particular case you didn't seem to have taken the trouble to do so. In this particular case I think this will prove to be an advantage, if you ask an administrator to undo your move.

An administrator will have to undo your move, if Asif Iqbal (Guantanamo detainee 87) is going to retain its edit history. -- Geo Swan 15:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You happen to be incorrect; when I moved Asif Iqbal (Guantanamo detainee 87) to Asif Iqbal (detainee), I did check for double redirects. The only such redirect was Asif Iqbal (terror suspect), which accordingly I updated to point to the actual article. Would you care to explain why you are falsely alleging that "In this particular case you didn't seem to have taken the trouble to [fix double redirects]" when there are no double redirects? Also, you seem to be a bit confused about how the move process works. When the history of article title Foo shows that it has always been a redirect to Bar (as is the case when an article is moved from Foo to Bar and a redirect is automatically left in its place), no administrator intervention is needed to move the article from Bar to Foo.

As for the issue of the correct title for the article about this particular Asif Iqbal -- I think that perhaps there as well you might be a bit confused about how disambiguation is done. Whenever possible, we use the name of the person, place or thing itself, with no parenthesized disambiguation term. Why? Simple: by so doing, we maximize the chances that someone editing a Wikipedia page and putting the name in double brackets will link to the right article. For the same reason, when we do need to add a parenthesized disambiguation term, we try to select the disambiguation term which would be easiest for someone to guess. Are you suggesting that anyone who wants to link to Asif Iqbal should know, not just that he was a detainee, not just that he was a detainee at Guantanamo, but that he was a detainee at Guantanamo with the detainee number 87?

Frankly, what you say about "consistent with the names of the articles of several dozen other Guantanamo detainees whose names required disambiguation" is a bit alarming to me. When a person's notability stems solely from their involvement with an event or situation that is itself encyclopedically notable, there is just simply no need to give that person an individual article. Yet you are referring to "several dozen" Guantanamo detainees; what are these detainees individually notable for, apart from being detained at Guantanamo? Why is it that there is an article for Tipton Three and then individual articles for Asif Iqbal (detainee), Shafiq Rasul, and Ruhal Ahmed as well, when the individual articles primarily just duplicate the contents of Tipton Three? The only important content that is in any of the three individual articles that isn't in Tipton Three is information that should be in Tipton Three -- and isn't, because someone added it to Asif Iqbal (detainee) instead. It looks like heavy-duty merging is needed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we only need to disambiguate between articles we actually have. The only articles we had about people named "Asif Iqbal" at the time I disambiguated were the cricket player and the detainee. Why did you create another Asif Iqbal article exactly five minutes before complaining that 'Asif Iqbal (detainee)' was "insufficiently precise"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a VfD?[edit]

Would you be kind enough to drop a vote on this particular VfD? ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs ) Thank you very much. --Modemac 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help. This is turning into an entertaining little show...and compared to the Terryeo flame wars, it's barely a blip on the aggravation scale. :) --Modemac 20:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rael[edit]

I've noticed that the Raëlism article has been more or less totally rewritten over the past 2 days by User:Kmarinas86, who it seems only edits on rael-related articles. The user has made at least a dozen edits in the space of two days, some of which are pointless, some of which are acceptable and some of which are not (deletion of the "criticism" section, for example). I am uncertain of what to do about it. Should I revert everything? Should I warn the user (even though he/she will no doubt argue that this is not vandalism)? Should I tag? As a wiki-veteran, what is your opinion? Yandman 12:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely to be vandalism by the Wikipedian definition, since he probably thinks that he's acting in good faith. What I would do is look up the other people who have edited the article in the recent past and ask for their help in keeping the article NPOV; then I would look at the difference between Kmarinas86's "current" version and the last "good" version, and wherever the good version is clearly superior, restore what was in the good version with a clear explanation. For instance, deletion of a "Criticism" section is rarely if ever in line with Wikipedia practice. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm the one who put the "criticism" sections to begin with. However, SecretLondon deleted those on the Raelian Movement page, so I began to question whether or not I should have those yet since nobody was putting stuff in there yet. Despite that, I left the one I added on Rael - as of a few minutes ago, it's still blank.Kmarinas86 21:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I would definitely consult with others besides Kmarinas who have edited the article. I'm checking around, and it looks like perhaps the article isn't being rewritten, so much as split up into multiple articles, of which Raëlism has become the equivalent of Scientology beliefs and practices -- a description of the belief system, independent of the organization.

On the one hand, such a split is not inherently bad (I see it seems to have the support of AndroidCat (talk · contribs), who I've always seen as a fair-minded and level-headed contributor.) On the other hand, I've barely scratched the surface of Kmarinis's contributions and already I'm finding stuff that makes me want to keep a close eye on what he's doing (for instance, here creating empty "Criticism" headers scattered throughout the article and warning anyone who would put content under those headers "back up yourself with verifiable sources" when most of the existing content is not backed up by such sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kmarinis seems to think that NPOV means putting "is said to be" in front of every assertion he makes about his cult. This leads to rather strange articles. Yandman 13:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He then goes on to remove all of these "said to be" thingies. I am starting to wonder how many people actually use the Kmarinis account. Or is he just schizophrenic? Yandman 13:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all, just some. Also, I use the Find/ReplaceAll feature sometimes when I should have used the Find/Replace feature only. There were replacements that were in err which I ended up fixing.Kmarinas86 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KMarinas, I know I should do it instead of asking you, but I'm somewhat busy with other things right now. I would appreciate it if you could put something in the criticism sections. The articles on Rael definitely need a series template (see the one on Scientology ) as well as a more balanced PoV. As it stands, the article does not convey the fact that this is still a sect (and by sect I define any religious/semi-religious organisation that asks you to give them x% of your income...). I feel it is unfair that the faults of other sects such as scientology (although I know the two are not comparable, to my knowledge Raelians are allowed to believe in medicine...) are brought to light, and not Raelism. I suspect you are a Raelian yourself, so if you feel you cannot do this, let me know and I will try to see what I can do. The links to critical websites will no doubt help you. If you go to the website of the Ministère de l'Intérieur, you can probably find reasons for scientology being classed as a sect in France. For the moment, I think neutrality warnings on the pages might be necessary as a temporary measure until we get both sides of the argument into the article. This is by no means a criticism of your writing: you have done some very hard work on this page, and with a bit more effort it could really be up to par. I will also post this message to your user talk page. Yandman 07:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting definitions of "sect" and "cult"[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect gives several definitions of what a sect is:

1) "sects claim to be authentic purged, refurbished version of the faith from which they split" and "sects have, in contrast to churches, a high degree of tension with the surrounding society", in this case, the Raelian Movement is not a sect, because only one, not both, of the criteria is met.

Result-

Sect (ex. Early Protestantism): No

2) sectarianism "a worldview that emphasizes the unique legitimacy of believers' creed and practices and that heightens tension with the larger society by engaging in boundary-maintaining practices.", so the Raelian Movement is sectarian in the sense that it possesses a trait shared by revolutionary movements such as the Civil Rights Movements of 19th and 20th century America.

Result-

Sectarian (ex. Martin Luther King, KKK, Skull and Bones, George Washington etc.): Yes

3) "A religious or political cult, by contrast, also has a high degree of tension with the surrounding society, but its beliefs are, within the context of that society, new and innovative." The Raelian Movement fits this. "Whereas the cult is able to enforce its norms and ideas against members" The Raelian Movement does not fit this since it lacks a true dictatorial leadership. As you can see, this definition is able to contradict itself in the case the Raelian Movement - making it an invalid definition. "a sect normally doesn't strictly have "members" with definite obligations, only followers, sympathisers, supporters or believers." This fits the Raelian Movement, as well as a plethora of apparently normal organizations which do not push their members to do exact things.

Result-

Cult (ex. Antique Mormon Polygamous sect, KKK, Nazism etc.): No

Sect (ex. Martin Luther King etc., Gandhi's Movement): Yes

4) "The English sociologist Roy Wallis[6] argues that a sect is characterized by “epistemological authoritarianism”: sects possess some authoritative locus for the legitimate attribution of heresy." This applies for the Raelian Movement, however, the Raelian Movement has no problem with any heresy as long as it does not violate the fundamentals, such as peace, love, and non-violence. "According to Wallis, “sects lay a claim to possess unique and privileged access to the truth or salvation" The Raelian Movement fits this, but salvation only in the case that the world "fails", though such a failure is something Raelians actively want to prevent - hence their disapproval of nuclear weapons and of war in general. "and “their committed adherents typically regard all those outside the confines of the collectivity as 'in error'”." The Raelian Movement does not fit this as they acknolwedge the greater actions of those who do not adhere to them to be nevertheless deserving of eternal life, perhaps more than they are individually (those people are given the title of Honorary Guide of the Raelian Movement, even if they have no idea of Raelians at all). Again we see the problem with using only one criteria to establish whether the Raelian Movement is a sect when more than one must be met. "He contrasts this with a cult that he described as characterized by “epistemological individualism” by which he means that “the cult has no clear locus of final authority beyond the individual member.”" In this case, Raelism fits, because the final authority is not Rael, but the individual, because Rael is not a dictator. Megachurches fit this as well, since Christian priests of this day and age are by no means dictators, and neither are guardians at Christian Retreats or teachers who "assign" activities to pupils. But the fact that one fits the criteria does not make one a cult. That is: If Z does A, and B does A, does that mean that Z is B? Not necessarily. It couldn't be objectively determined unless if it was assumed that only one (category of) thing did A. If this were the definition of cult, you would have the final say (only if you belonged to a cult); now isn't that preferrable than having someone else control you as in a sect per Roy Wallis definition? What a joke. ;)

Result-

Cult (ex. Libertarian): Yes

Sect (ex. Populist): No

Definitions 3 and 4 are in direct contradiction with each other. By accepting both definitions, it is harder to distinguish a cult from a sect. Do members of a cult need authority for a final word? #3 says yes, #4 says no. Does a sect have individuals with their own choice? #3 says yes, #4 says no. Most people would think that #3 is a better definition than #4. In both definitions, cults and sects are exculsive from each other (i.e. a cult cannot be a sect and a sect cannot be cult (an analogue to this is: red cannot be orange and orange cannot be red, but both are colors). There be some who would disagree with this and say that a cult is a type of sect (analogue: turquiose is a type of blue). As you can see, provided that there be a definition, or a set of non-contradicting definitions, of sect which can be agreed upon (which may not be the case), one must define the Raelian Movement before calling it a sect. Why not call it a sect? Sure, as long as it is stated what that label indicates exactly.Kmarinas86 05:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask that this discussion be moved from my user talk page to somewhere else? -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead - I don't know where to put it.Kmarinas86 07:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put this discussion at the Sect article's discussion page. If this is acceptable to you, then you may delete this section.Kmarinas86 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How Terryeo thinks Scientology should look[edit]

Check out the travesty that's Wikinfo's version of this article (some of his other edits over there are rather dubious too). Fortunately nobody reads Wikinfo so we needn't worry too much about it, but it's worth bearing in mind where he wants to go... -- ChrisO 00:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Well, that's what Wikinfo is (was?) for: letting each person explain a subject from their own POV. At least that's how I understood the goals of that project. It's sad to see that Terryeo can't even abide by those rules, however, and has to impose his own bizarre versions of rules such as "this is not a newsgroup of interest because it is too POV". (It's also sad to see that even when he's removing the name of the newsgroup, he still can't get the name right, and as for the writing "style" of his Scientology entry, ye gods...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, my user page didn't give you a clue, but my work on wikinfo does, Chris Owen? Well, if that's what it takes to communicate an idea. Antaeus, you state that I'm not abiding by Wikinfo's rules. May I invite you to understand them? In regard to the various newsgroups and like rumor sharing, I would say this. If you google a screen name who has been active in the Scientology series articles (or their discussion pages), you'll find an interesting proliferation of said screen name. Even your own produces quite a variety of web connections. Terryeo 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Terryeo, you do realize that you already used that one, right? The "I've been checking up on you?" riff? In fact, you got blocked for it for a week, if I remember right. As for abiding by Wikinfo's rules, perhaps you could explain exactly how you have the authority, under Wikinfo's rules, to declare that if a newsgroup (which you cannot identify by its correct name, it seems) is "too POV", it is no longer a "newsgroup of interest" as defined in the article text. Then again, perhaps you couldn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki process will take care of the matter if there is a problem just as it does here. Terreo's edits can be modified there as well as here. The rules are very different, Terryeo is abiding by them. The Wikinfo article on Scientology should make it look like the best thing since sliced bread. That is the policy. A companion article making it look like the very work of the devil is welcome too. I think I may be the last person on Earth that actually has no opinion about Scientology. Fred Bauder 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd like to clarify that I was expressing two separate opinions on two separate matters. The first is the matter of Wikinfo's "Scientology" article. Given that Wikinfo's policy is, if I understand it correctly, to have separate articles for differing POVs, it is indeed proper for that Wikinfo article to express an unrestrainedly positive view of Scientology. I simply reserve the right to roll my eyes at that unrestrainedly positive view, and to wince at the jumbled, muddy writing style.

The second matter is the fact that, by the logic that Wikinfo should have multiple articles in order to present multiple points of view for examination, there doesn't seem to be any justification for Terryeo to be interfering with the expression of other points of view. He could have created a new article called "List of newsgroups which are not too POV" if he wanted a list that excluded alt.religion.scientology. Instead, what he chose to do was to remove alt.religion.scientology from the existing list. I don't see how those two square with each other but I do see how it fits Terryeo's noted pattern of editing towards his own fixed POV both when the rules allow it and when they don't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize you have criticized my writing style. I appreciate you're taking the time to read and create an opinion of it. Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 16:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for a Detached View[edit]

Hi there. Remember me? Probably not, but you set me right when I first started on how to move pages around (and when not to).

I'm having a little difficulty with Fields of the Nephilim and the user fieldsofthenephilim.com. If you take a look at the article history (and his user talk page) I have tried to explain that links to advertising sites are not suitable sites for external links, but he just disregards and keeps re-inserting. Now I realised that I carelessly violated the 3RR myself, which may draw some sanction, but am I being unreasonable in considering the link unsuitable? If not, would you be so kind as to helping to have appropriate action taken. Thanks. I have raised this query with more than one of the people who have assisted me in the past. Cain Mosni 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology Public Relations[edit]

My erroneous agenda? Exactly what agenda do I supposedly have? I have not edited a single Scientology-related article on Wikipedia. I suggest you re-read WP:CIVIL in its entirety.

Neither of the two users in question, one of whom is completely new to Wikipedia, were correct in either their basic assessment of "Scientology Public Relations" nor in their accusing me of violating WP:NPA. The vandal Lord Xenu should have been warned with the blatant vandal template and the anti-Scientology vandalism he posted should have been deleted without question, much less an AfD.

I do not appreciate your condescension nor you're attempt to support obvious vandalism. My patience in this matter is through. I no longer wish to interact with you in any way. Republitarian 01:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republitarian. Go read Wikipedia:Vandalism. No, no excuses, no ifs ands or buts. Go read it, right now. "Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." If only one person was arguing that Scientology Public Relations could be the work of a well-intentioned but unskilled user, then you might possibly have an excuse for believing it to be vandalism. However, since many people are arguing with your characterization of the edits as "vandalism", this means it is not inarguably explicit. And simply repeating "The vandal Lord Xenu" and "the anti-Scientology vandalism" and "obvious vandalism" will not change reality and put you in the right; it will only compound your already-committed wrongs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Lang[edit]

I noted your information on the dubiousness of Fritz Lang's Jewish ancestry. Apparently, he is being categorized in Jewish categories despite this being rather unprecented as I noted in TALK:Fritz Lang. I suggest if you have a source (a book or anything) that talks about the possibility of Fritz Lang's Jewish ancestry being dubious, you promptly add it so that these categories cannot be re-added by apparently trigger-happy users. 72.144.68.99 20:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Angel[edit]

Hi. I appreciate your concerns about the two articles, Johnny Lee Clary and Johnny Angel (wrestler). Ultimately, a single article would be best. Clary's wrestling career can be folded into his bio article. That's what section headers are for! :-)

I'm just wondering how quickly this needs to be done. Would this week be soon enough? --Uncle Ed 15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Afd for Tilman Hausherr[edit]

Relevant comments only. Don't turn this into some edit war over bad faith nominations or retaliations. We will proceed with nominating for a consensus in a civilized manner.

Please don't let this happen again.

--Nishkid64 15:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS[edit]

You stated: I think it is perfectly clear, Terryeo, that you were questioning Raymond's motivation, or otherwise there was absolutely no reason at all to insert the gratuitous "thus increasing his personal website traffic, you see?" in your account of Raymond's actions. If I wrote "Terryeo posts frequently to 'Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources', thus increasing his edit count, you see?" I doubt that you or anyone else would accept the flimsy claim of "I just commented on the result of Terry's frequent posting, not commenting on the motivation of Terry's frequent posting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I bring your statement here is because it contributes to the view, "Terryeo has made a personal attack", while I have continually, repeatedly, incessently stated that I refuse to comment on Hill's motivation. In addition to my personal statement which you seem unable to accept, other editors who could view my statement as a personal attack do not view my statement as personal attack. In particular, I state, "increase web traffic". Obviously that is a result. I state nothing about Hill's motivation. Your statement contributes nothing to the issues raised. I therefore bring it here if you wish to discuss the area, inviting rather than denying communication. What you do now is up to you. Terryeo 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say you are "inviting communication". I disagree. You have already stated that your gratuitous referencing of Raymond's web traffic wasn't intended to imply that he was motivated by a desire to increase his web traffic. I have already stated that I do not believe you, since there is simply no other reason that you would gratuitously reference it. I do not see how us repeating these respective positions to each other over and over would constitute "communication" since each of us is well-aware of each other's position by now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's what I said and you have replied to. You haven't asked me why I said that Mr. Hill's cite would increase his web traffic. You have stated what you think my reason was. ChrisO stated what he thought my reason was. Yet, neither you nor he disagree that my statement is true. I stated the situation as simply as possible. I could have left out part of the situation. I could have not stated anything about the web traffic Mr. Hill could expect to receive from his personal website being included as a source of secondary information. I agree, it would have been possible. Or, I could have left even more of it out. I could have simply looked at it, seen that Mr. Hill edited to cite his personal website, and moved right along, mentioning none of it. I've done that before and will probably do that again. Neither did I attempt to make an issue of "Wikipedia editors are citing their own personal websites as they edit". I didn't blame, I didn't try to shame, I didn't try to create a stoppage. Yet, you have not asked me why I included the sentences which I admit, was not absolutely necessary at the WP:RS discussion. Instead of asking me, you have told me what you are sure the reason was. Happy Ho Ho's Mr. Feldspar. Terryeo 00:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have posted even more on this issue, which of course has the result of developing unnecessary traffic. I can only suppose that no matter how little interest I show in endless rehashing of what you did say and didn't say and should've have and might've said, you will continue to post on this matter, which of course will have the effect of developing unnecessary traffic. I believe that if you had actually had had, and wanted to communicate, a reason for bringing up the subject of Raymond Hill's web traffic which was not an attempt to imply that it was a motivation for his actions, you would have already done so -- although this, of course, would actually bring about productive communication, which would not be optimal for the development of unnecessary traffic. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice sought[edit]

Hi, I see you've looked in occasionally on the Talk: Barbara Schwarz article, and we appear to have a problem there with one editor who is continuing to make personal attacks, dive into original research, violating WP:CIVIL, and this behavior is now descending into making outright false accusations, taunting, trolling, making statements of bad faith on behalf of other editors and myself, and making uncited references to provoke arguments. You've pointed out the WP:NOR policy to this user before, who is now accusing me of OR and libel. The situation is getting out of hand and bordering on WP:DISRUPT, as the editor is opening up new fronts to fight his battle to get the article deleted without a successful AfD discussion. As you're an admin and an experienced editor I'd appreciate it if you could please look over my edits and comments there and tell me if I'm violating policy and if so, how, so I don’t repeat my mistakes; or what options there are to resolve this situation. Thanks. Orsini 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Edits or Vandalism[edit]

You wrote: "Please stop referring to edits that you don't like as "vandalism". Even if you think that they are really bad edits, unless there is no question that they were made in bad faith, they do not meet the Wikipedian definition of vandalism. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)" The person in question has repeatedly made non-NPOV and irrelevant additions to the Tom Swift article in addition to making wholesale deletetions of the work of others, even after being asked to cease and desist several times. If that isn't vandalism, I don't know what is. MookiesDad 11:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antaeus. Your thoughts on proving one's identity on Wiki[edit]

Reading your note to MookiesDad on his talk page not only ended up bringing me here, but also led me to consideration of this: How does a particular editor (eg, me) prove to others on Wiki that he is not (also) someone else? That is to say, suppose ol' MookiesDad starts taking the position "Aaaa, that crybaby vandal Dickerson--obviously Antaeus Feldspar, same attitude, praises himself, etc etc." How would you or I demonstrate the untruth of this? This is a different question from, How do I make a case that X is Y using puppetry to get around a ban?--the thought being that perhaps, in some way, the person himself has the capacity to do, with regard to himself, what no one can quite do, conclusively, with respect to others. As you seem to like think-stuff and have some longtermish experience of Wiki and how it works--what are your thoughts? -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 17:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he accuses you (or me, for that matter) of being a sock puppet, it can be dealt with when it happens. The administrators who deal with it are aware that a lot of suspicions of sock-puppetry turn out not to be founded and are aware that a lot of accusations aren't even based on real suspicion, just a desire to cause trouble, so they're not going to leap to hasty action just because MookiesDad shoots off his mouth. Speaking of which, I have stopped visiting Tom Swift and the talk page temporarily as my RL workload has suddenly grown, but if he is still making the same personal attacks on you, you may wish to report him to WP:PAIN -- I've been within a hair of doing it myself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aofrancis[edit]

Hi Antaeus. Thanks for the useful edits, categorisatin and formatting on the article Anthony Hallam AOFrancis 14:33, 18 September 2006.

You're quite welcome. Enjoy Wikipedia! -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Swift now on Requests for Comment[edit]

The page has been formally listed, though no comment thus far. As you have some familiarity with the issues re: this page, I know your input would be valuable as part of this process. (I'm not entirely sure what it involves, but I gather it's the next step in dispute resolution.) Doxmyth 17:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the RfC listing has been amended to reflect what looks like the spread of the same dispute to Tom Swift, Jr.. Doxmyth 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special Pages[edit]

Hello Anataeus! I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to clear up my questions regarding special pages. Thanks to you, I'm now slightly less ignorant regarding the many and varied misteries of Wikipedia. I very much appreciate your help. Have a great day. Buck Mulligan 21:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for help[edit]

I answered (or tried to) on my talk page. JamesMLane t c 06:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means[edit]

If you can point to any element of recent participation, [12] which applies to the subject being edited, by all means, point it out to everyone, won't you? As I read it, everything you say is pointed toward preventing the project from proceeding. Terryeo 06:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, that's exactly how I would describe your "participation". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ears burning?[edit]

Hi. I'm just letting you know that you're being talked about, over at my talk page: User talk:GTBacchus#Seeking advice. Please feel free to drop by and comment, if you like. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gratuitous[edit]

You seem to invite discussion [13] and, frankly, I would like to discuss the situation with you. Does the possibility exist ? Terryeo 00:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need your opinion[edit]

Seeing as you an experienced editor, could you take a few minutes to read [[14]], and tell me what your opinion is? To be quite honest, I am not sure who is right. This is one of the most controversial topics on Wikipedia, and it pays to tread lightly, so I prefer to have another opinion before making a move. Many thanks, Yandman 09:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable situation[edit]

Editor User:MookiesDad has created an intolerable situation, and not just on Tom Swift and Tom Swift, Jr.. If you click on my name in "History", you link to Editing User:Doxmyth--no content, but named in such a way as to deceive Wikipedians who might be seeking my personal user page--and if you try to go to the associated discussion page, what you get is, not something called "Editing Editing User:Doxmyth", but, weirdly, User Talk:Doxmyth, full of...well, look at it. You mentioned my going to WP:PAIN, Antaeus--I hesitated, first, because it seemed there were some content issues that might solicit comments that would somehow assuage the guy, so I went to RfC. Second, and perhaps I misread or just misunderstood, it appeared that there was some kind of warning procedure involving two admins that had to happen first--which I thought RfC would elicit. (I've also gone to the list of Wikikette violators.) I just don't see how the guy, with all his sock-puppets (and he's had very many, and has at least one, Pak434, going now) can be regarded as anything but a permanent ban-ee--and the affected article pages may need immediate protection as well. Yes, I'm personally offended--but also, I really think someone like this is not only disruptive but destructive to Wiki. Your comment? Help? -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now listed MookiesDad on WP:PAIN. I would still welcome your comments, Antaeus--I'm a relative newbie and have concentrated on two article pages of special interest to me, so my familiarity with Wiki's processes is still somewhat limited. Doxmyth 15:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V discussion[edit]

Hello User:Antaeus Feldspar. There is a good discussion going at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth about the text of the edit you reverted. Would you care to join it? Terryeo 19:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I read the entire discussion prior to reverting your edit, it did look like a good discussion. What it didn't look like was a discussion that had generated any sort of consensus for your proposed alterations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy O'Brien[edit]

You need to learn to discern. Reverting all edits from a person just because you don't agree with some, is quite ridiculous IMO.

1) Project Monarch is (mostly) declassified and verified. Therefore, words such as 'alleged' should be removed.

2) Mark Phillips is not a professional cult deprogrammer he is a former CIA operative. Claiming he is a cult programmer ignores the latter while the latter is a far more broad and important fact and was a professional job with matter to the person's history. Saying he is a cult programmer gives a totally screwed view to the reader.

3) Project Monarch is a subproject of MKULTRA. Referencing to MKULTRA is useful in the contect of Project Monarch.

4) O'Brien and Phillips are the main, public sources. They are not the _only_ sources.

As regards 1: Provide some evidence of this from what Wikipedia considers reliable sources.

As regards 2: Provide some evidence of this from what Wikipedia considers reliable sources.

As regards 3: Provide some evidence of this from what Wikipedia considers reliable sources.

As regards 4: Provide some evidence of this from what Wikipedia considers reliable sources.

Thank you, have a nice day. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have them. I don't know how I can request a FOIA as non-US citizen. How about you provide me a reliable source that Mark Phillips is a "cult deprogrammer"?

As for 3 and 4, see e.g. Project Monarch: "reputedly a subsection of the Central Intelligence Agency's mind control research projects Artichoke and MKULTRA.", "Another alleged victim of Project Monarch is Annie McKenna."

If your desire is to be an anal bitch on an entry such as this for whatever agenda you have, then at least be consistent in the other related articles. Else, it becomes quite a laugh, you know.

Please consult WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. As for supposed consistency between what's in Project Monarch and the material you tried to add to Cathy O'Brien, Project Monarch says "Project Monarch or Operation Monarch is reputedly a subsection of the Central Intelligence Agency's mind control research projects Artichoke and MKULTRA. Unlike several other CIA mind-control projects which are well attested, the evidence to support the existence of Project Monarch is open to doubt." (emphasis added) Exactly where in there do you get the impression that Project Monarch definitely exists and is definitely a subsection of MKULTRA, justifying your change in Cathy O'Brien from "an alleged CIA mind control project called Project Monarch" to "a CIA mind control project called Project Monarch (subsection of MKULTRA)"? You can't have it both ways, you know; you can't tell me that it's wrong to have Project Monarch and Cathy O'Brien inconsistent when you yourself are making them inconsistent. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have a point there. I humbly excuse for those edits related to 1 and 3 as they're doubtable. As for 2, I added alleged CIA operative in the article. It is more accurate than 'cult depogrammer' although no such title/profession at all would suffice too. What cults or cult members has he deprogrammed? The word 'cult' is out of context. My edits with regard to 4 are at least better than the previous state. Note, that point 4 is proven by Project Monarch entry and various of its sources on bottom. It is therefore completely bogus to say that CoB and MP are somehow 'the only source'. 2 and 4 in CoB entry were inconsistent with PM entry. The article is now more accurate according to Wikipedia's policies IMO. Have a look and a nice day or 2.

PS: who is 'Gundell', referred to as being cited from at CoB article? How is that a reliable source if only last name (?) or nickname is referred to?

Re: PS: "Gardell", not "Gundell". Please check the References section and then let me know if you still don't understand. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on drugs? Go to the CoB article, press CTRL+F and fill in Gundell (that means you don't fill in Gardell). It is clearly mentioned in the article as being quoted from without being clear whoever that may be.

Go back and read WP:CIVIL again, since obviously you comprehended none of it the first time. Also go back and read Cathy O'Brien. Notice how, though the quote in question is prefaced by "As Gundell writes", it is then followed by the specific reference of "(Gardell, 97-98)". Which do you think is the more plausible explanation? That one quote was authored by both Gardell (known) and Gundell (problematically unknown)? Or that "Gundell" is simply a mistyping of Gardell? -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you too could learn a different discussion style, including excuse me, you're right on that instead of ignoring whole arguments. In CVS, we often state the people who verified something. You verified me earlier, and deleted 4 out of 4. You could have done a better job there.

As for the argument on Gundell/Gardell: likely perhaps, but an assumption. You can't verify that, either, unless you are able to verify in the book. You did not state wether you verified, or not. I have to assume you are an authority somehow.

WP:CIVIL is not my policy, but the policy of Wikipedia. If you wish to use Wikipedia's resources, i.e. the openness to edit, then you do so under their rules, including WP:CIVIL. If you can't restrain yourself from "anal bitch" and "Are you on drugs?" and "Go away with your CIVIL stuff, mate" then it's you who should go away. Please do not post on my talk page again. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. Please do not reverse (my) edits (fully) without thorough investigation of the correctness of the individual aspects of the edit(s). Perhaps, after an edit, it should be made possible (or mandatory) to include your sources. As a result of that there won't be a need for me (and others experiencing the same) to post on your talk page. If you'd have done that and explained in your edits the importance of "alleged" (which I understand now), we'd have never met. Thank you. //Off.

Uh-hunh. That boils down to "I can do whatever I damn well please, whether I know what I'm doing or not, but you can't. You have to treat me with kid gloves or I'll yell at you on your talk page until you're sorry or bored." Well, it's an interesting idea, but discussing it with you fully would only prolong this unrewarding conversation, which I would rather not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blainetologist sockpuppet?[edit]

User:Xvidme is a brand-new user who immediately jumped into making the very same changes to the very same articles that User:Blainetologist was doing before he was blocked. [15] wikipediatrix 14:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's blatant. InShaneee seems to have taken care of it, though.[16] -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presley[edit]

Hi. How is unsupported speculation by Scn critics anything but heresay and gossip? The very article quoted says "Ex-Scientologists Speculate on Why Michael and Lisa Wed". Wiki policy is to be VERY careful about living persons Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Don't you think that applies? If so, please revert yourself. Thanks--Justanother 17:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP only applies to unsourced negative material about living persons. The material you removed was sourced. I'm afraid that you're making a rather common mistake that I term "the transitivity of source prohibitions", which is to assume that even if information is verifiable and from a reliable source, if the process of that reliable source acquiring the information involved anything which would be unacceptable for a Wikipedia editor, then the information in question is therefore prohibited from Wikipedia. This isn't the case, however. A Wikipedia editor couldn't conduct interviews with eyewitnesses about an event such as a fire or a shooting, and yet a reporter covering a story about such an event for the New York Times would certainly interview any such eyewitnesses. Does this mean that Wikipedia could never include any of the eyewitness accounts published by the Times? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While that is certainly a nice term, it really has absolutely nothing to do with my objection to the material. I am certain that you are a person that can own up to an error and can see that your statement "WP:BLP only applies to unsourced negative material" is just plain incorrect. Here is what it says "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." Speculation by a critic can in no way be considered a "high quality source" relative to Ms. Presley's marriage. It is only of this dubious quality: '"Scientology has been known to tell people to get divorced or married for public relations purposes," says Lawrence Wollersheim'. The critics never even say they are privy to anything relative to Ms. Presley, it is pure speculation. Does that work for you? Will you please revert your edit? Otherwise wikipedia is no more than a tabloid. Thanks--Justanother 18:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry, but you still don't seem to quite understand. You seem to be arguing that even though it is verifiable that a reliable source published that former Scientologists believe this to be true, Wikipedia should not include the information that they believe it, because you believe that they are incorrect in believing it.

But it is precisely because people make such arguments, that their personal views on what is obviously true or obviously untrue should overrule even the most verifiable statement coming from the most reliable sources, that Wikipedia spells out that "verifiability, not truth", is the criteria we use. Therefore, even if you were saying that you believe it to be untrue that those former Scientologists had even advanced that speculation, that belief does not outweigh the fact that it is verifiably reported by a reliable source.

This is, I'm afraid, something you'll have to adjust to if you want to keep on contributing to Wikipedia. One thing that may help you to adjust to it is to remind yourself that you have two roles in relationship to Wikipedia, reader and editor. The reader in you is completely free to believe or disbelieve anything you read on Wikipedia. The editor, however, has to answer, not the question "Do I think this is or isn't believable?" "Do I think this is or isn't true?" but "Do I think that this should be presented for other readers to make up their minds, the way I did?"

Finally, I really do need to point out that you should be glad Wikipedia has the "verifiability, not truth" policy that it does. If it was ever repealed, how much of what L. Ron Hubbard said would be removed from Wikipedia because it was obviously untrue? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting closer but still miss my point. I imagine I can find any number of people that suppose any number of things and those suppositions might be verifibly reported. Suppose someone speculates that George Bush (or any other public figure for that matter) is an alien pod person and that speculation is reported a NY Times column. Should we put that in the George Bush bio page? Would it stand? What you would like to include are opinion columns that give voice to random speculation by critics; that is not a source of anything other than that some critics speculate and that has no place in biographical references to Ms. Presley. You can present those speculations in reference to the Church or LRH but not a living person. My point is bios of living people have special rules (e.g. 3RR does not apply if I decide to pull this). You don't present vague maunderings and speculation no matter how verifiable they are. I think you are letting your POV color your thinking here. Last time, please self-revert. Thanks--Justanother 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry that you don't understand. However, the fact remains that you are trying to take what WP:BLP says about material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and apply it to material that is verifiable and well-sourced, and no, you do not magically become free of the requirements of 3RR merely by claiming that you were applying WP:BLP. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at ACLU[edit]

Would you be so kind as take a look at the ACLU article, and weigh in with you thoughts? Thanks in advance. article talk NBGPWS 04:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of WP:PAIN[edit]

The entire page content, except the intro and one new report, has been summarily deleted. As my posting to this page was in compliance with stated Wiki dispute resolution procedures--what does this mean? Are those with open "PAIN" reports now to go to arbitration? Is there now an entirely new procedure? Doxmyth 23:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

Antaeus; just wanted you to know that I know it was you that orchestrated both my block and reblock. As someone that understands Scientology, I know that it is better that you know that I know.--Justanother 04:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"orchestrated"? Well, I'd tell you to stop kidding yourself, but from what I've seen, you kid yourself nearly continuously and live in a world of self-delusion where nothing is ever your fault. You got blocked because you violated 3RR, despite several warnings from several editors who warned you specifically that WP:BLP would not be the loophole that you thought it was. And you were reblocked because, having been given a very lucky break that most people don't get, of being unblocked as long as you followed certain conditions, you tried to push your luck and say "No, I don't like your conditions; how about my conditions, which really only amount to 'I won't do things that I'm not allowed to do anyways'?"

Sorry, but no matter how much you believe that I "orchestrated" your block and re-block, the one who was responsible for your block was you, and the one who was responsible for your re-block was you. You chose to disregard warnings, you chose to violate 3RR, you chose to turn down a most generous offer of mercy and present a so-called "counter-offer" as if you had anything to counter-offer with. I made you do none of those things; in fact, I warned you that claiming "WP:BLP" wouldn't get you off the hook because it didn't cover what you were trying to remove, and if you had actually listened to my warning, or that of AndroidCat, you wouldn't have gotten yourself blocked.

So really, you can go on all day leaving messages about "just wanted you to know that I know" but all you're really proving to me is that L. Ron Hubbard's vaunted "technology" just simply doesn't work. After all, Hubbard defines one of the characteristics of a suppreshttp://scarygoround.com/sive person as that they are always blaming their troubles on the wrong source. So theoretically his followers should all be good at correctly identifying the source of their troubles, right? And good at not blaming other people for troubles they caused themselves, right? But here you are, blaming the person who tried to warn you about violating 3RR for your own stubborn wrong-headed choice. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ascribed no significance or blame to your actions except to say that I know that you directly orchestrated the block and reblock. That does not speak to whether you were right or wrong or whether I deserved either. In actual fact I have no beef with the block; I did revert over three times though I thought that was not a factor for the reasons I have already given ad nauseum but if another did not feel the same way and acted accordingly then so be it; I can assume it is a good-faith disagreement and go from there. The reblock is another story. I reject this concept you would advance that I am not allowed to negotiate with the blocking sysop over the terms under which she would unblock me; I find such a condescending proposal absurd; I am not a 4-year-old in time-out (though I have always taken the position with my children that everything is open to negotiation but I get to say when negotiations are over and if the child makes a good argument I am happy to let him sway me; I would rather have a bold negotiator than a wimp.). If I agree to something and it is not what the sysop wants then the simple solution is just say no. That's it for me, nothing more to say on the subject as far as you are concerned.--Justanother 23:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think perhaps you need to word-clear "orchestrated", since that word assigns a great deal of significance and/or blame for whatever was "orchestrated" to whomever "orchestrated" it. As regards whether you were "allowed" to negotiate with the blocking sysop, no one ever suggested you weren't "allowed" to negotiate. You're "allowed" to negotiate. You're also "allowed", in blackjack, to ask the dealer for another card when your hand is two tens. Note that being "allowed" doesn't in any way mean "not a horribly bad idea". However, if you still don't grasp that you were already getting a second chance that most violators do not receive, and that looking that generous gift horse in the mouth by trying to "negotiate" for even more than that was a really bad idea, then I don't know who possibly could get the idea across to you.

You say "I would rather have a bold negotiator than a wimp" as if those were the only two options. Does that mean you think it would be the action of a "wimp" to comply with a rather mercifully offered set of conditions for unblocking? See, Wikipedia doesn't need more people who think that they're always right. You got blocked because, rather than concede that two editors who both have easily ten times your experience with Wikipedia might be right about 3RR not working the way you wanted it to, you insisted "I am the one in the right here; I know what should be scrubbed from the articles even at the cost of violating 3RR." When Slim offered to unblock you, she was giving you the chance to show that, despite your misstep, you were the kind of person who could understand that you might not always be right. When you responded to her generous offer by effectively saying "Your conditions for unblocking me are wrong; why don't we go with my conditions, which are so much smarter than yours?" you demonstrated that you did not have the basic cooperation skills that in fact you were being given the chance to display. And frankly, the way that ever since then you have referred to SlimVirgin's "wrongly" reblocking you when she never had to offer you an unblocking in the first place just reinforces the same impression, that despite whatever skills and virtues you are bringing to the table, a mature spirit of cooperation isn't one of them. Wikipedia needs people who can come together and work out between them a way to do things. Wikipedia doesn't need people who are going to say "We'll do it my way; my way is the smartest way; what's that? you're not in favor of my way? I'm sorry to see you are proclaiming yourself so un-smart because if you were smart you would be doing it my way ..." and it surely doesn't need people who, when their own arrogance and stubbornness has gotten them into trouble, are going to shift the blame to someone else and insist that someone else "orchestrated" their trouble. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus, let me help you out here.

From www.webster.com

Orchestrate

2 : to arrange or combine so as to achieve a desired or maximum effect.

On wikipedia we orchestrate with words to achieve our desired (or maximum) effect.

Orchestrating the block

Orchestrating the reblock

I don't have to argue with you; your arguments speak for themselves.

And now I am telling you; STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. And just in case you do not know what I mean by a personal attack, let me quote you "you kid yourself nearly continuously and live in a world of self-delusion where nothing is ever your fault"; there are a lot more and it has been going on for a while so knock it off.--Justanother 03:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, give me a break. I did not orchestrate your block. I did not orchestrate your re-block. You did both of those to yourself and all I did was make sure the proper people were aware of your behaviors. If your behavior had not been unacceptable it would not have resulted in a block or a reblock. You orchestrated both your block and re-block by committing the actions that led to them. Do you comprehend this?

On the score of personal attacks, you were the one who made the sweeping and insulting accusations that I was "letting [my] POV take precedence over [my] ability to reason properly" and telling me "I am beginning to doubt your reasoning abilities" and then when Wikipediatrix warned you about personal attacks you insisted that they weren't, calling it just "open discussion". Those were insults to my intelligence and to my integrity but I figured "hey, if that's the spirit he wants to interact in, I'll meet him on the level he's chosen." And now you have the nerve to start complaining in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS about PERSONAL ATTACKS that have been "going on for a while" that supposedly you (once again) don't bear any sort of responsibility for? It almost sounds as if you're trying to "orchestrate" some sort of "let's get Feldspar blocked for 'personal attacks'" gambit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no gambit. Fair warning. That last bit from you crossed a line for me. You are getting way too personal and you need to stop now. I have made a few cracks but you are starting to rant about me. You may not have noticed but I have admitted my errors in being too sarcastic and I have resolved to be "kinder and gentler" and I do not think you will find much that is objectionable in my recent communications to you. In fact, I have made a visible effort to offer an olive branch on several occasions. I will apologize now to you personally for anything I may have said to you that attacked you personally rather than your arguments or actions. I do not expect you to think that because I have changed that you now must, I only expect you to stop personal attacks. You know, Antaeus, you make good points quite often but my problem in discussing anything with you is that you never want to give any ground. Perhaps you are interested in debating but I am interesting in agreement and you have never, that I recall, agreed with anything that I have said. So what's the point, it's a waste of my time if not yours.--Justanother 03:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to move our interactions back to a more civil level if you are, but I warn you that I do not consider accusations that I "orchestrated" the consequences of your own choices to fall within the bounds of civility. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good; you can have the last word after this on the subject. Here is my last word. 1) You act as if I started the uncivility but you evidenced it to at least some degree in your very first communication to me over my first edit on 24 Aug 2006 "I'm afraid you don't understand a thing about NPOV." That is pretty mild and might not be the best example from our early exchanges but it is certainly phrased in a confrontational and personal manner and certainly set the stage for where we ended. I take full responsibility for rising to the occasion to the degree that I did but no way you can say it started when you say it did (and please don't make me look at more history to prove this point, I just looked for our first exchange). And 2) On second thought I am going to just leave the block/reblock thing alone as I doubt we will reach any agreement there. We can perhaps agree that any ill will between us escalated from our original interactions and we both played our parts.--Justanother 04:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take only part of a sentence and present it out of context. The complete sentence that you refer to, with the part that you removed emphasized, is "If you think it's "irrelevant" for someone to claim that they remembered a formula from a past life containing ingredients that would not have been known at that time and place, I'm afraid you don't understand a thing about NPOV." To take a statement of the form "If X, [then] Y" and repeat only the "Y" part of it is misrepresentation. I am sorry if you felt that my observation was unduly harsh; to me, it is a fact of life that new editors discover Wikipedia every day and many of them do not even know of the existence of WP:NPOV, let alone have a correct understanding of its application. I think perhaps it would be best if we ceased communication; while I was interested in some points that were raised, particularly your expressed belief in the existence of critics who would uncritically swallow any anti-Scientology claim and in Scientology technology making a positive difference in people's lives, I simply do not feel that our communication has been productive enough to justify the amounts of time and energy it is demanding. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I simply do not feel that our communication has been productive enough to justify the amounts of time and energy it is demanding." If that is the only thing we can agree on then so be it. As far as the points I raise I am glad that you have interest in them. Those two are at the top of my list of overarching "meta" points regarding the presentation of Scientology on wikipedia, others being that the Scientologists and anti-Scientologists are both unwilling to acknowledge anything valid in the other's arguments and that both seek to make wikipedia a mirror of either scientology.org or xenu.com as the case may be. I am sure that we we "speak" again from time to time but hopefully in a more amicable fashion.--Justanother 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology series[edit]

You and I have encountered each other on a few of the talk pages for Scientology-related articles. I know next to nothing about Scientology and have never met a practising Scientologist, so you may think it strange that I take an interest in these pages; I generally feel that a good encyclopedist should always be expanding his intellectual horizons. Yet whenever I try to find out anything about Scientology or clear up anything I don't understand, I seem to get locked into your eternal debate with Terryeo. The two of you seem to be doomed to repeat exactly the same discussion, about the same thing, over and over ad infinitum et ad nauseam. (sort of a Wiki-Limbo perhaps - sorry only joking). The point I'm trying to make, without intending to be critical of either you or Terryeo, is that it's become very difficult to find out any neutral, factual knowledge that isn't disputed. Walton monarchist89 12:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. As someone that knows an awful lot of Scientology both from almost 30 years as a practicing Scientologist and having been interested in critical materials almost from the beginning (I read Paulette Cooper's book in 1983 or so and have read most of the major critical books, have read and posted on alt.religion.scientology practically from its inception, and am familiar with the material on just about every critical website) I have strong opinions on both sides of the fence. I doubt that there are more than a handful of people here, if that, that can evaluate what is presented here in the Scientology articles, on both sides, as well as I can (I think there are other editors here with extensive experience on both sides). When I took an interest in the Scientology articles here recently, I found them overwhelming one-sided toward the skeptic or critical side, not at all NPOV. I thought that I might address that situation a bit. It has been an adventure but an enjoyable one as I can get a bit feisty on the subject. I have been discussing the situation here with Antaeus and a few others and I have made some observations:

The problem is that wikipedia is one-sided and contains a lot that about Scientology that is mis-stated, mis-interpreted, wrongly emphasised, or just plain wrong.

This stems from the fact that most edits are made from "researchers" that only look to the internet for a source of data about Scientology. I will go further, I bet that many only look to critical websites and will not try to learn about Scientology from official websites. They take the viewpoint that official websites cannot be trusted but forget to extend that same skepticism to the critical websites. But in actual fact, the official sites are the best ones for researching what Scientology teaches and what the terms mean. They are the best place to research what is right or good about Scn; the critic sites are the best places to research what is wrong or bad. Both require a sharp sense of what is bullshit, if I may be blunt. Unfortunately, Scn is so outside the realm of the non-Scientologist's experience that it would be unusual for one to have such a sense of what is BS or what is not; to many it ALL sounds like BS, I imagine. I fear many "solve" that by trusting the critics and distrusting the Scientologists.

The genus of this problem is the Church's (CoS) incredible foot-bullet as regards the internet. The Church has managed to bring criticism of Scientology to the status of an internet, and practically a cultural, meme.

So you have a repository of one-sided knowledge created by editors that have only a one-sided exposure to the subject. They sometimes seem to act as if there is only one side and that presentation of that one side is NPOV.

From what I understand, pro-Scn editors have in the past tried to "handle" this using their own one-sided POV. They have been disruptive and have created more ill-will toward Scn. In their likely belief that any criticism of Scn is generated by the critics' own moral failings (that they subconciously or consciously fear Scn will expose), they are no better than critics that claims any acceptance of Scn is because of brainwashing and social control (there is social control in Scn but that is not a condemnation of the philosophy, only the organization). Both of those attitudes would prevent any real dialogue. What I think occurred is that editors have practically made wikipedia a mirror of xenu.com. The Scientologists thought they could make it a mirror of scientology.org but received a rude come-uppance.

What needs to occur now is that rather than mirroring diametically opposed viewpoints, editors here must look at both sides and edit accordingly. The Scn sites are good sources for material about Scn and the successes that Scn has enjoyed, remembering, of course, that BS detector I mentioned. The critical websites can be good sources of what ex-Scientologists claim and what experts say, remembering again that disgruntled people say disgruntled things and that not everyone that claims to be an expert actually is; and those caveats in addition to the general BS detection.

If you have any questions about Scn, I would be happy to address them. Just post it on my talk page.--Justanother 13:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, while I will not of course bar you from carrying on a conversation with another editor on my talk page I think it might be a bit more appropriate for you to conduct that discussion either on your talk page or on the other editor's talk page, and let my talk page be where I respond to the question the other editor addressed to me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Feel free to move my reply to his talk page if you care to.--Justanother 15:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Justanother. If I have any further queries about Scientology I will contact you. Walton monarchist89 09:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus, I apologise for using your talk page; you can move this discussion if you want to. But (Antaeus), I am still curious (although you don't have to answer) what your interest is in Scientology, and why you spend so much time and effort debating with Terryeo. Terryeo's bias and motivation are obvious; your own is not clear, as your user page does not indicate any connection to Scientology. Don't you get slightly bored with repeating what is, effectively, the same debate? I realise this query is fairly superfluous and I will understand if you don't want to reply. Walton monarchist89 09:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walton, I had a lengthy reply typed out in which I outlined why I feel it's necessary to answer Terryeo's numerous attempts to spread misinformation, even when it's the same misinformation as before. So of course the browser ate it. Hopefully I can get the chance to write a replacement and answer your other question on what my interest in Scientology is, but my time has proven a tricky thing to juggle lately. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walton, does Hislop ever get tired of exposing Murdoch's porky pies? It's hard to let these things pass. The only difference is that Anateus isn't being paid for it. yandman 13:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped in the Closet[edit]

Yes, I did it by copy-pasting the text of the two articles. Should I notice an admin to merge the history? Michaelas10 (T|C) 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. The edit history has to be preserved. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History merged. Michaelas10 (T|C) 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My accusation of vandalism[edit]

You're telling me that an entire 3 paragraphs of denouncing L. Ron Hubbard as a fraud who rips people off isn't vandalism, or at least POV?--Rayonne, 20:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that right there is exactly why I told you to go read Wikipedia:Vandalism before making any more accusations. Because if you have actually read WP:VAND then what you just said is like saying "You're telling me that parking diagonally across two parking spaces isn't a violation of federal law, or at least a not-very-nice thing to do?" Not-very-nice thing, yes; violation of federal law, no.

Now notice I didn't say the anon's edits were acceptable. They weren't. But it's a far cry from "these edits were not acceptable" to "these edits were vandalism". If you don't understand the difference, please read WP:VAND. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

You may wish to voice your opinion/vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Yours, Smeelgova 07:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- On a related issue, What is your opinion regarding the "non-compliant" tag that User:Jossi placed on the article Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous ? Yours, Smeelgova 07:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Cults in Our Midst[edit]

I have updated the Cults in Our Midst article entry. Take a look and let me know what you think, on the article's talk page. Yours, Smeelgova 23:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book)[edit]

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book). Yours, Smeelgova 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

DreamGuy's userpage[edit]

Hi, Antaeus. I understand where your edit to DreamGuy's userpage is coming from, but I'm not sure you're aware of the full background to the efforts by Centauri et al to keep the tag on the page as some sort of shame punishment. Please see my reply to Centauri on my page for some details which may be new to you. Oh, incidentally, the accusations by Gene Poole which I refer to are at Requests for adminship/Elonka. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 09:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well, from having endured harassment from more than one user who acted completely beyond the bounds of civility and was then revealed to have been all along an illegally-used sockpuppet, I must say I cannot imagine a set of circumstances in which the knowledge that a CheckUser strongly indicated a likelihood that an account was a sockpuppet could become "outdated" or no longer meaningful. "some sort of shame punishment" does not enter into it. "Full disclosure" does. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb[edit]

Hi. Please see the talk page. I checked a number of major categories and found no blurbs in any of them. Please justify your opinion that blurbs are the rule there. Thanks--Justanother 03:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Suspsock page[edit]

In case you're interested, I have posted User:SuperDuperMan, User:Noumenes and the various related others on WP:SSP. Doxmyth 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you[edit]

Comment moved from User page. -- Gogo Dodo 20:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry i'm not sure whether this is the right place but I figured you could always delete it if so.

I just wanted to say a huge thank you. I have been trying to get my head around the Monty-hall problem and having read you explanation:

"This is why I say it's so simple. When you understand the problem constraints correctly, you see that if the player picks the car initially, switching loses -- no exceptions. And if the player picks a goat initially, switching wins -- no exceptions. Since the player picks a goat initially 66.6% of the time, that's how much of the time switching wins."

That really cleared up my understanding and I felt you deserve some plaudits for putting it much more simplistically than maybe the article does (at least for me). ny156uk 20:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo's ban[edit]

Does Terryeo's ban on editing Scientology-related articles include inserting Scientology ideas into non-Scientology articles? I was quite disturbed by this post in which User:Justanother seems to be suggesting that they begin gradually altering the Psychiatry article to subtly reflect their own POV. wikipediatrix 20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuperDuperMan[edit]

Sorry mate I've been away on vacation - are you still having issues with this guy? Glen 06:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pretty much. He's been reported on SSP but the user who filled out that report was (possibly deliberately, though I myself don't think so) overbroad in listing people that he thought were sockpuppets of this user. He was reported on AN/I but it was archived without result. And as you can see, he's continuing false counter-accusations and personal attacks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Earth (film)[edit]

Sorry about the unnecessary revert. I thought you had deleted the paragraph entirely, I didn't see that you had just moved it. Sir Isaac Lime 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Yeah, if you didn't see that Modemac had moved the stuff down to the #Plot section then I guess it did look like a random and bad edit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OT VIII[edit]

You said: "if it IS a forgery, then what would be anti-Scientology is to OMIT the declarations that it is one!".........my feeling at the time was that without the deeper context provided in articles like Fishman Affidavit and Operating Thetan, it came off kinda like a loaded denial, like saying "There is absolutely no truth to the rumors that Bob beats his wife" out of the blue. Probably should be expanded and rewritten if kept, especially because the first part, "It was initially believed that the text of OT VIII was revealed to the outside world in the Fishman Affidavit. However..." has a spin on it to make it sound as if the Jesus bit renders the whole document suspect. wikipediatrix 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I would submit that a crucial factor which must be considered is -- are there indeed rumors that Bob beats his wife?? If there are no such rumors, then it's the familiar "spread the FUD under the guise of being fair about it" that we all know scoundrels love. But if indeed the rumors are out there circulating then I don't think it's reasonable to maintain silence. In this case of course the "rumors" are not rumors, they are documents submitted to a court of law, which were in fact initially confirmed by Scientology to be one of its copyrighted OT levels. Because someone who has an interest in the subject is highly likely to run into that side of the story, it is rather more fair to Scientology to give them Scientology's side of the story as well, than to remove all mention of it.

Frankly, the fact that we are discussing at all the Fishman version of OT VIII is by far not the biggest problem with the OT VIII article. A far bigger problem is that it currently implies that heavy doubt is thrown on the Fishman OT VIII by the testimony of ex-members who did OT VIII and didn't encounter anything about Jesus. As I pointed out on the talk page (and as no one has responded to), the level these ex-members are talking about, at least the one whose statements are being cited towards this point, is not the same level. Ariane Jackson specifies that she is talking about the level the Church itself calls "New OT VIII" (emphasis added), not the original OT VIII which is what Fishman said he was submitting to the court. Instead, the OT VIII article doesn't even acknowledge that there's more than one document called "OT VIII". -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Which is another good reason, IMHO, to majorly reupholster this article as well as others that deal with this matter. Wanna take a shot at it? wikipediatrix 22:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you / open proxy[edit]

Thank you for cleaning up the vandalism on my Talk page. It appears to be from an open proxy, please see http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?203.177.242.173 Orsini 05:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Slightlyright[edit]

Too early for a CheckUser at this time, but User:Slightlyright is the latest Scientology gallery duck to pop up. Apparently originally posting as 24.18.239.151, starting about 4 hours after Terryeo's final post. May have nothing to do with Terryeo at all, but this brand-new user has jumped in swinging, well-versed in Wikipedia terminology and on the major attack towards me. See this. wikipediatrix 16:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page posting[edit]

Regarding the reordering on Talk:Robert Morey: you inserted a comment in the most appropriate spatial location but out of chronological order, but as I read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout, posts should go in chronological order rather than strict spatial order. Do you see things differently? --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I see things differently, I have never seen anyone interpret talk page guidelines in the manner you suggest. If a post is not a direct reply to the post of another, then the appropriate place for it is at the bottom. But when it is a direct reply, it should go underneath the statement it replies to, properly indented to show it as a reply. I've never seen anyone interpret those guidelines to mean "if person D is replying to person A, but after person B and C have said things that they put in the same section, person D's comments must go after B's and C's". If that was the intent, wouldn't the guidelines express it much more clearly as "Comments go in chronological order, period"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have requested clarification at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Chronological_or_spatial_ordering?. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Prem Rawat[edit]

Antaeus, I listed valid reasons for the removal of 3 items from the Criticism of PR article. You reverted subsequent edits without addressing the points I raised. Please return to the discussion page.--Gstaker 15:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I explained on the discussion page, you listed the reasons why you as a reader choose to disbelieve three items in Criticism of Prem Rawat. That is fine for you as a reader but does not authorize you to decide as an editor that no one else will have an opportunity to read that information and make up their mind on whether they find it credible. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

Aren't you supposed to be using the talk pages and at least giving editors the courtesy of an explanation for why you are reverting my every move? Highfructosecornsyrup 01:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you're making high volumes of very obviously POV changes, no. I concentrate on undoing the damage first. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are my changes "obviously POV"? What do you presume to think my POV is? What articles have I "damaged"? So much for WP:CIVIL and assuming good faith. How the heck am I supposed to dispute an article if you watchdog over it and refuse to let a "disputed" tag be placed on it, even though I explained myself on the talk page and you didn't? Highfructosecornsyrup 01:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To quote your own attempts at CIVILity, "Talk to the hand". Your changes are clear POV pushing painted with a thin veneer of concern for the rules. This is not an attempt to improve an article, this is an attempt to make the article look like crap. If you have actual concerns about something in the article, littering the article with "{{fact}}" tags is not the way to go about it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what IS the way to go about it? My concern is that almost not a single sentence in the article is backed up by sources. I thought that's what the "fact" tag was for. Enlighten me. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:)[edit]

All okay? We have a POV warrior on our hands do we? Yell if I can help, thanks mate! Glen 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egh, it isn't what I'd like to be doing on a Saturday night. Think this is a reincarnation of you-know-who? Timing seems right and the pattern certainly seems familiar... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so now I'm a sockpuppet? This is nuts. So far I seem to be the only one trying to follow the policies here and all I'm getting is insulted. And still no talk-page explanations for your edits even though I have already explained mine. Why can't you just stop being rude and start discussing like a normal person? Highfructosecornsyrup 01:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet? Wow, you did learn that term quick! (Im joking) See your talk for an answer to your query above Glen 02:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS; You got mail :) Glen 02:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOGRTAC Editorials delisting - please vote in poll[edit]

Hi Antaeus Feldspar,
"Cult PR agent" eh? (hehe) Well, that's timely... your Wikipedia cult needs you.
Right now there's a major change that's been edited into the List of groups referred to as cults rules, that if a slippery slope, could cause ripples across the encyclopedia and beyond. The five-some logical reasons against the change are bad enough, but #6, motivation, is the angle that could make the internet news. Seems to me one of the minor proofs of cult membership is being so seriously concerned that folks might believe it, that one risks a major LOGRTAC source (Salon.com) to hide the silly truth that The Guardian's Charles Arthur called WP a cult. It would be funny if it didn't make WP lose NPOV PR. And on days I don't care it will be funny anyway.
If you are still interested in LOGRTAC please vote in the poll. Milo 15:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep on it right this second[edit]

One the crats owes me a wee favor, speaking to him as I type :) Glen 02:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of apology do I receive when I turn out not to be Terryeo? Highfructosecornsyrup 02:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you assist with any additional info (like what was the sockpuppet of Terryeo's that got caught and do we have a request for checkuser page for it?) on my talk please, thanks! Glen 02:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wont believe this...[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser.2FCase.2FHighfructosecornsyrup. Prepare for a shock Glen 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from violation of the spirit and text of WP:BOLD[edit]

Please refrain from violation of the spirit and text of WP:BOLD such as your recent reversion of Scientology. WP:BOLD states:

Be bold in contributions, but not in destructions. Editing is a collaborative effort, so editing boldly should not be confused with reverting boldly. This only leads to edit wars. Use the talk page instead. A simple guideline for simple reverting is that it works best for, and is really intended as, a tool against CLEAR vandalism. So save it for that! In cases other than vandalism, somebody is trying to be constructive. Even if they are doing it badly, and even if they are completely and foolishly wrong, there are usually more polite and constructive ways to deal with them than simply returning the article back to the pristine way (you think) it should remain. So, here's the time to think of better solutions.

If you're tempted to revert for anything but clear vandalism, take a deep breath; it may be better to discuss it on the talk page or build on the previous edit with a new edit of your own. It may be even better to simply do nothing for twenty-four hours while you cool down. Reverting isn't always collaborative editing, but often a cheap shortcut. (And, it doesn't help that you're limited in space for your revert "edit summary" comment. Over-succinctness may lead to rude-sounding stuff.) Be careful if a revert touches off a revert war. If a revert war begins, then collaboration is not working, and editing the article boldly by reverting is not collaboration. Instead it attempts to force one editor's will on the other editors, which will never work. Such edits will not survive. The "correctness" or "truthfulness" of the edit is irrelevant at this point (See: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle).

I understand that BOLD is guidance not policy but "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."--Justanother 15:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one removing material, not Antaeus and I. We're putting it back in. So I think this guideline applies to you. yandman 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion on yandman page. Thank you. --Justanother 16:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Monarch (AfD discussion)[edit]

Hi Antaeus Feldspar, since you previously de-proded the article Project Monarch, you might be interested in the AFD. Cheers —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-20 09:48Z

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Monarch

Re: 69.252.158.32 (talk • contribs)[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I saw your comment about the anons threat, and he has been blocked. Let me know if you see any sign of this user reappearing and acting inappropriately. He may reappear as a sock-puppet. He will be blocked immediately if he makes anything resembling a threat. If you are contacted via any other channels (e-mail, phone), call law enforcement agencies and also let me know about it. This type of behavior cannot be tolerated. -- Samuel Wantman 06:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antaeus. There's further discussion of this incident here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Death_threat_by_69.252.158.32_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. Let me know what you think. I left a note on his talk page as well. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again. I wasn't aware of the full history here (a common occurrence when someone previously uninvolved steps in). I'm not unblocking. Further discussion at ANI. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Netwick Island[edit]

I'm sorry, I saw the page on RC and noticed before that you had the deletion summary up. I waited awhile and didn't think it was going to be completed, I appologize. Darth griz⁹⁸ 04:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Hall problem[edit]

Monty Hall problem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Gzkn 10:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9/11[edit]

Not sure if you've already heard the explanation or not, but it was only Semi-protected, not fully protected. So by making a sock account and then letting it become 4 days old, Cplot could still edit the page. That's been fixed now though. Thanks. --tjstrf talk 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for a Wikipedia cult[edit]

Hi Antaeus,

Yesterday a self-referential event occurred in the periodic minor debate over whether Wikipedia is a non-fancult in the abuse, exploitation, or excessive control senses. (My previous light analysis is here.) In your page history, I wanted to preserve your thoughtful comment on Wikipedia as a referred cult, and describe the escalating reaction to it that subsequently caused Dementation to request that his account be deleted. Note that Dementation set the stage for this confrontation with his 2006-12-04 user page comment: "I started editing pages until I realised how stupid most wikipedia authors are."

Saved from UserTalk:Dementation

Criteria for a cult
- I notice that a couple of times now you have removed Wikipedia from List of groups referred to as cults, the most recent time with the summary "Wikipedia is not a cult. It has no religous basis ! Grow up and stop adding it." It isn't necessary for a group to be religious to be a cult; the LaRouche movement, for example, is widely considered a cult and it has no religious component. The National Labor Federation is another 'political cult'. There are numerous 'therapy cults' which substitute doctrines of alternative medicine or supposed mental health practices for religious or political doctrines. While there may be some definitions of cult out there that specify the group must have a religious doctrine, most of them talk, at most, about the group using the doctrines as a method of control. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- :This is starting to sound abit like a standard knee-jerk reaction to something. Wikipedia does not attempt any control over people, no matter how much its other editors think so. Anyone calling wikipedia a cult when it is an unbiased attempt at information gathering. Obviously it isnt perfect and people will tend to influence an article one way or the other, but it does not constitute a cult. The only people who think it is a cult are people who are obviously against it and want to brand it as such. The definition of a cult is very specific. Any attempt to say it Wikipedia is a cult, is utterly childish. [snip of dictionary cult definitions] --Dem 23:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This proper debate was followed up with a series of obscenities by Dementation, which provoked warnings, then a cross-user page-blank-revert 3R+ tit-tat, and a vandalism block. IMHO, three editors stepped out of line (which included an admin probably in too much of a hurry) by either not allowing Dementation to control his own user page, or the purely dialog portions of Dementation's talk page. These control excesses were ultimately refereed by a non-admin. After being virtual roughed-up by vigilante editors, Dementation proved to me that he was wrong when he wrote: "Wikipedia does not attempt any control over people..." Milo 08:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if one interprets his statement broadly enough, then it must be seen as wrong. A system which does not attempt any control over people is an anarchy; there are few true anarchies (and even fewer functioning anarchies).

However, if one takes Dementation's statement in the sense relevant to the context (i.e., "Wikipedia does not attempt any control over people in the way that a cult does") I think he's correct. Wikipedia does not try to control your finances; Wikipedia does not instruct you to disconnect from your friends and family if they oppose Wikipedia; Wikipedia does not tell you where to live or what job to work at; Wikipedia does not make you proselytize for Wikipedia. Even if we stipulate excesses occurring in response to Dementation's behavior, I don't see how it shows anything except that Wikipedia expects certain social behaviors that have been outlined to be adhered to by those who use its resources -- such as not calling people "utterly childish" for advocating different opinions, or attributing ulterior motives such as "obviously against it and want to brand it" (WP:NPA, WP:AGF). I really don't think it's accurate, or fair for that matter, to set up a dichotomy of "either Wikipedia has no standards for behavior or does nothing at all to enforce those standards, or Wikipedia is like a cult because it attempts control over people." -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

Hi - I'm guessing the carefully considered changes I made to the phrasing of the explanation, which were all without exception removed without any discussion (part of this comment) is about some change I've made recently. I've been attempting to keep the article out of FARC and have been making changes (without prior discussion) that are a little more radical than I ordinarily would. I'm sorry if there's something you've added that I've deleted that I shouldn't have. Please let's discuss this - I have no intent to be the "master editor" of the article (I strongly buy into the wiki philosophy of "anyone owns everything"). Your contributions to this article have been extremely valuable. I view this as a collaboration, with you being one of the chief collaborators. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL[edit]

Hi there,

I notice you re-inserted a commercial link on a book (Atlanta Nights which I had deleted. You may well have good reasons for reintroducing this link but "relevance" which you mentioned in the edit summary isn't really enough. Could you explain a bit further?

In general we do not link to the sales link at Amazon for example for every book even if there are reviews etc there. The links really only should be kept if there is additional information at the link over and above what the article would contain if it was of featured quality. --BozMo talk 21:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the issue again, and having checked some of my previous assumptions and found them to be incorrect, I'm inclined to agree with you. I was not aware that there was text in the article itself clarifying that the book was commercially available (which a reader might assume it was not, after reading that PublishAmerica withdrew their "acceptance") and with that information available in the article text, the article links become redundant. Also, it is clearly inappropriate to link to the Amazon page for a book, since Amazon has no relationship to a book other than retailing it; however, I don't think the same can be said automatically about linking to the book's publisher. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree publishers (or in this case self-publish facilitators) are different to book sellers. There are a lot of links to lulu.com across WP (345) and it gets monitored because some were spammed but as I have said at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#lulu.com quite a few are justified but some are not. Anyone I leave it up to you. --BozMo talk 12:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soapboxing[edit]

Thank you for bringing that offensive soapboxing to my attention and thank you for not reverting my removal. Also, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to you and to the community for engaging in less-that-civil discourse with you recently on the LRH talk page. This is not an admission/assertion of rightness nor wrongness, guilt nor innocence, on either of our parts. Simply an acknowledgement that I violated my own intention to not engage in such and I am reaffirming that intention here. That is NOT who I want to be, here or anywhere. --Justanother 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farever[edit]

What do we do about it? I'm not sure. I've only been doing this Wiki stuff for about two months now, so I'm certainly not an expert on procedure. I just figure that if we get Farever/Amorrow/whoeveritis to admit, publicly, that they're one and the same, others may take his or her suggestions with a larger grain of salt.

While I was over here I read through your user page. I really like it! I was wondering: does Kant's Categorical imperative work for you? Or is it too restrictive? Too vague? I'm just curious.

The Illustrious Locke offered some excellent ethical advice when he said

That men should keep their compacts is certainly a great and undeniable rule in morality. But yet, if a Christian, who has the view of happiness and misery in another life, be asked why a man must keep his word, he will give this as a reason:-- Because God, who has the power of eternal life and death, requires it of us. But if a Hobbist be asked why? he will answer:-- Because the public requires it, and the Leviathan will punish you if you do not. And if one of the old philosophers had been asked, he would have answered:-- Because it was dishonest, below the dignity of a man, and opposite to virtue, the highest perfection of human nature, to do otherwise.

Have you read much of John Locke's stuff? Here's a link to more of what he had to say, if you're interested. Have a great day! DavidCBryant 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise[edit]

Sorry if you think I broke some "promise". I don't see it that way. That was a compromise for that time based on my understanding at that time. I knew that bit did not belong in wikipedia but I did not know exactly how to state my case. Now I do. I am not bound to my past errors or deficiencies. I do not need your permission to correct an obviously inappropriate inclusion. --Justanother 02:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, Justanother, if it was such an "obviously inappropriate inclusion", one would think that one of the admins who had to block you repeatedly for violating 3RR several times on the article would have noticed that. I mean, you did do enough to bring it to their attention, that's for sure. Why would you need to "know exactly how to state your case" if the case is as blatantly obvious as you are claiming it is? No, you don't need my permission to "correct an obviously inappropriate inclusion" but you cannot simply say "I see it as an obviously inappropriate inclusion and that makes it an obviously inappropriate inclusion, because obviously anyone who disagrees with me is acting in bad faith out of their malicious desires." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for your feedback on the whole content forking thing. By the way, you have mail. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BabyDweezil[edit]

If you have time, would you mind leaving a comment about BabyDweezil? Thank you. Anynobody 08:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some action was taken, thanks and feel free to delete this heading. Anynobody 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rathbun[edit]

Just chatting to the admin who looked at the 3RR vio and explained your (and my as it happens) position. As Im sure you know, we (administrators) must ensure that WP:BLP is adhered to, so as soon as that policy is mentioned caution is always taken. However, personally, I dont feel the material BabyDweezil keeps removing breaches it, as it is cited. So, assuming the page is unprotected (which I can arrange) can you ensure that any material readded does not breach the BLP policy. Namely, it can be positive, it can be negative, but it must have reliable sourcing. IMO, xenu.net et al does not qualify, but, http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/schwarz.html (as an example) does. Now I havent read that FOIA page on Barbara, but, if all the info that BabyDweezil keeps removing is there, then by all means readd with my blessing (once) - and if he/she removes again then I will take it up. Im going to msg him/her now anyway. Dont let me down! :) Glen 08:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS; Page is being unprotected - please cease the edit warring, come to me if you have a problem. Thanks mate Glen 09:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potters House and my home page[edit]

Hi Antaeus, I was wondering if you could please help me regarding an issue with User:Potters_house. The said user has deleted the links including this from my home page, even thou I requested that the user give adequate reasons why it is a poor link. I have stated that the link I have provided to the the firstplumbline is within the giudelines of the wikipedia external links rules. Also I want to know how I can fairly adjust the the potters house christian fellowship acticle in the section "criticism of the church" so that it can represent the current status of the situation for both the church AND those whom are objecting to the church. I know this has already been disputed but currently the information provided in the section does not fairly and accurately show the reader what the cristicism is about. Namely it is from ex-members of the church (which has been omitted) who have reported to the cult awareness groups and I also suggest to add a current cult awareness website the firstplumbline that is providing up-to-date information that can fairly inform the reader of the issues that are being raised. I have contacted user Tilman and user Potters House regarding editions to that section of the Potters House acticle. Basically user Potters House will not allow editions and claims it is fair and unbias and I say it is not. Please can you adivse me, especially on the user Potters House editing my own homepage and removing the links he says are of poor quality. Thank you for any help I will graciously accept a third party mediator if that was the case to settle this. user:Darrenss 14:10 February 18 2007

Hello again Antaeus. It seems that Darrenss has stirred up the hornets nest again. Much of this discussion is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xiahou

As was previously discussed in mediation between Timan, yourself and myself, the entire agreement is about the inclusion of poor quality links - whether about CFM or Rick Ross, should not be allowed either on the Ross artcile nor on the Potter's House article. I thought that what we had discussed was in a sense a finalised mediation outcome, but others seem to disagree. If you have any solutions please contact me. Potters house 04:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly don't want to (and will not) get involved in this issue, save to say that the "finalised mediation outcome" that Potters house thinks was arrived at, where he has authority to unilaterally decide what links are "poor links" and unilaterally remove them from not only the article, and not only the article talk page, but from someone else's userpage, is primarily a figment of his wishful thinking. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to Siberia, USA![edit]

Or at least the article I've just written about it... another puncturing of CoS myths, I'm afraid! See Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act - enjoy. :-) -- ChrisO 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Stevens[edit]

Thank you for getting that the man's notability comes from his days as Cat Stevens. There has been an ongoing argument on the page about how it should be named, what name goes first in the lead, how the picture should be captioned, etc. It is clear to me that the article must remain named Cat Stevens with the redirect from Yusuf Islam of course, and I am still unhappy with the lead sentence but I thought I'd give it a rest for a while. There has been some pretty acrimonious argument about this, but I wanted you to know that you are not alone with this, and I'll step in too when I see the incorrect reversion, and I'd be glad to revisit the first sentence. I worked hard on the page to give it a fair representation of his Yusuf Islam years, but the move to de-emphasize his work as Cat Stevens is ridiculous, POV, and unacceptable. Read talk - the Muhammed Ali point has been argued too and you are completely correct - it has to be based on notability, and how people will search for him, and how he's most widely known - not how he calls himself today. (By the way, I have no idea what ROHA means - do you?) Cheers Tvoz | talk 07:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, never thought of that - you could be right.Tvoz | talk 08:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good clarification on intro-what you said is what I meant- thanks Tvoz | talk 05:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's nice to get appreciation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother and WP:BLP[edit]

Feldspar, the complaint at WP:BLPN served to draw the comments to my attention, but I did not remove them on the basis of the complaint. As I stated in the edit summary (and also at WP:BLPN) my reasoning was more in line with yours in the response you gave to the comments. They were basically TROLLish comments, offering nothing constructive and with no intent to improve the article. I have taken a look at the Hausherr article and left my comments under the complaint you filed.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Attacks_and_disruption_of_noticeboards_by_User:Antaeus_Feldspar --Justanother 05:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hatto[edit]

Who is this clown who insists on making these silly "contributions". It's not enough to be vandalism -- just dense. --Otheus 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, probably just some guy who has no idea of what Wikipedia is beyond "place where I can write stuff about people and things." He probably doesn't know that it has to be written in NPOV fashion and even if he's aware of the concept he probably doesn't realize he's violating it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Hominem[edit]

AF, I like your User page discussion of Ad hominem (among other interesting topics, such as the quip about distinguishing characteristics). I am sharpening my knives for an article edit on "denialism". Would you care to take a look at it and give me your thoughts about this article, and about the use of the term itself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otheus (talk • contribs) 14:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for participating[edit]

I really appreciate your taking time to comment on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother. Thanks again :) Anynobody 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article[edit]

Newly created article - Scieno Sitter - highly sourced, was discussed on the A & E program Investigative Reports and in the movie The Bridge (film). Check it out and let me know what you think on the article's talk page. Thanks for your time. Smee 07:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WikiProject updates[edit]

I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 20:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 20:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)[edit]

I think this may be of interest to you. Kind regards, Orsini 06:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AF[edit]

I removed a remark of yours from the talk page of Scientology. Please put it back if you like or say something else. I was trying to be fair. Steve Dufour 07:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I didn't want to leave it there after I had made a change above it in case that changed the meaning of your remark. Steve Dufour 07:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary...[edit]

User:Michaelas10 is a good dude. We are both attempting to bring Trapped in the Closet (South Park) up to Featured Article Status. If Michaelas10 removes any material, it is probably only an attempt to hold very, very tightly to citations, in order to eventually have the article be impeccable. I'm sure it was an honest mistake. As to the Michaelas10's edit summary, and then your subsequent one - my best guess would be Michaelas10 wasn't even aware of who had initially put the quote in, and therefore the edit summary was probably not intended to be an "uncivil accusation of bad faith", even if it appeared to be. Your help is always most appreciated, I was just (trying) to clear up a misunderstanding... Yours, Smee 21:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately, this is not the first time I have seen Michaelas10 removing something with an edit summary alleging it was "untrue" or "made-up" when in fact it was quite clearly true. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I had not known that. But as far as I know, the underlying motivation of all involved here is simply to bring the article up to Featured Article Status. I happen to agree with you that the rest of that quote is valid and a useful contribution... Smee 22:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Help, Please![edit]

Antaeus, can you help me out? The nonsense with user 76.166.123.129 has started again. I'm battling her sock puppet army at the Ralph Nader article. Look into this: The Nervous Mermaid is wholly interested in Ralph Nader and has not commented on any other article in Wikipedia except for Seasons & a Muse, Inc, an article that has had only two contributors, one of whom, not coincidentally, is 76.166.123.129, who is often a commentator on the Ralph Nader article. Meanwhile, there's Telogen, who only comments on Ralph Nader and one other article, Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, an article which also happens to be visited extremely often by user 76.166.123.129. None of these people has been on Wikipedia for more than 2 weeks. It's a farce Griot 02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started a WP:SSP concerning said user(s). --Otheus 22:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Movedetail[edit]

Template:Movedetail has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Kevinkor2 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may notice, I do still differ with you about the usefulness of {{movedetail}}, but I appreciate your courtesy about the matter, especially taking the time to notify me of the proposed deletion. Thank you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Antaeus.

{{movedetail}} is well written, and its function of moving detail (instead of an entire page or section) is something that is not covered by the existing templates.

I suggest we could rename this template to {{mergeto-detail}}. It could function the same as the current {{mergeto}}, but have an additional {{{1}}} parameter.

What do you think? --Kevinkor2 11:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I wish it would be possible to tell how a template (or category) has been used historically. --Kevinkor2 11:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree about wishing for an overview of historical usage. Even just being able to see what's been in a category in recent time would be invaluable in watching for some kinds of problematically overbold editing.

I think your renaming proposal might be an excellent way to handle the situation, too. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at User:Kevinkor2/Template sandbox/mergeto-detail. --Kevinkor2 10:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/discussion of article Flying Spaghetti Monster[edit]

Hello, Antaeus Feldspar. As a prominent contributor to Flying Spaghetti Monster, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- MikeURL 00:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HCOPL[edit]

Hi Antaeus, I am looking for a scanned copy of the specific HCOPL as was discussed on Tilman's page. I have seen extracts of it appearing in many places, but not a scan of an original. If you know of one, can you please let me know on which site it may be found? Please also note that business is keeping me busy for a few days so if I dont reply quickly, you know I haven't lost interest. Kind regards, Orsini 13:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apologies[edit]

Hey, AF- it looks like I inadvertently stepped on your edit on Talk:Cat Stevens regarding the infobox - I have no idea how I managed to do that, but I certainly didn't intend to. Glad you caught it - sorry. Tvoz | talk 04:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. The wikiware sometimes does weird things; God knows often enough I've looked at an edit of my own and seen it do things that I had never dreamed it was doing, let alone intended it to do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and talk page insults[edit]

Thanks for the explanation. Frankly, it seems a bad policy and I certainly won't edit anyone else's talk entries, but I will also not revert in the future. Phiwum 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I mentioned, I opposed this interpretation of policy as well. (Frankly, I don't think WP:BLP itself is well thought-out. Perhaps it would be in a project that didn't have any POV-pushers, but if there is such a project, Wikipedia isn't it.) If it's going to be policy, though, it has to be applied evenly... -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Warnke article[edit]

I just recently completed some significant copy-editing and citation work on the Mike Warnke article. I noticed you worked on this last year. There are several facts which I didn't dig up, but maybe you might. Would you mind glancing over the article and adding your fine touches? --Otheus 17:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, something did get accidentally deleted. Thank you very much for catching it! [17] "My bad". --Otheus 17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let your reach exceed your grasp, or what's a heaven for?[edit]

There is a quote by William James that I feel is appropriate to this section "There is something quite noble in attempting what is truly beyond our means". I can't back that up with a reference, except to say that I found it in a book published by a local philosophy professor. It is a good paraphrase, rather than a true quote. I think it is to be found in the James's letters (but don't quote me.)Thaddeus Slamp 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Well known examples of the "I know I can't help my bias" pov are Ayne Rand and Larry Abraham (1 of 2 authors of None Dare Call it Conspiracy. Can't remember the name of the other); yet I am fairly sure that psychologists had developed fairly effective drills that are able to reduce bias dramatically, since the 1700s. See The Illumintatti Papers, by Robert Anton Wilson. I warn you however that the quality and style of the articles therin might be found to vary, nonetheless Wilsons assertions about how to reduce bias were not so much contravercial, as, rather, obscure.Thaddeus Slamp 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What ad hominem is and isn't[edit]

Our education system purposefully misteaches critical thinking for reasons I've yet to find an appropriate manner to convey adequately.Thaddeus Slamp 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What NPOV means to me[edit]

I see the mistake your talking about over and over on wikipedia, and it leads to some ridiculouse results. Some people dread listening to the other side of an argument, and so they try to present the other side on an automaticity, becouse deep down they know that that aint what mam done taught them, or what ever, and it shows in an article. There is no solution without drudgery I suspect. I fully expect to see an article on Hitler saying: "critics of the idea that Hitler might have benefitted from relaxing a little say that..." I don't think there are many critics of the idea that Hitler could have benefitted from relaxing a little. I think that a person writing such hates being objective but is trying to make themselves be so on an automaticity/ so they go: "Critix of idea x say idea y" and be done w/it. Are we on the same page? Thaddeus Slamp 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Justanother?[edit]

The WP:RFC may be on soon check this out Justanothers abuse of Wikipedia Backfires.

I self nominated on WP:RFA and he turned up and did me the favor of being himself. When he tried to make an issue out of something on my user page, they suggested a WP:RFC. Are you still interested? Anynobody 08:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your input humbly requested[edit]

Greetings, Antaeus. I greatly respect your objectivity and experience here at Wikipedia. Would you mind lending those attributes to commenting on this page? Thank you. --Otheus 13:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments. In fairness to FeloniousMonk I'd like to point out that Otheus is a suspected sockpuppet of a very long term IP vandal. With that in mind, the nomination looks like exasperation. Let's WP:AGF on both sides. Durova^Charge! 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that suspicion, but even knowing that, nominations shouldn't be based on exasperation but on solid causes. Stretching the definition of "attack page" just to have a weapon to attack this page is a bad, bad precedent to set. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern. Within the peculiar context of this history it makes more sense. That is, most of the sysops who've dealt with this situation long term have a strong suspicion that Otheus is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the vandal and that this page represents a cynical attempt to game the system. I don't necessarily share that interpretation, but I do think it clearly isn't going to succeed as a mediation attempt. It might help earn some good faith if Otheus recognizes it's a misfire (for whatever reason) and tries a different route. I've refiled the WP:RFCU in hopes it will help clear the air. Durova^Charge! 03:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest comments by Guettarda and FM show that she's right. I've voted to have the page speedily deleted. I will have to find another way, after the RFCU clears me of at least that. I hope it will help some. Really, the policy itself needs to be cleared up. --Otheus 11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

destroyd my scientology edit.[edit]

Why did you take away my edit? I did not have time to close a parenthesis, but I was making an accurate and important point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs)

It looked like the entire purpose of your edit was to challenge the description of Dianetics as a "body of psychotherapeutic techniques". However, if you check in the history, you'll see that that description which you objected to had only been inserted sometime in the past 25 hours. I thought it best to change back to the old description, as well as undo some other objectionable edits. If we had reliable sources both describing Dianetics as "psychotherapeutic techniques" and challenging the description of "psychotherapeutic techniques", we could certainly describe both POVs -- but where? I don't think the Scientology article is as good a place for that discussion as the Dianetics article, and while I'd actually have to see how strongly the sources disagree with each other on the point, I suspect that in either article, the introduction wouldn't be the place for the back-and-forth on it.

Oh, by the way -- if you look at the instructions for the template you also applied as part of your edit, {{Pp-semi-protected}}, you will see that it should only be used on pages that really have received semi-protection -- and that only administrators can apply semi-protection or other forms of protection to pages. You might have mistaken that template for something like {{inuse}}, but protection templates should only be used by admins. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again.

There are a series of misunderstandings in your reply that I do not currently have time to adress, but I want you to know I read your reply.Thaddeus Slamp 03:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I know what it's like to be short on time. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(regarding "the description of Dianetics as a "body of psychotherapeutic techniques") I now have time to respond: First responce is to the above: I know. I inserted it. I was not objecting, but clarifying.

(regarding "I don't think the Scientology article is as good a place for that discussion as the Dianetics article, and while I'd actually have to see how strongly the sources disagree with each other on the point, I suspect that in either article, the introduction wouldn't be the place for the back-and-forth on it.") I am not sure I understand you fully here, but Scientology is as much a body of psychotherapeutic techniques as is Dianetics, tho Scientology includes more that is not a body of psychotherapeutic techniques than does Dianetics; and, again, I was not inserting back and forth, but, rather, clarification.

(regarding "Oh, by the way -- if you look at the instructions for the template you also applied as part of your edit, {{Pp-semi-protected}}") That, I did not add. So I put in something you didn't realize, and did not put something in, that you think I did.

(regarding "you will see that it should only be used on pages that really have received semi-protection -- and that only administrators can apply semi-protection or other forms of protection to pages.") Again; that was not my doing.

(regarding "You might have mistaken that template for something like {{inuse}}, but protection templates should only be used by admins.") Again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs)

Thaddeus, I've sorted your "interruptions" out and I'm replying to them here. Placing replies inside the text you're replying to is generally not recommended -- it's easy to do but very hard for others to follow when they read the text afterwards.

Regarding expanding the sentence from "Hubbard began Scientology in 1952 as a self-help philosophy, an outgrowth of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics, and later described it as a new religion." to "Hubbard began Scientology in 1952 as a self-help philosophy and new science, and body of "psychotherapeutic"technigues, (Both Hubbard and Scientologists would refute the claim, and/or the term, if for no other reason than that they see no reason to give more credence to that term than their own terms, auditing, and processing an outgrowth of his earlier system and attempted new science, Dianetics, and later described it as a new religion." That second sentence is far too complex, because it's trying to do work that should really be split up among at least two and probably three sentences. It's trying to characterize Scientology as five different things (a self-help philosophy, a new science, a body of psychotherapeutic techniques, an outgrowth of Dianetics, and at some point later than 1952 a new religion); it's trying to expand on one of those by immediately explaining three different reasons (the claim, the term, or the claim and the term) why the characterizations we just presented might be regarded as less accurate than a different characterization (one involving the words "auditing" and "processing", though the reader would not know what these are or why they are inconsistent with "psychotherapeutic"); finally, the sentence is also expanding the characterization of Dianetics, though Dianetics isn't the subject of this article, from one item to two. My position is that of all those things which that sentence is trying to convey, not all of them have to go into the introduction. And they definitely don't all have to be fit into a single sentence.

1)well your right about the convolutions of that sentence. I'm pretty good @ making a multifaceted sentence work, but I bit off way more than I could chew.

I do not understand your "expanding the characterisation of dianetics" ref @ all. Perhaps you are refering to something I already cleared up; namely that Scientology is @ least as much a "body of psychotherapeautic techniques" as is dianetics. Is that a fact of which you are unaware?

Well executed major burn on me, tho, altogether (compliment).

Regarding the semi-protected template: This edit of yours did actually place the template onto the page, but I didn't realize until I looked again that the template had been placed on the page by an admin earlier. Your edit inserted a second copy, so what I'm guessing is that at some point you were moving text around in the edit box and accidentally copied the template and pasted it with the text you meant to grab. Editing mistakes, unfortunately, can happen to us all. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking @ my final edit, I saw only 1 template. I'll check again, tho.

Looking again its impossible to say on the history pg version, how many templates of that type were on there. Guesas I'll take your word for it. Thaddeus Slamp 16:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Thaddeus Slamp 16:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LRH talk page and a ?[edit]

Hello Antaeus Feldspar, I want to assure you that I am not trying to undermine you in any way by agreeing that judge Letay isn't relevant to the LRH article. The reason that theyt are right is that in the custoday case, the CoS wasn't directly involved. Granted what he said was 100% true, however since his case didn't involve the CoS other judges are not very likley to use his statements as a precident.

There are other judges who have ruled on cases directly impacting Scientology, since their cases involve Hubbard and the CoS there is nothing unrelated about their opinions in such cases. I get the impression that you are simply trying to present the truth as supported by evidence and reason. There is no shame in admitting Letay's opinion is irrelevant to the issue, no matter how correct he is especially since there are judges who not only agree but actually ruled on something CoS related.

Breckenridge as, you probably know, didn't have kind words for either Hubbard or Scientology. He doesn't get as specific as Letay, but the Navy can pick up where Breckenridge leaves off. I've even made graphics to help illustrate Hubbard's dishonesty:

He claims quite a few non-existent awards, so obviously they don't have ribbons for fantasy. These aren't quite finished, I need to add his claimed palms and stars to the fake ribbons.

I was also wondering, on a completely unrelated subject, if I could get your opinion on ad hominem accusations as used by Kent Hovind when someone discusses his qualifications? This isn't my specific question, I'm wondering if you'd be interested in a brief discussion about the subject in general. Anynobody 11:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I still contend that yes, it is very relevant that Judge Latey looked at the evidence and dismissed Hubbard's self-representations as false. Why is it relevant, out of all the many people who have weighed the evidence and come to the same conclusion? Because the Church of Scientology does its best to portray anyone who does not believe in Hubbard the legend as having weighed the evidence insufficiently or having been somehow biased against Hubbard. Journalists are portrayed as only wanting the "dirt", etc., so supposedly they do not find the truth; ex-members are portrayed as having sour grapes at a group whose standards they supposedly couldn't live up to; et cetera, et cetera. If there is one kind of person on Earth more than any other for whom these ad hominem circumstantial arguments fall flat it is a judge, whose task is to determine which side has shown its case and which side hasn't. In the case of this article it is doubly relevant because in some cases citation has actually been demanded for the fact that Hubbard made these claims.[18] Now you might say "Well, it's crazy because everyone already knows that Hubbard claimed all these things! We should only need reliable sources for information about whether those claims were true or false!" As reasonable as that would be, the fact is that yes, people demand reliable sources all the time for things that they already know to be true. So as long as anyone could raise a question about whether Hubbard ever claimed he commanded a corvette squadron, then no, Judge Latey ruling that Hubbard claimed he commanded a corvette squadron is very much relevant. So long as anyone could raise a question about whether Hubbard claimed himself to be an atomic physicist, Judge Latey ruling that Hubbard claimed it is very much relevant.

The whole obiter dicta issue is a smokescreen; even if the issue of which parts of a judicial decision were obiter dicta and which were not was within the capability of individual untrained Wikipedia editors to determine (and I doubt that it is) why on earth would the part of a judicial decision that is in some jurisdictions non-binding be less of a reliable source than a journalist, whose assessments are not legally binding in any jurisdiction?? If a journalist's news story written on a deadline produces a reliable source then a judge's decision damn sure produces a reliable source. (P.S. I am rather short on time these days; I regret that I have to decline to get involved with the Hovind issue.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reread the Latey ruling and now feel the discussion of the CoS is not obiter dicta(more on term later). The first time through I guess I interpreted this statement to mean "Scientology is terrible but my ruling is about the kids":

...It is important, indeed essential, to stress from the start that this is neither an action against Scientology nor a prosecution of it. But willy-nilly Scientology is at the centre of the dispute of what is best for the children...

Later he said something like all things being equal I'd let the kids stay with their father, except for CoS factors like education which directly impact the kids. I missed that on my first pass, so clearly all the Scientology info was the primary reason for his ruling. (If he would have said all those things and still awarded custody to the father, the concept the other side raises about obiter dicta would be accurate and his comments not relevant to the article).

Maybe the section needs a more coherent theme or section title. Call it international judicial findings about LRH:

1984: UK Judge Latey finds that Hubbard is a liar, his church corrupt, and cites these as reasons for awarding custody to mother.
1984: US Judge Breckenridge finds in favor of Gerald Armstrong, awards costs and finds CoS liable due to Hubbard's rep and record of Scientology.
1970s: France etc etc etc.

I was looking at the last version of Latey's ruling you included on the LRH page and it doesn't mention that those reasons are why the still practicing Scientologist didn't get custody.

About Hovind, it's not him I'm asking about but what you consider an actual ad hominem. If we can agree he doesn't have any training or knowledge of science, is it an ad hominem to point that out while also explaining why he's wrong? Here's what I mean:

Hovind does not have any training in natural science so he is wrong. - ad hominem
Hovind does not have any training in natural science so he is ignoring evidence x y z. - not ad hominem

Thanks, Anynobody 00:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hovind (I'll reply to the others later) that's a very tricky area. It's actually one area of logic where the answers are different, depending on whether we are dealing with deductive or inductive logic. Generally, ad hominem arguments are those which points to traits of the person offering a statement to try and dispute the statement, instead of disputing the statement itself. In deductive logic, anything along those lines is irrelevant -- the same statement may be made by the world's greatest sage and saint, or by the world's biggest liar, but it is still the same statement, its truth value unaffected by the speaker. In inductive logic, however, it's perfectly reasonable to point to traits of the person making a statement which affect the likelihood of that statement being true. It is fallacious to treat the traits of the person as if they determined the truth value of the statement (which is why "Hovind does not have any training in natural science so he is wrong." would be ad hominem) but pointing out that they affect the likely truth value of the statement is legit. Of course, the complicating factor is that we aren't here to point out to the readers why they should believe that X is right and Y is wrong or vice versa -- we're here to make it understandable why reasonable people might believe that X is right/Y is wrong/whatever. So it might be that all we can do is note in the biographical section that despite the "Dr." in "Dr. Dino", his only degrees are from unaccredited institutions, and then only note it in reference to the arguments if it's already pointed out... FWIW, this version seems to be handling things well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the Hovind article is fine as it is. I was using him as an example of someone who might be appropriate to mention a lack of credentials while explaining valid concepts (x y z was laziness on my part in not wanting to go into specifics). I found the description on your user page interesting: User:Antaeus Feldspar#What "ad hominem" is and isn't. I think you are essentially saying my understanding of ad hominem is correct (don't simply use a person's education to dismiss ideas, but mentioning it while giving reasons to debunk their ideas is acceptable.) Anynobody 01:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An update on the Letay issue, I think the opposition has either given up debating me or acknowledged that what Letay thought about Hubbard/CoS was part of his decision. Again, not to sound like a broken record, it should probably be included in the context of an international view of judges. Anynobody 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job being WP:NPOV[edit]

I know you've had run ins with Justanother before, so trying to mediate in his favor is a sign of maturity. (This shouldn't be taken as a sarcastic thank you, I think you showed remarkable neutrality). Anynobody 06:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated you for a Wikihalo award, should you choose to accept the nomination please follow the previous link. Anynobody 00:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freezone[edit]

Just to say that I'm asking around for Freezoners willing to help out and hopefully the cavalry will be arriving soon :-) --Hartley Patterson 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

If I have misjudged your neutrality then please accept my apology. I acknowledge only getting about 4 hours sleep a night for the past several weeks and I don't always take the time I should, to properly absorb and analyze the facts. I do believe you have a poor choice of wording on your user page which is confusing at best and misleading at worst, and does appear to claim that a neutral stance involves alienating both sides of a debate. I still suggest being open to the possibility (or at least the goal) of pleasing both sides rather than having each simultaneously feel that you support their opponent. Lsi john 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you have misjudged me as well. Though, I also acknowledge that you have insufficient grounds to form an objective opinion, since, as a new contributor, the majority of my time here so far, has been spent attempting to insert neutrality (or remove bias) into (from) one specific sequence of articles. Lsi john 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your apology. I think perhaps we've gotten off on the wrong foot, and could work together more productively if we agreed to let first impressions go and start over. I'd like to reply to your observations about the wording of my user page, but right now I only have just enough time to leave this note. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh. planned to reply tonight but too ill. Will reply soon. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHILL![edit]

Antaeus Feldspar, chill! Thank you. Misou 05:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by "CHILL!" you mean "put up with your attempts to mingle unreliable source documents with information we have from reliable sources," then, thanks but no thanks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

WP:ANI, Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), related to warnings you had posted on the user's talk page. Smee 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My bot[edit]

I'm aware; my bot is in the process of removing tags from the pages it has tagged. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA warning [edit]

~~This type of comment is not needed. Stop it. Thank you. COFS 02:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Neither is telling people where he lives. It's certainly not more important than what he actually does that makes him notable, which is something that you moved downwards in the article so that you could tell people where he lives. And frankly any warning about "No personal attacks", coming from someone who tries to add a link to Religious Freedom Watch, and who adds false information trying to imply that the article subject breaks up marriages, rings a bit hollow. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second WP:NPA warning![edit]

~~Edit summaries like "the insistence of publishing where he lives is just creepy." are not needed. Stop that, thank you. COFS 03:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Well, there's a certain problem with that; namely, that it is creepy to keep trying to add the place where he lives to the article when that information is useless to anyone -- well, except for those trying to harass him, I suppose they'd find that valuable information. Encyclopedically, it's useless information and it certainly doesn't deserve to be above his actual reason for notability, which is where you keep placing it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I got no reason to keep his living place there and I also got no reason to not keep it there. I'll go and change it in good faith that you stop hammering on me. COFS 03:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone now. If someone wanted to harass him they now have to look in a phone book or his personal blog here (which has his address and phone number in front). COFS 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you missed this. I think we are settled for now but please use the tools of Wikipedia to resolve disputes and not the ones to "get rid of inconvenient editors" (I am not saying that you do this right now). COFS 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The comments cited regarding User:Antaeus Feldspar do not read like any sort of personal attacks... Smee 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Warnings" stricken, as per comments from two editors previously uninvolved in this particular issue. Smee 00:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Smee, it was neither your page, nor your edit. It was not your business to Stricken. You have abused my post and I resent that. I am offended that you seem to feel the need to clean up wiki and do everyone's housekeeping for them. I have asked you before not to do this. It is offensive. Lsi john 03:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why this is offensive. We both agreed COFS' actions were inappropriate. I merely crossed out the lines. It is up to COFS to remove it. Smee 03:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reverting valid links[edit]

[19]--Olberon 01:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy O'Brien nominated for deletion (again)[edit]

Hi. Since you contributed to this article, I thought you might want to also contribute to its second nomination. Thanks. -Eep² 05:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Detective Work[edit]

Good catch on the "says one thing, does another" actions by various editors involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology and Werner Erhard DMacks 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review of COFS/CSI LA sock-block[edit]

FYI There is a review of the block being discussed here: User talk:Coelacan#COFS and CSI LA, I wondered if you cared to comment? Anynobody 03:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

discussion appears to be moving to: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Why current block makes sense Anynobody 08:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were right about Misou[edit]

By the way, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#COFS indef blocked. Anynobody 11:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gannon and Sdth[edit]

Hi there. Since every page I edit is on my watchlist, I see Jeff Gannon pop up all time. It's always the same stuff, with Sdth or anon Sdth adding the same obviously POV edits. It's a pain in the ass, because even though I edited the page only once initially, I now find myself reverting Sdth's edits all the time. I also naturally noticed all the arguments on the talk page. At a certain point, it becomes reasonable to block this person for constant disruption. I think that point is now. What do you think? --Tractor kings fan 06:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be right. He seems unwilling and unlikely to ever comprehend that the "right"ness of his POV does not make it superior to sourced NPOV material. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other instances?[edit]

Has this happened to you other times with Justanother? Named in the heading on AN/I. He does that quite a bit, I think I remember seeing it done to you multiple times too.

I saw him mention FOo as a WP:DE violator for editing on a page he happened to be on as well.

He's also made noisy accusations and exposed himself, counter to his goal of privacy before:

[20]
[21]

It worked for him then, so I understand why he's still doing it. If you have the time, and it has happened more than once, could you link a few? Anynobody 06:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, he's done it quite often. A little too ill to do the heavy lifting right now but check http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/archivesearch.php?search=Justanother&where%5B%5D=enpedia_ani and I believe it'll provide at least 2-3 more examples of "$ALLEGED_MISBEHAVIOR by $NON-SCN_EDITOR" section headers created by JA. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to mention you in an arbcom case[edit]

You've been the recipient more than a few times of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations from Scientologists in the time I've been editing here. I want to cite some of these instances as points about how a shared WP:COI can affect other editors. For example while you and I more or less agree on most articles, we do not defend each other nearly as strenuously or blindly as CoS members do. User:Anynobody/template1 I'm sorry if you have any hard feelings about my disagreement with you regarding L. Ron Hubbard and the military, it was unintentional. Anynobody 22:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be able to participate directly in the ArbCom case (still on an extended health level) but you have my permission to cite any relevant incidents involving me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. If/when I do I'll post a link here, so you can review what was said when you have time. Anynobody 23:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence[edit]

Hi Antaeus, I don't have any evidence, beyond the editors comments on Jimbo's user talk page, which essentially argue that paedophiles should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Perhaps 'support' or 'condone' are inappropriate and I should rephrase, possibly using 'defend' or similar. Addhoc 16:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Marie Spicuzza[edit]

The Jeanne Marie Spicuzza article is up for deletion. Care to weigh in? Griot 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation in Top Ten Lists of Roger Ebert[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Top Ten Lists of Roger Ebert, by Blueboy96 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Top Ten Lists of Roger Ebert is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Top Ten Lists of Roger Ebert, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kenneth Wapnick Article deletion/ reinstatement review[edit]

Hi Antaeus,
Good to see you are still active in Wikipedia. In case you might be interested, there is a discussion going on about whether or not Wikipedia should include an article about Kenneth Wapnick at: the Article Deletion Review board. Your input over there would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

-Scott P. 10:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

I noticed you haven't edited since July 11 and had mentioned some health concerns before that. I hope you are feeling ok. Anynobody 03:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible deal[edit]

Hi AF. I just made an offer on Talk:Barbara Schwarz‎ which could take me out of Project Scientology. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Steve Dufour 07:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recovered memory and Recovered Memory Therapy[edit]

Hey Antaeus, you might consider having a look at what has been done to Repressed memory and Recovered Memory Therapy. The first now has twice as much material "in support" than critical of it, the second has a section entitled Critics of the term RMT which is mostly a colorful essay justifying RMT and rambling on how RMT has been so deeply misunderstood recently, including content such as "Opponents of repressed memory are what the law considers, at best, a respectable minority under the two schools of thought doctrine", and furthermore such endless unverified, not sufficiently sourced nor directly applicable ramblings as a full paragraph of colorful essay in support as this:

Child sexual abuse occurs frequently in Western society. [...] Questioning the validity of allegations made by children is the most common form of denial. Child sexual abuse has a difficult burden of proof in criminal courts. [...] False retractions are also common. [...] The denial of offenses is strong among men that commit sexual offenses. Many continue to deny their offenses even after conviction. It is suggested that parents have consistently underestimated the seriousness of their child’s distress when compared to accounts of their own children. Adults that were abused as children may be reluctant to disclose their abuse if they are attached to their offender.

The talkpages of both articles is filled with posts by users such as Abuse truth, west world, and Biaothanatoi, claiming that any criticism about the whole concept was nothing but a "nasty backlash" and "propaganda" by "pro-incest activists" who seek "decriminalisation of paedophilia". --Tlatosmd 11:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR on Monty Hall problem[edit]

Monty Hall problem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. - Chardish (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP Computing[edit]

Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with {{WikiProject Computing}} for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Personal Freedom Outreach[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Personal Freedom Outreach, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal Freedom Outreach. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Northwestgnome (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious blackban[edit]

Just wondering if you could look at [22] Cheers 60.229.34.127 (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of A. B. and C.[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article A. B. and C., suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

None of this episode seem notable. No reliable sources at all

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology arbitration[edit]

Per the request of arbitrator Roger Davies (talk), this notice is to inform you of the current arbitration case concerning Scientology, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. You are receiving this notification because you were one of the users listed in the new evidence presented by Jayen466.

For Roger Davies and the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated link[edit]

Hello,

The web page http://web.umr.edu/~bsiever/cs234fs2/day17.html has moved to a new location. I have automatically updated a page in your user space accordingly here. You may want to update any links to this web page you have outside of Wikipedia (such as bookmarks in your web browser). If you have any questions or complaints, let me know.

--DeadLinkBOT (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology arbitration[edit]

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Osho International Foundation[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Osho International Foundation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

The page 'Osho Movement' is now redirected to a page 'Osho International Foundation' which is a different thing altogether. I suggest that the 'Osho International Foundation' be deleted (not notable) and the redirect be undone.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. jalal (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)
Topic-banned : CSI LA (talk · contribs), Grrrilla (talk · contribs), Makoshack (talk · contribs), Proximodiz (talk · contribs), Su-Jada (talk · contribs), TaborG (talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier (talk · contribs), Jpierreg (talk · contribs), Maureen D (talk · contribs), OngoingHow (talk · contribs), Seelltey (talk · contribs), Tturrisi (talk · contribs), Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs)
To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
Other restrictions :
- Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
- ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
- Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Northrup[edit]

In this AfD almost exactly three years ago, you implied that it would be a good idea to have an article on Sara Northrup, Hubbard's second wife. It's taken me a while to get round to it (!) but you'll find the results at Sara Northrup Hollister. Comments would be appreciated! -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

I know it's not under the happiest circumstances, but I'm glad to see you around again. You always bring a sensible approach to issues. I hope you'll stay a while. Will Beback talk 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to disappoint you. Under the circumstances, I am making absolutely no article edits whatsoever. I used to do a little WikiGnoming if I was looking at a Wikipedia article and saw something that needed fixing, but now, the Arbitration Committee has decreed that editing articles, period, is a bad thing if you happen to be editing the wrong topic. Since I have no idea what will be decreed 18 months from now to be the wrong topic, the only solution is to make no changes whatsoever, not even reverting the most blatant vandalism, not even fixing the most blatant error. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposed[edit]

Proposed deletion of Brazil and weapons of mass destruction[edit]

The article Brazil and weapons of mass destruction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No functional purpose. The article clearly states that Brazil doesn't posses or has possesed WMDs. The article limits to list the current or past civil nuclear power plants, that have nothing to do with WMD. Check similar articles.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 08:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stinger (BDSM)[edit]

The article Stinger (BDSM) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article appears to be a confusion between a portion of a confused dictionary entry, and a description of a type of implement - but the word "stinger" in this topic area seems to be mostly used to refer to an implement of a completely different form. Content of the article is already adequately covered by the corresponding entry at the page Stinger (disambiguation)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move NATO phonetic alphabet?[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet#Move?. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Rules have exceptions[edit]

Wikipedia:Rules have exceptions, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules have exceptions and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Rules have exceptions during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Body of Christ[edit]

The article The Body of Christ has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This organization does not seem to be notable. The crime was a news event but that's all. The one source cited seems to be a personal opinion posted on the web.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BigJim707 (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: Tom Swift[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Tom Swift know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 19, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 19, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Tom Swift is the name of the central character in five series of books, first appearing in 1910, totaling over 100 volumes, of American juvenile science fiction and adventure novels that emphasize science, invention and technology. The character was created by Edward Stratemeyer. His adventures have been written by a number of different ghostwriters over the years. Most of the books are published under the collective pseudonym Victor Appleton. The 33 volumes of the second series use the pseudonym Victor Appleton II. The character first appeared in 1910. New titles have been published as recently as 2007. Most of the various series focus on Tom’s inventions, a number of which anticipated actual inventions. The character has been presented in different ways over the years. In general, the books portray science and technology as wholly beneficial in their effects, and the role of the inventor in society is treated as admirable and heroic. Translated into a number of languages, the books have sold over 30 million copies worldwide. Tom Swift has also been the subject of a board game and a television show. Development of a feature film based on the series was announced in 2008. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:An listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:An. Since you had some involvement with the Template:An redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Interp[edit]

Template:Interp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mark E. Hyman for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark E. Hyman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark E. Hyman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --2602:306:CE9A:860:3188:950A:58FA:5B45 (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Knight vs A. E. van Vogt[edit]

I just wanted to ask you why you seem so intent in including EVERY possible criticism of van Vogt uttered or written by Knight on any page that refers to van Vogt or his work? Did vV run over your dog? Did DK leave you an inheritance to do this? So you don't like van Vogt, and Damon Knight was God's Gift To Science Fiction. Fine. That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. But why the compulsion to pillory van Vogt at EVERY possible opportunity? Since you're so good at digging up criticisms of authors, why is Damon Knight's page suspiciously devoid of them? Was never an ill word written about him? Or do you have a cognitive dissonance that prevents you seeing such things? How about a little balance? Or should I just follow your lead, and add any and all criticism I can find to Damon Knight's pages? Gil gosseyn (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Steve Took's Horns for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Took's Horns is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Took's Horns until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KDS4444 (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Joel Henry[edit]

Hello, Antaeus Feldspar

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Velella and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Joel Henry, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 1#Joel Henry.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Velella}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended reading[edit]

Re: Metaphoric use of "Siberia"?[edit]

Redundant IMDb links[edit]

Long talk page[edit]

New cult article[edit]

Referencing[edit]

Terryeo editing again?[edit]

ARC (Scientology)[edit]

Rick Ross[edit]

Violation of copyright related to Scientology as a business[edit]

Definition of POV fork[edit]

Reply on categories and subcategories[edit]

Re: citations[edit]

Thanks for the help on the chiro page[edit]

Accidentally deleted material[edit]

Charles Buell Anderson[edit]

Ste4k[edit]

re: your latest addition[edit]

re: your latest reverts[edit]

The Fugitive[edit]

Ste4k's incorrect assertions of personal attacks[edit]

Ste4k's claim that changing a header to more accurately reflect a discussion counts as "personal attacks"[edit]

Ste4k's general impression that user talk pages are for the purpose of harassing other users with pointless false accusations[edit]

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-12_Raymond_Hill[edit]

Abby[edit]

Ste4k RfC[edit]

Category:L. Ron Hubbard[edit]

Opertion Colorblind and Wade Watts[edit]

Keith Henson explosives[edit]

Scientology[edit]

Southpark episode[edit]

The snow white program[edit]

Miscavige the pauper[edit]

Asif Iqbal (Guantanamo detainee 87) --> Asif Iqbal (detainee) ?[edit]

Help with a VfD?[edit]

Rael[edit]

Contradicting definitions of "sect" and "cult"[edit]

How Terryeo thinks Scientology should look[edit]

Asking for a Detached View[edit]

Scientology Public Relations[edit]

Fritz Lang[edit]

Johnny Angel[edit]

Re:Afd for Tilman Hausherr[edit]

WP:RS[edit]

Your advice sought[edit]

Bad Edits or Vandalism[edit]

Hi Antaeus. Your thoughts on proving one's identity on Wiki[edit]

User:Aofrancis[edit]

Tom Swift now on Requests for Comment[edit]

Special Pages[edit]

Your request for help[edit]

By all means[edit]

Ears burning?[edit]

Gratuitous[edit]

Need your opinion[edit]

Unbelievable situation[edit]

WP:V discussion[edit]

Cathy O'Brien[edit]

Blainetologist sockpuppet?[edit]

Presley[edit]

RFC at ACLU[edit]

Deletion of WP:PAIN[edit]

Block[edit]

Scientology series[edit]

Trapped in the Closet[edit]

My accusation of vandalism[edit]

FYI[edit]

Cults in Our Midst[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book)[edit]

DreamGuy's userpage[edit]

Blurb[edit]

On the Suspsock page[edit]

Just wanted to thank you[edit]

Terryeo's ban[edit]

SuperDuperMan[edit]

Battlefield Earth (film)[edit]

OT VIII[edit]

Thank you / open proxy[edit]

User:Slightlyright[edit]

Talk page posting[edit]