User talk:Chris Rodgers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I have reverted your request for speedy deletion on The Home Forum. It's edit history excludes it from being a candidate for speedy deletion. If you feel it should be deleted, please list it on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. - Tεxτurε 18:11, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anon editing[edit]

I know what you mean about the session time outs. Within the last couple of days that has happened to me several times, although it never had before. About that apostrophe -- I used to code, really simple things, but I haven't in a long time. The clue was the pattern of bolding that occurred when I tried to bold the name. That showed me where to look. I'm glad to see you have an account. I was embarrassed when I saw an anon making so many contributions and hadn't been welcomed yet. I'll see you around the WP. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 05:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion: February 15, 2005[edit]

Three VfD's are taking place on key Project of Alternative Medicine articles.

I am contacting you because you have in the past made an edit to Terms and concepts in alternative medicine. You added a write up on Christian Science to this article. And, I would hate to see all your efforts to improve this article be wasted because other editors voted to delete it.

I need you to vote to KEEP the following.

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_terms_and_concepts_used_in_alternative_medicine This article is extremely important to our project.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of miscellaneous topics related to alternative medicine

And, vote to REDIRECT the following.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Philosophy of alternative medicine

Please vote in favor of the Project on Alternative Medicine today, before it is too late.

-- John Gohde 16:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Added articles CS topics[edit]

Chris - as another amatuer historian on CS, you might be interested to notice that I've added articles on the Massachusetts Metaphysical College, Septimus J. Hanna, William R. Rathvon and sought to add balance to the article on Bliss Knapp. PS - Rathvon was the only person that heard Lincoln's Gettysburg address and left an audio recollection, see the article and its links. SimonATL 01:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hanna/Knapp & Kimball/Young CS Theology[edit]

Chris - Thanks for your edits on the Knapp article. While he remains controversial to this day, I modified the article because some people still think quite highly of him and its not fair to ignore the fact that Mary Baker Eddy genuinely loved this man and encouraged his work from childhood-on, even encouraging his parents to send him to Harvard and helping him edit his first CS lecture making only 11 (non-theological) changes in it. See Houpt's biography on Knapp. While I understand why people get so fummed up over him, remember that much of what he proposed was summarized in those 2 Mrs. E's Place articles in the CSJ and CSS in the summer of 1943 and that after much work by the CS editors. The Kimball association, and he taught more than 150 classes never got the point of any relationship by MBE to Scriptural Prophecy nor did he/get it right on so-called spirtual organs either, but his view on MBE won out as the in the events leading up to the Normal Class of 1937 where 2 directors (Kimball students including Rathvon pushed for Kimball's most successful student, Bicknell Young, and 2 directors including McKenzie pushed for Knapp, when the last director decided, only minutes before the class was to begin, Young got the nod and taught and the last so-called Boston School CSB to teach the normal class was Paul Stark Seeley in 1961, the die was cast against any other view of MBE. I think the view is still open to discussion. Intersting to see the decline of the movement starting in 1950 as the Biblical Prophecy view declined and the Kimball view came up. Basically Kimbal had the "top of the mountain view" meaning that he felt that MBE ascended the mount of CS first and so, as she got to the top first, it was she who, therefore "discovered" CS and that by extension, if someone else had gotten their first then we might have a Mr. Jones or Mrs. Smith as the Discover. While this makes sense from a purely materially scientific point of view than think of the implications - It makes all prophets historical accidents - Moses and Isaiah become accidental. The real issue is summed up in one of Knapp's association address, "How Divinity Reaches Humanity." It comes down to how God "choses" his messengers. It also relates to the old debate, "How does God "know" us here? People like Kimball in his day and Gottschalk in his, could see no relation between the so-called absolute and the relative. In fact, Judge Hanna called Kimball's approach "absolutism, and categorically rejected it as did Mrs. Eddy who felt that she had been "chosen" for her mission. I think it comes down also to the distinction between the real and the so called human. Mrs. Eddy uses the term human in 2 distinct ways. In one sense she equates it 100% with material sense, In a 2nd way, in S&H 573:5-9, she speaks of it as the place where the divine reaches the human saying, "This testimony of Holy Writ sustains the fact in Science, that the heavens and earth to one human consciousness, that consciousness which God bestows, are spiritual, while to another, the unillumined human mind, the vision is material. What does she mean by "that consciousness that God bestows?" I think that's what Knapp and Hanna were getting at. That its precisely "there" that Divinity reaches humanity and wher God talks to us and appoints us to our office or mission and where Moses was spoken to by the burning bush. Another point of contention is the definition of the Christ. Kimball taught that "Christ is man in his healing and saving office." This view carries forward to this very day. But Hanna and Knapp taught that the Christ was not simply another aspect of man but was a distinct concept. Hanna noted that MBE changed S&H in 1907 to clarify this point writing, "Principle and its idea is one, and this one is God, omnipotent, omniscient, and omni- present Being, and His reflection is man and the universe." Note that she did very deliberatly did NOT say that Principle and its idea, man, is one. While she once stated that "Christ is spiritual man," neverthless, she saw it as Principle-Christ-Man and kept these terms distinct. She saw the Christ as God's internal light by which he "sees/knows" himself, as did the apostle John in the 1st chapter of his Gospel. Hence she says, "Immortal and divine Mind presents the idea of God: first, in light; second, in reflection; third, in spiritual and immortal forms of beauty and goodness." First in light (Christ), second in reflection (generic Man or Man understood in a univeral sense) and third as man individualized, you and me. Your thoughts. I think that modern-day CS has ignored the whole concept of MBE's Christology. Anyway, if you want to move this section off to email, you can remove this and email me at SimonATL (at) yahoo (dot) com. SimonATL 14:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually aware of most of this, but as you should perhaps know, none of it bears on how consistent his teaching was with Eddy's. The "Place" statement you reference is both unauthoritative (see below) and if you read it, thoroughly defective, about which I may contact you separately. The so-called "spiritual organs"/Hanna-Kimball/two schools argument appears to me to have been invented by Knapp supporters as an attempt to discredit him because of disagreements over the Revelation 12/place question and could as easily have been made against Eddy herself, and is therefore not credible. There are good treatments of the "Principle and its idea" topic elsewhere, to which I will refer you, but the Hanna teaching on this disputes the concept that man was idea, a flagrant contradiction of Eddy. I will indeed discuss this with you soon. Chris Rodgers 23:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy b/t S&H preface 4000 students in Mass Meta College and Dittemore account[edit]

Any explantion for this. I've not had the time to look at the Gill book to see if she discusses this. Dittmore's actual class listing is far smaller that what the CS Textbook says. In his book, MBE, the "Truth" and the "Tradition" he, himself, doesn't seem to discuss this difference, himself, he just puts the list as an appendix in the back of his fairly anti-eddy book. Before he passed, he put an "apology" of sorts in the CS Journal, by the way. Thanks. SimonATL 11:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (topic moved up)

Longyear Indicates that Eddy taught 800 as opposed to "over 4000"[edit]

A Longyear Museum article states that 800 was all the pupils they could find. So, what's the explanation for the discrepancy between Eddy's statement that she taught "over 4000" at the Massachusetts Metaphysical College while both both Longyear and John V. Dittimore's book lists far less students. Dittimore was, at one time, the clerk of the Mother Church. Thanks SimonATL 02:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Eddy made this probably untenable claim herself at S&H xii:6. My best recollection was it was first challenged by an unsympathetic biographer, could easily be Bates and Dittemore, and then subsequently picked again in more recent years. It's possible Gill discusses, would have to check, and very easily Peel could too. I suspect she just misstated, such as referring to net students taught there, versus under her direct instruction. Chris Rodgers 23:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

UFO[edit]

Four words explain what is going with UFOs. They are:

  1. The Robertson Panel, a CIA protocol to ridicule people who have seen/encountered non-approved matter, especially UFOs,aliens.
  2. Project Grudge - one of many projects designed to make people who see/encounter UFOs,aliens look like idiots and mentally defective, worse.

It only gets worse. I have had both police and military contacts tell me things that, if made public, will cause a real mess, especially IF there is alien contact, especially if events similar to the movie Independence Day were to take place. I've heard about a new "UFO Project" that is going on. It is Project BLACK Book, which is like a combination of Project Grudge,Bluebook and the Robertson Panel, all designed to make life a living hell for anyone who dares to report a UFO, alien contact. I have also been told that IF there is alien contact, the planet will erupt into planetary rebellion. Even in the movie itself, one of the main characters is ridiculed as being a "UFO/Alien nut" by a U.S. military lieutennant when he states that he wants to kick alien butt because aliens had abducted him. He later on crashes his F-18 into the alien's "Primary Weapon", taking out the UFO. It also explains matters such as the $50,000 ink pen, the $500 screw as well, since they can't go to Congress and ask for money to study downed ships, and ships,tech. given to us by aliens, money to run campaigns such as the Robertson Panel to ridicule the politicians' constituants because they had a non-approved experience with UFOs and/or aliens. Martial Law 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't have any trouble imagining any of this, there is an enormous black-money sinkhole out there, and the military's perspective has always been more skeptical regarding the our collective ability to have a large blow to our preconceptions. Chris Rodgers 23:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the basis for stating that MBE Place 1943 Article was withdrawn[edit]

In your edit of the Knapp article, you stated, "a statement by the Churches's Board of Directors in 1943 (later withdrawn)." I'm interested in determining where in the published CSPS articles that this actually happened. Are you talking about doctrinal notifications by the Board of Education. Re the MBE as the Woman of Prophecy, appreciate your edits, but you ought to read numerous CS lectures published by the CSPS from until 1910. Apparently, many lecturers were as wrong as Knapp. I think the fact is, that this concept of MBE as a type for the Woman of Prophecy was the opinion held by many high-placed CSists and even her own students. This view never sat well with Kimball and his students. Of course, look what happened to him. It was once the decidedly majority opinion. That this view or something like it was ALWAYS in disrepute, as Peel, Gottshalk, Johnson and "Mailing Fund" group would like to have people believe, is simply historically inaccurate and not sustainable by the facts. Probably more info about this will come out as a result of research at the MBE Library. PS.

Its existence into the early 70's had been the form of the pamphlet, which was in fact withdrawn. If you read the Board's letter to Knapp, it is a clear and direct repudiation of the key ideas in the pamphlet, and that could easily have been the basis for its removal, since had they regarded it as valid, and therefore important, there would have been no reason to withdraw as statement of such supposed significance. Yes I have read lots of succh lectures, and I directly dispute your claim it is inaccurate, I think the reverse is very clearly the case. I will again pursue this with you separately. Chris Rodgers 23:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Got a photo of William R. Rathvon from Longyear[edit]

Got permission from them to add to the article on Rathvon. SimonATL 01:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Your-Immortal-Reality-book-cover.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Your-Immortal-Reality-book-cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 06:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Your-Immortal-Reality-book-cover.jpg)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Your-Immortal-Reality-book-cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Streamlink[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Streamlink, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How Deletion Works[edit]

Hi Chris, I am sorry that you feel my tagging was incorrect but I do stand by it. I am not able to undelete your work and I would like to explain how the speedy deletion process works... When an editor, any editor, feels that an article meets the criteria for speedy deletion they can tag it for such deletion. At that time the creator of the article is informed of the tag and offered the chance to place a hangon notice on the tagged article. It is then that an article creator can explain why they feel that an article should not be deleted on the talk page of the article in question. At this point an administrator reviews the speedy deletion tag and decides whether or not to delete the article. In this case an administrator reviewed the article and agreed that the article fit the criteria for speedy deletion as G11 (or advertising). The best I can offer is that you contact the administrator who reviewed the article and ultimately deleted it and ask for a restoration. It is up to an administrator as to whether to uphold the speedy deletion or not. Also, although I appreciate that you put a lot of work into the article you must understand that all work submitted to the wiki becomes part of the project and Ownership of the article is forfeited. This was not a personal decision, and I appreciate your frustration.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying; responded on your talk page, pointing out how it it should have been an AfD at worst, since it does not meet the criterion under G11, if you read what that one actually provides, and also discussed the dimension of article significance. Chris Rodgers (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your input, but please keep in mind that anyone can tag an article if they believe it to meet the criteria, and I believed it to meet the criteria. As I stated above, this is why an administrator reviews the tags and makes a decision about the case. If I was in an administrative role and I was reviewing a speedy deletion tag I would take greater care in double checking to make certain that the article meets the criteria before deleting, and I'm certain the admin who closed this matter exercised the same care. All people are prone to making incorrect assessments and this is why such checks and balances are employed in the process. I am not further involved in the issue of your article, as at this moment is 100% up to an administrator and I hold to the belief that I tagged the article in good faith. You do not have to be employed by or otherwise have ownership of the subject matter to write an advertising article. Sometimes it happens purely by coincidence. I would like to direct you to this discussion where an article was speedily deleted several times for being advertising. I helped coach the editor into fine-tuning the article. It has been untagged since recreation and stands as an acceptable article. Once again, I hope this helps.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, having read the article again several times, I don't think it qualifies as blatant advertising however I don't think it had a neutral tone. What made me think of it as advertising the first time round was the way the largest paragraph of the article described how to download the programs. I have un-deleted the article and removed the speedy tag however I think it will be deleted again (by someone else) if it doesn't provide some reliable third party sources. That is not the reason I deleted however. Sorry about the ker-fuffel I have caused, it was a bad call by me to delete. James086Talk | Email 01:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron[edit]

I noticed that you are part of Category:Wikipedians against notability.

I would like to invite you to join the Article Rescue Squadron. Although Rescue Squadron members do not share any official position on notability, and are simply focused on rescuing articles for deletion, you may find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Caveat: I am writing this as a wikipedian, not as a representative of Article Rescue Squadron. Ikip (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Church Universal and Triumphant[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Church Universal and Triumphant, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church Universal and Triumphant. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

If you are currently on Wikipedia, given your inclusionist sentiments and the fact that you once edited the article on Oxfordian theory, I thought you might wish to add your opinion on the following:

I've created a Category:Oxfordians, and populated it with 27 articles so far. (The category is less than two days old.)

The category is being challenged and faced with deletion. If you like, please join the discussion about it here:

Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Chris Rodgers! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,431 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Betty Eadie - Find sources: "Betty Eadie" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking for Wikipedia Ambassadors[edit]

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian associated with Harvard. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at schools in Boston and Cambridge (including Harvard), which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you live near Boston and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.

If you're an experienced and active Wikipedian, you might be interested alternatively in becoming an Online Ambassador. The role of Online Ambassadors is to serve as mentors for students; it doesn't require any in-person outreach. Take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved away from Boston area a while back, though thanks anyway Chris Rodgers (talk)

Hello Chris. I followed your profile from a discussion on the deletion of the "Arecibo Reply" stub. I too on this subject in particular and a few others feel that something fishy is happening inside wikipedia. That it too is being muzzled by unlawful censorship. I've noticed on the page for Wikipedia itself does not have a criticism section. It would be ideal to post one, with some statement that editors themselves enter with various political agendas for censorship of material. In a heated argument over the Arecibo reply, I ended up with bad credentials, so it's a goal I've given up on my own. -gaiaguerrilla@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.46.103 (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's not technically unlawful, but it definitely looks like a violation of WP's own TOS to organize an article assassination based on raw numbers of organized polemicists rather than fairly clear force of intrinsic argument. We definitely made the case for the merits of the article and refuted each of the deletion criteria, and several of the voters as I recall clearly were voting without having even examined the content of the article! It'd be interesting to know what you meant by bad credentials, as being on the losing side of a bogus argument (if you read the actual transcript itself) sounds like a case for a star rather than discredit. I definitely think it's an honest candidate for restoration, I've just unfortunately been on the busy side. Thanks for the observation. Chris Rodgers (talk)

Proposed deletion of Atlantis Rising (Magazine)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Atlantis Rising (Magazine) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. A search for citations did not result in anything additional to support notability.

While all constructive 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. Cindy(talk) 04:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Atlantis Rising (Magazine)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Atlantis Rising (Magazine) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence for notability

While all constructive 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

please add some true references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases, or I shall need to nominate it for AfD. I'd like to keep it, but we need sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Atlantis Rising (Magazine) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Atlantis Rising (Magazine) 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/Atlantis Rising (Magazine) 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. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)