- 1 Welcome to the Wikipedia!
- 2 Clark Adams
- 3 Heads up
- 4 The New Inquisition
- 5 Ingo Swann
- 6 Woroniecki
- 7 Bill Moore (ufologist)
- 8 A statement of confidence
- 9 Larry Kusche and Gian Quasar
- 10 Invitation to join WikiProject United States
- 11 Al Seckel
- 12 Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProjeck Arizona
- 13 September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
- 14 December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
- 15 January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
- 16 New Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry
- 17 Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle
Welcome to the Wikipedia, Lippard! And thanks for helping with the Left Behind article...
Here are some perfunctory tips to speed your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:
- Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial.
- When it strikes your fancy, try to grasp some of the nuances at Manual of Style, Assume good faith and Policies and Guidelines. But keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
- Don't worry about keeping up with the Jones' learning curve on NPOV, but be respectful of others' POV and use a neutral point of view; your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
- If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
- Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!
And some odds and ends:
- Wikipedia:Policy Library
- Wikipedia:Cite your sources
- Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
- Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
- Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
- Wikipedia:Peer review
- Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
- Wikipedia:Village pump
- Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.
Best of luck, Lippard, and have fun! Ombudsman 03:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to the article about Clark Adams. I was afraid "they" were going to remove it. Please ask more people to contribute. (I assume you are Jim Lippard of the Internet Infidels). /Benzocaine 18:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's who I am... glad to be of help. Lippard 03:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
For your information, I've tried to briefly summarise your review here, using sources you've linked for clarification where appropriate. It'll be great if you can comment on any deficiencies, or let me know if you think it's a fair summary. Thanks for your help with this, dave souza, talk 18:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The New Inquisition
The above article may need a POV check - this book mentions that Swann made 65 claims about Jupiter and Randi concluded that only 37% were correct. The online copy of the book doesn't give a reference for the publication of Randis' evaluation and randi.org doesn't have a link, though the Skeptics Dictionary, seems to point to _Flim-Flam!_ with a passing remark that seems similar. Autarch (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Autarch: _Flim-Flam!_ pp. 63-68 enumerates claims by Swann and Harold Sherman in remote viewing with Targ and Puthoff. Randi lists 31 Swann claims about Jupiter on pp. 64-65, of which he identifies 6 as true, 1 as very likely, 3 as probable, 4 as obvious, 1 as "probably not," 11 as wrong, 1 as "not known," and 4 criticized for being vague or nonspecific in various ways, e.g., "it's liquid" and "surface gives high infrared count, and heat is held down" (Randi writes: "What surface?")
The description in the Ingo Swann article is incorrect about the number of Swann claims evaluated; it's apparently combining the 31 Swann claims with the 34 Sherman claims. I've updated the article to correct it. The cited source seems to miss the fact that Randi was evaluating two remote viewers together... Lippard (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for updating in - sorry I missed your message - maybe my watchlist needs trimming!Autarch (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Woroniecki created a Spanish Wikipedia page recently. A warning to Latinos about bias was placed in the discussion page refering them to the book by Suzanne O'Malley to get a balanced view, and the Woroniecki's deleted it, even though the comment was clearly sourced. The comment was eventually restored and a warning was placed on their discussion page not to make such deletions.
The Woronieckis protested videos about them placed on Youtube. In these videos was proof Woroniecki fought with police officers in Spain. They insisted Youtube delete all of them, and on the basis of their image and name being used they were deleted, despite the fact he is a public figure in the media. A week later they uploaded their own videos onto Youtube.
They want to monopolize the "truth" and silence dissent. They will not tolerate facts or the truth. They claim on their new blog that they have never fought with police officers in this country or another. Yet Woroniecki boldly calimed that his actions pushing police officers was "holy Spirit Courage". No wonder he wanted the videos deleted, so he could get away with denying it.
I'm greatly troubled with his recent push to silence his critics and remove evidence of his actions from the internet. I hope you find it equally disturbing as well.18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- A cult deprogrammer Rick A. Ross indicated that Woroniecki's son contacted them to have the many articles they've archived about his father at his website removed. Rick refused to remove them. It seems the Woronieckis are trying to sterilize the net of any and all information documented against them, including news articles. Amazing.22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I was also contacted by Woroniecki's son, Joshua, though I wasn't asked to delete or modify anything, only to read his blog post giving his side of the story. I would say no to any request to rewrite history, though I'm happy to make note of dissenting opinions. Joshua Woroniecki claimed that there is a single individual out to defame his father through the Internet.
- Your blog doesn't really warrant the deletion of anything, not like the anticult websites anyway. In my opinion, they see your defense of their father on campus back in 1987 as hope that they can still maipulate you. They will consequently put on a different face for you in my judgment.126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I would hope that any poster of videos featuring the Woronieckis would challenge their right to delete them--the mere presence of their name and image shouldn't be sufficient grounds. Lippard (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. If it were true that only one person is defaming his father, then why is Joshua sending emails to Rick Ross and ApologeticsIndex.org asking them to remove negative content or in the least post the link to their new blog? (Even their blog indicates that campus students have caused them much suffering in response to all the publicized dissent. The two books "Breaking Point" and "Are You There Alone?" not written by one former follower are sufficient "defamation" to spur such anti-Woroniecki sentiment on campus.) I have two such emails from these web sites affirming this accusation. There are at least two former followers who have created websites which have since been discontinued when the freehosts discontinued service. On one of those sites, there were about 5 or 6 entries from people brave enough to comment about their former experiences. There is also David De La Isla, Lance and Isoan Corlew who have made documented media statements in opposition to this man (see Michael Peter Woroniecki on wikipedia). It is a sad, sad thing for Joshua to trivialize dissent by reducing it to one man. Such tactics are learned from his father, who minimized 15 years of contact with the Yatese through mail, propaganda tapes and tracts and phone calls to a mere 3-5 visits. As for the videos, objections were made to YouTube, but as is often the case, sound reasoning falls on deaf ears at YouTube. Woroniecki is a public figure. To use his name and image in a documentary style format isn't removed from any other documentaries about infamous persons on YouTube that still enjoy broadcast.188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The Spanish Wikipedia page on the Woroniecki family was deleted today on the basis it was promotional. The family tried to go behind my back (I was pointing out that their notoriety was the Andrea Yates story, not their 10,000 CDs) and requested an email address of a certain wikipedian concerned with their page to talk privately about it, like they did with the English Wikipedia article on their father now. (See discussion page where this was proven and exposed). The Spanish site wikipedian that posted the self-promotion flag on the Woroniecki page (the flag was deleted by the Woronieckis once but reposted with a vandalism warning by the same wikipedian) said he couldn't see why page discussion was necessary to be carried out hidden from public view. She responded that she didn't want to violate MY privacy by talking about me in public, (she prefered to do it behind my back). Now how am I supposed to defend myself with that kind of tactic? Exactly. I told her to discuss page editing in the public forum, and so did the wikipedian. After a few days of the Woronieckis not improving the article, the page was deleted.184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Joshua Woroniecki turned the [Michael Peter Woroniecki] article into Swiss cheese today. I surrendered it to a third party, as reckless as even he seemed to be, then JW came on and literally raped soundly sourced text under the confusion of legitimate edits without any pre-discourse on the discussion page. He's also conducting private email discourse with the third parties about the article and yours truly. You can immediately see the inappropriateness of such hidden discussion, yet the two third parties are allowing it! How can I defend myself against hidden accusations? Even the Spanish Wikipedia administrator pointed out to the Woronieckis that such a request for private discourse was inappropriate. The entire interaction reeks of conspiracy or utter stupidity. These neutrality issues were meant to be discussed on the talk and discussion pages, not behind closed doors with people who clearly have a conflict of interest.220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Bill Moore (ufologist)
I added Bill Moore (ufologist) and Paul Bennewitz to WP:SKEPTIC. Both these articles and UFO conspiracy theory make claims that in 1989 Moore claimed to have acted on behalf on intelligence agents - a probable breach of WP:BLP. (This is the 'Aviary' allegation in the Moore article.) Where did this story come from? Naturally I'm suspicious and I wonder if it's a result of a falling-out amongst ufologists, leading to them making allegations about each other and the shadowy figures that loom in UFO mythology. In short, are there WP:RS about what really happened. The material as it stands will have to go for violating WP:BLP.
- "By his own admission Moore spied on colleagues and reported some of their activities to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) at Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico (see Dark Side)." --entry on William L. Moore in Jerome Clark, The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon from the Beginning 2nd edition, vol. 2, Detroit, Mich.: Omnigraphics, Inc., 1998, pp. 646-647.
- The entry on "Dark Side" in vol. 1 (pp. 301-319) has a long section titled "Moore confesses" (pp. 315-317), regarding Moore's speech at a MUFON conference on July 1, 1989. From that entry: "In his lecture Moore spoke candidly, for the first time, of his part in the counterintelligence operation against Bennewitz. 'My role in the affair,' he said, 'was largely that of a freelancer providing information on Paul's current thinking and activities.' Doty, 'faithfully carrying out orders which he personally found distasteful,' was one of those involved in the effort to confuse and discredit Bennewitz." (p. 315)
- Thanks for the references - seems I was mistaken. Will check the articles to make sure that they match up with those references. The first seems to be mentioned in UFO conspiracy theory as a source, but the references are inconsistent - some are inline, some are just text in brackets with bullet points in the references section. Will try and tidy them too.Autarch (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
A statement of confidence
- Uh, which beliefs are you talking about? How about some context and evidence, please? Lippard (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Larry Kusche and Gian Quasar
The Larry Kusche article has some POV inserted that favours Gian Quasar. Given a review linked to here and some curious things about one of Quasars' pages noted here do you think it would it be appropriate to go beyond tagging Quasar as unreliable and remove the pro-Quasar comments altoghether?Autarch (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like that's already been done. The current discussion page has a criticism of one of Kusche's explanations that may well be valid, but not sure if it's properly sourced. Lippard (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to join WikiProject United States
I removed the information you added to Al Seckel per WP:BLP, because the source looks like little beyond a press release. I've looked for better sources on these legal proceedings, and have yet to find any. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- My concerns are BLP and NPOV. The source you cited, the only one I can find, appears to be drawn solely from Ensign Consulting's complaint. I don't believe such a source used alone is appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProjeck Arizona
It was recently suggested that WikiProject Arizona, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there haven't been much active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. Another user has added the project to the WPUS template and I added it to the list of supported projects in the WPUS main project page but before I take any further action I wanted to contact each of the active members for their input. --Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
New Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry
Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns?
I've been ordered to fix the page so that it accords with my understanding of the NPOV policy. I'm happy to do that but I have a lot of work at my job.
Now I've been told that I must make the changes by April 30th or the NPOV tag will be removed. I simply can't learn how to use Wikipedia as a newcomer, become familiar with all the sources, and make the edits if I must do it all by April 30th.
|Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited