User talk:Loremaster/Archive01

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

Contents

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Thank you. Loremaster 04:21, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

About the trolls

Greetings, you seem to be a rather sensible person from your comments on the transhumanism talk page. Let me tell you from my experience with both the Vogel and Spade users/trolls they are cordinating their activities and they do not really care about the facts. good luck GrazingshipIV 00:29, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Cutting of the elm

Could you look at this Priory of Sion related article, Cutting of the elm. Is there any evidence that there ever was any Priory of Sion? Rmhermen 21:22, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The modern Priory of Sion is a hoax. However, there was a religious order known as the Order of Sion. Please read Priory of Sion: the Facts, the Theories, the Mystery for more information. Loremaster 00:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Help request

Please take a look at the Talmidaism page which Jayjg has marked for deletion. After being foiled in an attempt to merge the article with the Nazarene page, Jayjg is now bent on deleting it entirely. He is trying to accomplish as an administrator what he could not do as an editor. Please help prevent a hi tech lynching. Thanks. --Ovadyah 14:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be doing a good job editing and keeping the predators off the Ebionites page. Would you be willing to work with me to expand the modern movements section and include Talmidi Judaism as a subset? We seem to be clustering into two warring camps on the VfD. Some, following the suggestion of Ebionite Community leader Shemayah Phillips, want to condense the article and merge it into Ebionite modern movements. The others in the Jayjg camp want to expunge any mention of Talmidi Judaism entirely from Wikipedia. --Ovadyah 22:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. I was too late to help save it. --Loremaster 02:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Newcomer's unusual proposal

Hello Loremaster, I am rather overwhelmed by the sheer volume of this site, which I have visited many times but I have never fully delved into. Anyway... I am quite a fan of the Priory of Sion mystery and related topics. I would like to simply propose a thought to you personally and to anyone else who is interested in this topic. By no means do I claim to be an authority on this matter nor do I claim to know everything (although I like to think I do).

I think Mr. Paul Smith's behavior reveals something about him. I think he knows more than he's letting.

This is just a thought, mind you, but I think that Smith is trying to stop the Priory of Sion article because there is truth he does not want to be exposed. Perhaps he is a member of the very Order he claims is "rubbish?"

Again, this is just a thought. I remember hearing Mr. Baigent comment on Paul Smith, saying some of the same things. In many ways, parts of Smith's website actually lead credence to the "myth" he is oddly passionate about debunking.

Like I said, I'm kind of new at this, so I'm not sure I can make my way back to this page; if you don't mind, e-mail me at jedipharaoh@aol.com. Thanks a lot! Matrixfusion 02:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello Matrixfusion. Although anything possible, I tend to avoid indulging in conspiracy theories without credible evidence to support them. So until shown the contrary, I think Paul Smith is nothing more than an overzealous fringe researcher. Loremaster 16:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
That shows how much "Loremaster" knows - who hasn't got the intellectual integrity to disclose his real identity. Read the latest French books that destroy and annihilate the Priory of Sion since the publication of The Da Vinci Code: Go to France and call THOSE authors "overzealous fringe researchers" --- a very good and perfect description of the authors of "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail", may I add. Paul Smith
Hello Paul. The reason I don't disclose my identity is not due to any lack of intellectual integrity on my part. It simply to avoid being harassed or worse being defamed by people like you. That being said, I apologize. You are not an "overzealous fringe researcher". A very good and perfect description of you would be "overzealous debunker". By the way, you should consider creating a Wikipedia user account like the rest of us and follow guidelines since it would definitely add to your intellectual integrity. Loremaster 16:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
In my readings, which I'm sure Mr. Smith will criticize for my lack of expertise on this subject, I have encountered no real evidence that the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" had any intent of trying to concoct any theory, at least not Baigent or Leigh. I am extremely skeptical of Lincoln's role, and I must admit it is bolstered by Smith's evidence, but for the other two, their motives appear purely scholarly. And still, Mr. Smith's comments strike me as extremely odd. Why are you so angry, Mr. Smith? What exactly is your personal stake in this? Why have you insisted on bypassing any rules or regulations set forth by Wikipedia and instead following a rather bizarre path of deletion and denial? If there is a point you are trying to emphasize, Mr. Smith, I think there are other avenues for approaching the subject.
While I personally disagree that the Priory of Sion is an out-and-out hoax, due to some of my own research into the motives of certain key players (but that's not really important right now), I respect that my idea is not the majority and I understand Loremaster's and Wikipedia's stance on calling it largely a hoax in their article, and I respect that decision. I choose to discuss on this page my ideas, however right or wrong they may be. I do not delete whole pages and deface websites, like Mr. Smith.
It is very unfortunate that you continue this course of action, Mr. Smith. I would really enjoy hearing your point of view about the subject in a scholarly manner; however, that is obviously not possible. matrixfusion 20:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Gullibility

An article: "Wikipedia, the Priory of Sion and Loremaster" is in preparation and will appear on priory-of-sion.com shortly.

There never was any "Order of Sion" created by Godfrey de Bouillon during the Crusades, the order he actually founded was really entitled the Abbey de Notre Dame de Mont Sion - and Plantard himself described it as such - I can easily produce the articles by him to prove it. Furthermore, I have noticed that the ramblings of Steven Mizrach have been produced as "evidence" that Godfrey de Bouillon founded an "Order of Sion" - perhaps Mizrach can produce his evidence for this. Mizrach is an American Jew who denies the anti-semitism of Pierre Plantard and believes in things like flying saucers and the Sirius "mystery"; he was also addicted to believing in the "authenticity" of Philippe de Cherisey's non-existent "parchments" that were specially created for Gerard de Sede's 1967 book - itself a re-written Plantard manuscript.

Anyway, since Loremaster and Wikipedia is another example of promoting the Plantard myths - with comments like the ones from Matrixfusion above - it is important for an article entitled "Wikipedia, the Priory of Sion and Loremaster" to be included on the priory-of-sion.com website. Now in preparation.

The idea that I am somewhat "overzealous" in my debunking and that there is a "possibility that the Priory of Sion existed" and that Baigent and Leigh "are scholars" id quite funny, especially in the light of the French attitude towards this subject matter - regarded as Paranoia in France - and the recent publications of books that have totallly annihilated the integrity of Plantard and his activities for the first time since the mid-1980s because of the publication of Dan Brown's novel.

Paul Smith 08.09.2005Previous misattributed posting is from Wfgh447 (talk · contribs)

  1. *sigh*
  2. I've removed the misinformation about Godfrey de Bouillon from the Priory of Sion article.
  3. Steven Mizrach's essay was only used to prove that an Order of Sion or, rather, an Abbey of Sion existed not that it was founded by de Bouillon.
  4. Please read the updated Order of Sion article.
  5. I personally don't think of Baigent, Leigh or Lincoln as scholars.
  6. I (and presumably NO ONE in the Wikipedia community) cares what Paul Smith says or does on his website about me or us.
  7. The fact that everyone in France thinks Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion are a joke doesn't change the fact that Paul Smith is not only an overzealous debunker but the most annoying person I have dealt with online in years. He actually makes me miss my "debates" with bible-thumping fundamentalists on Christian forums.
  8. Since I am fortunate enough to have a life, I will no longer be contributing or watching the Priory of Sion and the Holy Blood, Holy Grail articles so Paul Smith can do whatever he pleases with them.
  9. The end.

Loremaster 15:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


In relation to point 4 above - I have read the updated article on the "Order of Sion" and it patently could not have had any "connection" with the Knights Templars if it had been created by Godfrey de Bouillon - Godfrey de Bouillon died before the Templars were formed (please check this out if you do not believe me). It really would help if you consulted the Priory Documents before writing an article about this subject matter.
In relation to point 7 above - it is evident that Loremaster has not seen any of the French books nor is he acquainted with the history of the subject matter in France.
If I am an "overzealous" debunker then what does that make recent authors Jean-Jacques Bedu and Marie-France Etchegoin. Books from the mid-1980s have contributed substantial debunkings by also presenting the relevant authors' ongoing documentation as well as material relating to Plantard himself (and Chaumeil) - and this material only escalates the level of criticism of Plantard in their relevant books - but don't hold your breath to see these books translated by catchpenny English-Language publishers.
And you won't see these titles listed in the Bibliographies to "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" and "The Messianic Legacy".
wfgh447
  1. Godfrey de Bouillon is not mentioned in the Order of Sion article so I don't understand why you keep beating this dead horse.
  2. You seem to not realize that I am not the only person who contributed to the Order of Sion article. That being said, I've removed the misinformation regarding the Knight Templars from the article.
  3. When I call you overzealous, I am not referring to the fact that you are extremely thorough or that you are vehemnetly anti-Priory of Sion. I am referring to the fact that you are too emotionally invested in debunking the Priory of Sion hoax which leads you to act like a McCarthyite witch-hunter with no sense of decency in the way you have interact with people in the Wikipedia community.
Loremaster 22:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Something's fishy

Loremaster,

I am sad to see your decision to abandon the Holy Blood Holy Grail/Priory of Sion articles, although I do understand your decision. I thought you were doing an excellent job dealing with Paul Smith. Thank you so much for all your hard work!

And now, to him...

I am in shock as to what is transpiring here. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is such a shameful event happening. Mr. Paul Smith, or wfgh447, or whatever you call yourself, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. How dare you attack someone who has spent so much time on something they are clearly not being paid for! While I might disagree with Loremaster on his opinions, not only do I respect them but I appreciate them. This exchange of ideas is extremely postive and healthy, and is a great step towards discovering the truth about this matter, if we ever do find it.

You call yourself a professional researcher, yet you stoop to levels I only thought reachable by 5-year-olds. I might not be a scholar, or a teacher, or the manager of my own webpage, but at least I respect the opinions of others. At least I don't go around destroying websites because I don't like what someone is saying.

Let us assume for the moment that the Priory of Sion does not exist. I'm not saying it does, I'm not saying it doesn't. Why, Mr. Smith, are you hell-bent on this? Why have you made an esoteric mystery about a castle and a cross into your personal jihad? So what if the Priory of Sion doesn't exist? Why are you so angry, so adamant that a site that AGREES with you is to be destroyed? WIKIPEDIA IS AGREEING WITH YOU!!! I cannot fathom why you choose to attack innocent people like Loremaster, who has put up with you for over a year!

And maybe I'm crazy, I might be wrong... but I still have a strange feeling that there is more to it than this. Like I said, I might be wrong, but I think there's something Mr. Smith isn't telling us. In my opinion, there are two possibilities. 1. Mr. Paul Smith is a crazy man who believes in attacking people who have shown perhaps too much respect for him (no offense, Loremaster). 2. There is something far deeper going on. Mr. Paul Smith has a stake in this that he can't jeopardize. He can't show his true motives, his true agenda, because that would mean endangering his plans.

There is something very, very wrong here. To whomever reads this, whether it be Loremaster, Mr. Smith, or any other Wikipedia surfer, take note. There is something going on here. Something that runs deeper than an Internet article. matrixfusion 128.61.41.39 22:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Matrixfusion.
Loremaster 00:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I realized after reading this that I sounded a bit overzealous myself, and I apologize if you got that sense from it. I am just outraged at Mr. Smith's comments and I hope that we can work this mess out as best as possible and figure out what's really going on. matrixfusion 199.77.208.161 03:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, MF. You're a good man (or woman?). I've made a few last edits to the Priory of Sion article today before leaving it completely. Loremaster 15:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Cool. By the way, I'm a dude named Andrew, in case you were wondering. I hope that however the mystery of the Priory of Sion turns out, that we can find the answer through research and discussion, not derision and hate. matrixfusion 199.77.208.161 03:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The Priory of Sion article

I know you swore off the subject, Loremaster, but I sure would like to talk with you about the Priory of Sion affair, just for fun, maybe share ideas. Let me know if you're interested. you can contact me at gth653x@mail.gatech.edu. Thanks! matrixfusion 128.61.41.39 10:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am bit too busy to start yet another correspondence with a fellow Wikipedian but you will be happy to know that I edit the Priory of Sion and Knights Templar articles from time to time. --Loremaster 01:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It could be simple. Paul Smith is dedicated to the demise of the idea that that the Jesus and Mary Bloodline could be a credible and forgotten piece of our history. The only organised body of opinion on the planet that values this goal above any other is the established Roman Church because the hypothesis gnaws at their very foundations. Usually, to discover the reasons for vehemence and anger, we look to the thwarting of someone's deeply held beliefs. In the case of Mr Smith, I think the absence of any declared motives of religious zeal dictates we may need to look elsewhere. There IS a role for the debunker in scholarship but history is not one of the earth sciences; history is founded on the balance of probabilities and on the interpretation of alleged contemporary record. None of us were there to see whether Jesus married Mary M at Cana or not. Given what we presume we know about the Essene lifestyle and social customs, it seems highly probable that they were man and wife and we must take the balance of probabilities into account. Mr Smith may well be in the pay of the Vatican but I doubt it. His sword is too crude and its aim too far off-target to be a papal weapon. He may just be one of those very sad people who get a kick out of telling the punchline of a joke before others have had a chance to enjoy the story ..........

C

Page protection

I would like to notify you that adding {{protected}} or a related tag to an article does not actually protect the page; only administrators can do that. Instead, you can request article protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and/or report the vandalism at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Thank you. Regards, Mike Rosoft 12:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I actually realized that fact before you wrote this comment but thank you for making it real. --Loremaster 16:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Templars

Heya, I'm doing some expansion to the Templars article... I'll be tweaking a lot of little sections, so I thought I'd let you know to give it a day before assuming something doesn't match? Thanks.  :) Elonka 21:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Understood. --Loremaster 22:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Techno-progressivism & Sloterdijk

I can only politely reply that if I need to "read more", than you certainly do need to read more about Peter Sloterdijk. His so-called 'usage of a fascist rhetoric to promote Plato’s vision of a government with absolute control over the population', if you knew Sloterdijk's writings & maybe read with more attention the Wikipedia article, is an allegation made by his philosophical & political opponents. I've read the text in question & others by Sloterdijk (as I'm reading right now Donna Haraway, whose writings I've wanted to read since a long time), and I assure you that he is what you define as a techno-progressivist. Maybe we should both stop thinking that only we know what is what? We both seem to know the subject, don't you think? Santa Sangre

I was aware of the fact that Peter Sloterdikj being a crypto-fascist is only an allegation. My point was simply that if it is true, this would disqualify him as a techno-progressive. That being said, although you probably known more about Sloterdikj than I do, your edits of the Techno-progressivism have shown a poor understanding of that particular subject. Futhermore, you still refuse to offer sources for your criticsms. I don't claim to know what is what but, at least, I don't try to include my personal point of view in a Wikipedia article. --Loremaster 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
OK Ok... why don't we both calm down a minute? I agree that my first edits were not very wise to say the least, this happens. Furthermore, I may not be a specialist of techno-progressivism (surely so, this expression is not very used in Europe), but that doesn't stop me or anybody else from editing in it. That's how Wikipedia works, and if edits are bad, well people who know the subject better are here to rework them --- and not erase them except if it's entirely irrelevant or historical revisionism. Now, it's always a good thing to have some outward look on articles - even though I agree that this doesn't mean making any stupid kind of edits. Well, let's just leave it there...
To speak about sgth else: I took up a lot of wikilink on techno-utopianism because too much of them make it unreadable (too much blue is no good for my eyes!===) and a lot of them are more or less irrelevant. By this I mean that general topics shouldn't be wikified (19th century or US isn't very helpful), that they should'nt be repeated unless very important (main philosophers or important concepts), and that terms that do belong to the context of the article but are very well known need not be wikified (secular, progress - you already have social progress, scientific progress & technological progress... - industrialization, left/right wing, etc.). Of course, these rules may be adapted, as should everything in life be "adapted" to particular situations; however, in this particular case, too much is too much! By the way, I do not like referring to "rules" as law, but I do make the comment passing by that all of this can be read at Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Maybe this will make you consider that I'm not here to destroy everything, that we all do stupid things, but that even stupid people can do, by luck or whatever, well-advised edits. Furthermore, I fully encourage you in adding again Sloterdijk in the list, as he is definitely a progressivist (to go fast, he once defined himself as "left-nietzschean" -- as so much people, will you reply... -- or, more precisely, he insisted on the necessity of having a leftist reading of Nietzsche). That's it. It's quite early in the morning here, but I didn't loose my night, since I've finished reading the Cyborg manifesto of Donna Haraway, and man it was years that i wanted to read it (it hasn't been published yet where i am...) Maybe I'll try Amazon.com for the first time... See you, to further (and better) collaborations ! Santa Sangre

User:166.66.16.116

Hey, I noticed you've had endless problems with this user. I've had a few myself, & I'm not thrilled about his comments either. I've just compiled an edit history & posted it on his page & notified various people for consideration of an indefinite ban on his IP range at least down to 166.66.16.xxx

;~D Grye 10:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In-line referencing in History of the Knights Templar

Why did you change the Harvard/MLA in-line citation format to that of a number [1]? -- Avi 15:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Because, as far as I have seen, this is the standard used in Wikipedia. --Loremaster 15:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Very well, you are the main editor on the article so I will defer. However, in-line citation is much more helpful to the reader, IMO, and is more prevalent in the printed world. Personally, I believe that just because something is standard does not mean it cannot be improved upon. Regardless, excellent job on the articles; keep up the good work! -- Avi 15:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
For future reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes#Converting_citation_styles :) -- Avi 20:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. --Loremaster 21:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

LIS userbox?

Greetings! I was entertaining the thought of creating a userbox for librarians & information science when I came across Template:User library and information scientist, apparently created by you. For what use was the template created? Have you indeed created a userbox? Would you mind if I did so? Questions, questions, questions... :P Her Pegship 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I created it in order to have something to add to my user page but abandoned the idea in the middle of the process. You are more than welcomed to finish the job. --Loremaster 23:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

{{User library and information scientist}} Cheers, Her Pegship 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Knights Templar

Hiya, may I remove your "Vote" section on the Talk page, and replace it with an RfC (Request for Comment) section? Or would you like to do it? I think the discussion would benefit from bringing in other Wikipedia editors rather than the small group we have right now. Elonka 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. --Loremaster 21:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanism - featured article nomination

Hi! As I read the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page, the idea is to create a new section on that page, not to create an entirely new page that says, in this case Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transhumanism. That was what I meant by my comment on the latter page. Make sense now? The explanation on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates seems pretty clear to me - have another look at the steps it sets out - and you can see votes taking place on articles as you scroll down.

I think it would be easy to fix this. It would just be a matter of moving the current material to the right place, but I guess I'm the wrong person to be offering advice, since I've not taken part in such a process before. You might want to check out what I'm saying with some of the "elders" here.

Sorry to bother you if I'm somehow getting this wrong.

I hope the nomination of the Transhumanism article succeeds. I see you've done a lot of good work lately with related articles. I keep coming across your editing on things like the IEET article. Metamagician3000 11:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Metamagician, I actually did follow the steps.
Step 2: Place {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article.
When I did this, it created a new page, which is normal in order to discuss the nomination.
--Loremaster 23:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 2% for major edits and 1% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Goth article

Any chance that you could have a look at the goth subculture article when you have some time? IMHO this is potentially a very good article. I've had a little bit to do with trying to raise its standard from a copyediting viewpoint. To get it to a really high standard will probably mean involving some people with better technical skills than mine (e.g. with referencing). There used to be a lot of fighting on the discussion page, so I've mostly been avoiding the article recently. But the fighting seems to have died down. Metamagician3000 08:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I would love to help but my knowledge of the goth subculture is extremely superficial and the time I can afford to give to Wikipedia is becoming extremely limited. --Loremaster 18:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. :) Metamagician3000 23:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Reprogenetics

I just answered your question:

  • Were the two species of fishes unable to interbreed? The reason I ask is because I wonder whether or not the word "species" and "speciation" is being used too loosely. I may be wrong but it seems that Silver thinks that the inability to interbreed will be the clear boundary between humanity and posthumanity. --Loremaster 17:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, they were. I just found the article - it was Nicaragua, not Mexico :)

nature article --Tillalb 21:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanist conspiracy?

Loremaster, you are easy to trace here at Wikipedia. I wasn't sure but you do work for World Transhumanism Association which is heavily linked to IEET (not sure what this is but will find out). This is unscrupulous.

Transhumanism is being manipulated by Loremaster, StN and Metamagician3000! STOP it!
"The US regime has been caught interfering with the major online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. Inconvenient facts were removed altogether, and other information was added and manipulated to distort the truth. It is fortunate that this attempt to deceive the people of the world was detected, but US propaganda and deception is usually more successful." Read this about manipulating Wikipedia entries - http://capitolannex.com/2006/01/30/congressmen-caught-manipulating-their-wikipedia-entries/

--Egghead2001

For the record, I am not a member of the World Transhumanist Association (a membership organization of the transhumanist movement) or the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (a think tank for transhumanist and non-tranhumanist thinkers) nor do I work for either organization. However, I have developed friendships with a few people who work for both these organizations. That being said, even if I did work for them, there is nothing wrong with a transhumanist contributing to the Transhumanism article or a Green contributing to the Green movement article as long he bases his contributions on facts rather than opinions. --Loremaster 01:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to add that neither StN nor Metamagician3000 are transhumanists. Although Metamagician is sympathetic towards transhumanism, StN is quite critical if not hostile. Therefore, your accusation of unscrupulous manipulation is fallacious and needlessly inflammatory. --Loremaster 02:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I added a comment on Egghead2001's page. Metamagician3000 04:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. --Loremaster 16:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to give your real names when editing this Article, if you have nothing to hide. For the record, you bullied my contribution without compromise and discarded the content as insignificant by your biased standards. Wikipedia states - "policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias." Forgetting this, you deleted my entry based on your bias and then made personal attacks on my entry. Wikipedia states - "When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary." The inflammation is on your part since I came here in good faith and you blocked me. I have the right to edit these pages just as you do, although I did not delete your entries and then make personal attacks on people. If you want this Article to be a fine piece of writing then represent "all majority and significant-minority views" fairly. (Wikipedia) Christopher Sherman

Christopher,

  1. Correct me if I am wrong but Wikipedia does not have a policy that requires people to use their real name.
  2. There is no way for us to know that Christopher Sherman is your real name!
  3. Although I chose the user name Loremaster simply because I thought it sounded perfect for a contributor to what can be considered an online collection of "lore", I didn't do it to hide my real identity. However, after an ugly experience with another user who threatened to slander other Wikipedia users on his website simply because we (and Wikipedia moderators) disapproved of his vandalism of a particular article, I've decided to remain anonymous to protect my privacy and reputation from lone nuts.
  4. For the record, we never attacked you personally. However, all your contributions to Wikipedia are open to criticism. Don't confuse yourself with the content of your contribution.
  5. Metamagician said it best on the User talk:Egghead2001 page: The objectivity of my edits speaks for itself. I am simply insisting that all claims for and against transhumanism, or otherwise, be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. I want the article to be the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. university students) who is interested in the subject. I am currently focused on cooperating with StN (whose views are very different from mine), Loremaster (who perhaps has broadly similar sympathies, but doesn't always agree with me), and anyone else who wants to contribute, in an effort to make the article comprehensive, rigorous and stable enough for Featured Article status. That's as far as it goes. The record shows that StN, Loremaster and I have all had a lot of disagreements among ourselves. We've been handling them in an amicable and mature way, I think, but we are far from being a gang of conspirators.
  6. Metamagician has also explained to you that: I have nothing against Natasha Vita-More, but I do think we have to be very careful how we use the claims of any particular thinker. We should be citing them where necessary to support claims that are necessary for the article. Nothing more (as it were), nothing less. I think that we give her adequate recognition for her historical role in the transhumanist movement. If there is more that should be said about her - e.g. if she has put cogent arguments defending transhumanism in her writings - we should say so in concise summary form, with appropriate sources to reference what she has said. But putting in a lump of her "musings", or whatever, without integration into the article is just not good wikipedia writing. The idea here is to write the best possible neutral, well-referenced article about transhumanism, not to push the ideas of any particular thinker.

--Loremaster 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I reverted one of your changes to a talk page because I thought you were blanking it. It appears you are making archives, so I reverted myself.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Understood. --Loremaster 12:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

missing text

No problem. Tony 16:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Just to make sure...

Have my reverts on HBHG been 'correct'? I want to assume as much good faith as possible, but the other party (or parties) don't seem to be willing to discuss their changes. I'm at a little bit of a loss as to what to do if this continues, and just want to make sure I'm not just being biased. Cheers, KalevTait 16:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Transhumanism and fair use of images

Copyright paranoia gets to us all, in the end. I think simply explaining on every image page why fair use applies to the image should be enough - but I am not an expert here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Priory of Sion

I've several times placed this link on the Priory article: Declaration by the Current Grand Master of the Priory of Sion (satire) It has several times been removed. I don't think satirical responses are out of the range of linkworthy items to a "secret society" that is itself a hoax (now a literary hoax) or ludibrium. Gustave Traupmann 14:40, May 19, 2006 (UTC )

License tagging for Image:Aldous Huxley.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aldous Huxley.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Nick Bostrom.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nick Bostrom.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Primo Posthuman.jpg

Can you give some justification for this image being licensed as norightsreserved? Or it should be fair use? --Hetar 00:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I changed Image:Nick Bostrom.jpg to fairusein, please provide a fair use rationale as soon as possible. Thanks. --Hetar 01:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy Blood, Holy Grail

I wanted to give you a heads-up that an anonymous user has made a number of extremely POV, pretty inflammatory edits to this article. I'm sure you would've seen it anyway but I thought leaving a message here would bring it to your attention. My first reaction is to just revert all of them but I thought, since you're the one who's done most of the work on the article, you'd want to be the one to fix it up. Just letting you know - you've done a great job with keeping this article as unbiased as possible for such a controversial subject. -RaCha'ar 04:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I went and left a comment on the user's talk page encouraging them to try their edits with a less POV tone. Maybe they'll actually listen. -RaCha'ar 04:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:About See also

Not that I can actually find now (I'd expect it to be at WP:GTL or WP:WIAFA), but I saw this argument at various FAC/PRs and adopted it, as it sounds quite sound. Perhaps you should raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article? or some related FA page and ask if there is such a policy? If not, I think it should be added.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote requested for Exocortex AfD

The Exocortex article is being considered for deletion. You may wish to share your thoughts on the matter. (Any reply posted here will not be reviewed by me.) --Amit 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bill Joy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bill Joy.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles 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 fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

An idea to consider

Hi. I thought you might like to give some input on this idea of mine. Cheers. -- Nikodemos 23:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures and Licensing

Hello Stifle,

--Loremaster 19:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, just having permission to use an image on Wikipedia is not sufficient for using it. The image needs to either be usable under a free license or meet our fair use policy, which is stricter than the law.
You need to contact the copyright holders of the images (and note that this is generally the person who took the photographs, not the people depicted) and request that the images be released under an appropriate free license or into the public domain.
For the old image, was it first published in the US before 1923? If so, it is in the public domain, tag it as {{PD-US}}. Otherwise, again we would need it to be released under a free license. Fair use is highly unlikely to apply here as the material is taken from another encyclopedia.
Wikipedia's goal is to become a free encyclopedia, where free is taken in the sense of "free speech" as opposed to "free of charge". Using images that other people cannot use runs counter to that, which is why it is restricted. I hope you understand. Stifle (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Just as an update, Image:Nick Bostrom.jpg is a valid fair use image, as are Image:Natasha Vita-More.jpg and Image:Max More.jpg. Using Image:Nick-Bostrom.png in Transhumanism is not describing the "person in question", so fails fair use. Image:Aldous Huxley.jpg needs a fair use rationale, i.e. a justification of invoking fair use for that image. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bill_Joy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bill_Joy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyberprep

An article that you created, Cyberprep, was proposed for deletion, probably yesterday. Please review the policy on proposed deletion and feel free to comment on the article's talk page. If no contest is made, the article will be deleted in four days from today.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Preview button.

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-07t19:39z

Warnings.

Re: your last 5 edits [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]; please stop removing warnings. Archiving old ones are fine tho. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-08t19:45z

Since I am obviously aware of these warnings, I don't see why I don't have a right to archive them. --Loremaster 22:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Young Family.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Young Family.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles 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 fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:We Can Rebuild Him.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:We Can Rebuild Him.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Goldom ‽‽‽ 11:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye out

Could you keep an eye on the Ebionites page? We have some newbies causing quite a ruckus. I just went thru an RFC there and things are getting a bit out of hand. Ovadyah 00:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Loremaster, Did they realy need an external link? what would Happen to any edits to the section that added Jewish mystism? not to mention Ebionite.com?NazireneMystic 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved the original Modern Ebionites section to the Archive 1 talk page to keep things consistent. How can I recover previous versions of this talk page? There are some nuggets I want to recover later. Ovadyah 23:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Faith

Shalom Loremaster,

This is a big thing to ask that I assume good faith regarding OvadYah. This editor has been quite deceptive during this enite debate. First he was attempting to pass as a NPOV a few archinved pages ago but I do not believe this can any longer be hid. Look at the exchange that took place right before you asked me to assume "good faith" were he states:

"I have never heard of Shemayah Phillips claiming for himself more than the title of Paqid, which is basically a secretary or clerk. By contrast, the claims of your leader are exceedingly pretentious, and he was also excommunicated -- from the Ebionite Jewish Community. I guess that's why you folks loathe Shemayah so much huh?

Given this statment what would you understand it to mean? I went to his site and searched for the term "Paqid" it says the term is irrelevent and it realy means "President" not only that but this office of President can be handed down to sucsessors like a Monarchy. This offices makes him the desider of all things Ebionite[in his little world]. This sounds like a type of "Priory of Sion" situation given Yeshua said to not even call another man teacher but all should be taught by the christ I.E. "Anointing",which by the way has nothing to do with oil being poured on your head.

In the above statment he tries to minumize this and then call Allan my "leader". All I can say is ive been in Allans fourms for over 3 years and hes never ordered anyone to do anything.

Then he says Allan was Excommunicated or some nonsence like that. Wouldnt you have to be converted before your excommunicated? If the EC will tell you of "Ebionites proper" if asked regarding someones standing as thier President says at his site then they must have records of the rituals practised at converson like circumsision. I would LOVE to see reconds of that converson. This editor is relating the joining of a online fourm to being converted to thier religion.If you are kicked off the fourm your"Excommunicated". In that sence one of the wikipedia Editors is now a member in autoplasty from our group because one joined and then left. read my talk page and see the person that asked to join, he joinded shortly afterward he asked me to accept him to the fourm and then he left in a few days. If you message him and ask I dought he thinks he ever converted and accepted Allan as a "Leader" I dought he would think he did.LOL However this is the type foolishness directed as us im to take with good faith.

I did assume good faith when I called him ignorant because if these things were knowingly done it would be diobolical.NazireneMystic 22:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, I have tried my best to be NPOV always, and I have no need to be deceptive. If I sound like I am becoming more partisan, it's only because of my growing irritation over the relentess personal attacks directed against me by this new user and her cohorts. I'm tired of these rambling rants. Ovadyah 02:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Pablo Stafforini

A tag has been placed on Pablo Stafforini, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Pablo Stafforini is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Pablo Stafforini. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian Transhumanism

I found that a little odd that an article about Christian Transhumanism was deleted. Particulaly, as Teilhard was a catholic priest and a forerunner for Christian Transhumanism.

The problem was that the subject was not notable enough to merit an article in an encyclopedia. --Loremaster 15:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

progressivism

hi, I've noticed from the talk page that you've spent some time working with this article - probably more than I have - and was wondering what your thoughts on the semi-recent changes are? I'd like to get some critical feedback and any potential methods for improvement that you may be interested in providing, and hopefully we can ramp the whole thing up, maybe even to a level fitting of an encyclopedia. Also, I was considering adding the current contents of the talk page to the first archive, as I'm sick of seeing this, but don't think the page is long enough to create a whole new 2nd archive. Sound ok to you?--Jackbirdsong 02:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding NazireneMystic

I have filed a formal complaint against NazireneMystic on the Personal Attack noticeboard if you want to add any comments [7]. Ovadyah 04:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. I will add my comments as soon I find the time. --Loremaster 16:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The results of my complaint were a warning and a 24-hour block. I will leave it to your discretion to have NM banned from Wikipedia. Ovadyah 01:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
When does it start? --NazireneMystic 02:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know and I don't care. Please stop writing on my talk page. --Loremaster 14:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This would be a good time to make progress on the Ebionites article if time permits. NM received a 48-hour block today from the PA Noticeboard for continued personal attacks, this time against Shemayah Phillips. Hope all is well. Ovadyah 01:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I won't have time to contribute until December so you should start working on the article alone. I'll improve on it when I get back. --Loremaster 12:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI. I have once again filed a report on NM on the PA noticeboard with diffs if you care to comment. I'm not sure what this will accomplish except to delay the inevitable, since NM has stated that he considers it his religious duty to continue these attacks until he is banned from Wikipedia. Ovadyah 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NM received a 48-hour block from the PA noticeboard for continued personal attacks. Ovadyah 04:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, You complain about me asking a question on your talk page and then go and Blank out my entire page? Ihope bringing your vandalism up is not taken as a personal attack.

Ovadyah,I see you are spreading falsehoods again. I haver mentioned anything about a religous duty. Your just upset becauseI looked at at another piece of susposed evidence and scholarly resources supporting your POV I find them a falsehood and many times almost totaly reverse of that the Scholar states.NazireneMystic 23:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

NazireneMystic, please read your own discussion page to find an explantion for my friendly actions. --Loremaster 17:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have hauled NazireneMystic to the PA Noticeboard again. You may want to comment this time, as there are allegations of fraud involved. Ovadyah 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei RFC

LM-- First off-- the Ebionites article is looking really great! Good job. I keep meaning to learn enough about Ebionites to be able to help out over there, but other wikipedia things keep grabbing my attention. I better hurry though, because if ya'll keep editing, I'm sure you guys will be up to FAC in no time.

Anyway-- I have recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. In doing so, I've upset some people not unlike NazireneMystic-- single-purpose accounts with strong religious views about the subject of the article. Some want the whole thing reverted outright, some think it violates NPOV. If you have a second, could you look it over and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment, if it's NPOV, and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 14:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't know enough about Opus Dei to be of much help. Sorry. --Loremaster 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone with as many edits as you have should enable email.---Alecmconroy 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Why? --Loremaster 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Just because once you're a regular contributor, sometimes it's helpful to be able to contact people-- i.e. if they haven't been on-wiki lately, or if you want to ask a private opinion, etc. --Alecmconroy 20:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I've had problems with email harrassment in the past so I tend to avoid enabling it. --Loremaster 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

The response from the editors Slrubenstein suggested has so far been underwhelming. Do you want to proceed to nominate the Ebionites article as a Good Article or wait a while longer? Ovadyah 04:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's proceed with the Good Article nomination. --Loremaster 09:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have nominated the Ebionites article for Good Article status [8]. Ovadyah 16:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Biohacker

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Biohacker, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at Talk:Biohacker. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --WikiSlasher 02:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the article into Biopunk. --Loremaster 16:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Human-racism?

May I inquire as to why "human-racism" is a better term than "speciesism" in the instance in which it is used in the Frankenstein Argument (dehumanization) segment of the Criticisms section of the context article? It seems to me that since we are in fact a species and not a race of some larger species, that the term "human-racism" then merely serves the purpose of biasing the reader, if only in some small way. It is perfectly fine if the article Human exceptionalism is more appropriate, or indeed even if it is simply written better, however why not use the term "human exceptionalism", rather than "human-racism" or even "speciesism"? And if even to not use "human exceptionalism", why not use instead "speciesism" in that instance, while perhaps still linking to Human exceptionalism? Is it not preferable to be technically correct in a small way, than to bias, whether deliberately or through convenience? 216.129.211.105 03:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple. In the same way the term "yuck factor" is the term used by transhumanists as a colloquial alternative for the "wisdom of repugnance"; "human-racism" is the term used by transhumanists as a colloquial alternative to "human exceptionalism" or "speciecism". For an example, read Saving Human Rights from the Human-racists. --Loremaster 14:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster: "Habermas" (sp.)-StN 03:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

??????

Please dont remove these unreadable symbols from the Haile Selassie article as it is considered vandalism. If you want to change policy on unreadable scripts do so in the appropriate page but dont pick on this one article. If you want to read the script there is a link on the talk page, SqueakBox 18:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Ebionites

With all due respect to your tireless contributions, I must point out that your manner of editing is costing wikipedia a fortune and stretches out the history thread of articles unnecessarily. Most of your edits are in a few seconds or minutes of each other. It explains this issue in the welcome page and I made this mistake too until someone explained it to me. I think you should use the show preview button more often instead of continuous edits. In this way we can see how the article evolves and expands etc clearly. Cheers! frummer 07:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Fountain argument

I've reverted a "See also" section in the same grounds as Piotrus. I'm curious as to whether there is any actual citation of The Fountain in connection with transhumanism, as the "Fountain argument" at the transhumanism article seems to be originally titled. If there is available information, this should be integrated into the Interpretations section of The Fountain. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ebionite 3RR warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Loremaster, you have repeatedly reverted sourced inserts, and inserted your own original research by making arguments from primary sources that are not supported by the secondary sources. Please stop. You have already made reverts: [9] [10] [11]

Instead of imposing your own POV into the article, discuss it and reach a consensus on the talk page first. --Michael C. Price talk 01:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I've repeatedly provided explanations for my revert edits in light of your acts of vandalism. I have already explained to why the Lead does not need to mention your inserts which are already mentioned elsewhere in the article. It is ridiculous of you to describe the deletion of these inserts as inserting original research. I've discussed all these issues on the Talk:Ebionites page and my views and actions are supported by User:Ovadyah position which is identical to my own. There is no consensus possible since you are using wikilawyering to impose your own POV into the article which I am trying to remove to preserve a neutral point of view. Period. --Loremaster 01:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I see you ignored my warning and went right ahead and reverted the article. Whatever your views 3RR is a vioaltion of policy (read previous warning carefully!). I have reported this here. --Michael C. Price talk 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Noted. --Loremaster 03:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary comments

...are a good thing. Use them for fun and profit. KarlBunker 04:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[12] made on January 14 2007 to Ebionites

Octagon-warning.svg
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 11:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it unjustified that I have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours for violation of the three-revert rule when I only reverted the Ebionites article twice. My following edit was a revert but also a restoration of a sentence written by the other user, involved in this so-called edit war, as a gesture of good faith. Can someone please cancel this block? That being said, I do need to go the bed. ;)--Loremaster 12:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
If you only reverted it twice, why did you mark at least 4 edits as rv? William M. Connolley 16:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought the rule was against 3 consecutive reverts in a row. My mistake. --Loremaster 16:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Designer baby

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Loremaster! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary comments again

I don't understand your resistance to using edit summaries. It's an easy and important courtesy to other editors. If you have some rational for not making them, I'd be most interested to hear it. Thanks. KarlBunker 18:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no rationale. I just tend to be uncourteous sometimes. My apologies. ;) --Loremaster 18:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I've been known to be uncourteous on occasion myself (hard to believe, but true!).  :-) KarlBunker 18:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites

Please see my response to your suggestion on my talk page. We might need to find a way to communicate off-wiki. Ovadyah 18:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you have had enough of this nonsense and are ready to take Michael to RFC. Ovadyah 07:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this will be necessary. Let's just wait till Micheal makes his final contributions to the Ebionites/wip page and proceed from there. --Loremaster 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok. No problem. Until then, I will be on the sidelines. Ovadyah 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page

See my responses there. Metamagician3000 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ebionite Jewish Community

Running into it on random pages, I just want to let you know that Ebionite Jewish Community, which you created, is currently a prime candidate for a WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion, and would also qualify for regular deletion per WP:WEB due to lack of third party coverage. Sandstein 11:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Technogaianism

Hello,

Thank you for your work. Could you also add an explanation of the differences with Bright green environmentalism?

Have a nice day.
David Latapie ( | @) 03:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Transhumanism

You have recently reverted two minor alterations I have made in this article, regarding the colloquial terms for two of the arguments. These were the alteration of two of the colloquial names expressed within the article from “Fountain” and “Terminator,” to “The Fountain” and “The Terminator.” May I inquire as to why we should not, in this instance, use the proper name from which these arguments receive their informal identities? Both films in question do in fact contain the definite article “The,” capitalised, in their titles – all other relevant titles are included properly and completely, subtracting subtitles. 216.129.211.105 04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason is simple. In popular usage, these colloquial terms do not include the definite articles that the films in question have in their titles. --Loremaster 07:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites

Please refrain from editting until March, as agreed. --Michael C. Price talk 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Betterhumans

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Betterhumans, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. RJASE1 Talk 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Betterhumans

I've nominated Betterhumans, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Betterhumans satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betterhumans and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Betterhumans during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RJASE1 Talk 02:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Toronto Transhumanist Association

A tag has been placed on Toronto Transhumanist Association, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RJASE1 Talk 02:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dale Carrico

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Dale Carrico, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. RJASE1 Talk 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Andy Miah

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Andy Miah, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. RJASE1 Talk 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ramez Naam

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Ramez Naam, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. RJASE1 Talk 03:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WTA, IEET and related articles

I just wanted to let you know that I hope not to get involved in debates about the proposed deletion of articles related to the WTA, IEET and similar organisations, and articles on most of the Fellows, office holders, etc., of those organisations. I think that my connections make me a good person to do work on those articles, but not a good person to be making objective judgments about their notability, etc., although it's obvious to me that some of the relevant subjects are notable - whereas some others may be more borderline when one steps back from them. So, that's my explanation as to why I probably won't be participating at AfD's etc., even though I created some of the articles involved and have worked on others. Metamagician3000 03:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Andy Miah

I've nominated Andy Miah, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Andy Miah satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Miah and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Andy Miah during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RJASE1 Talk 18:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Citing Articles

Those articles aren't up for deletion, and I don't really have time right now. I doubt there will be many good sources for the Institute, and I don't know much about Dvorsky, but most of the sources I cited on the WTA deletion page mention James Hughes. I'd suggest doing some google searches, then just look down the list for anything that doesn't sound like a transhumanist website. Transhumanism gets a lot of press, so it shouldn't be hard. As an alternative, if you've got any transhumanist books that mention Dvorsky or the Institute, just cite them as sources. Aelffin 19:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Transhumanism

There seems to be some feeling against this group of articles. I stopped a few from imminent deletion, but they do most of them need improvement, and you seem to be the guy to do it. It would probably help to remove some of the interlocking articles on the less notable among the individual people. I'm a little reluctant to do it myself in a field where I might be viewed as a newcomer.DGG 22:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

James Tabor

You started a page on James Tabor a while back. Could you come over and look at the talk page and weigh in on the discussion. Thanks. Reverend Mommy 03:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

Talk:World Transhumanist Association

Somewhat paradoxically, Simon Young is his World Transhumanist Society are now mentioned in Wikipedia, but in a rather more problematic way than the edits that you contested. May I suggest to roll that back per WP:BLP, which according to my understanding also applies to article's talk pages.--Tikiwont 10:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Origen on Ebionites

Approximately when did Origen write on the Ebionites? --Loremaster 21:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki article on Origen says the De Principiis was probably written between 212 and 215 ca. Ovadyah 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please remember to include edit summaries, re: Jesus Seminar. I'm sure you know how useful they are, and you can't be that busy. Thanks. --Blainster 03:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to look at the rules

1) Stop biting me. I am attempting to be bold, only to be repeatedly slapped down for it. You need to stop making wild accusations.

2)You do not own an article; therefore editors do not need to ask permission to edit. Blind reversions of any "unauthorized" changes is a violation of both the guidelines and the spirit of Wikipedia. Please follow Wikiquitte in the future and maintain civility, rudeness is never appropriate on a Talk page or elsewhere. Noclevername 20:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is Fair?

Threatening to summarily revert my future edits simply because you dislike one that I had previously made is neither fair nor accurate. The proper way to reply to an edit you disagree with is to discuss it on the Talk page, not to destroy it. If you act in this manner again I will call for an administrative intervention.

I do however agree that discussing changes first might reduce disagreements such as these, and will try to be more cautious in the future. This does not excuse your behavior, however. I did not vandalize nor delete any pretinent information, therefore according to the rules of Wikipedia you had no call to delete my additions. If I add something you disagree with, tell me, and we can reach a true consensus, but don't use threats. It is a poor way to behave.

PS. If you have any further comments on my edits to an article, the proper place to address them is on that article's Talk page, not my Talk page.

Noclevername 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So, ultimately, please discuss changes to the article on the Talk:Transhumanism page otherwise they will be reverted.
This is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noclevername (talkcontribs) 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

From my perspective, it is you who are being obtuse. I did not make the article less neutral. And if you believe that I did so, the proper way to respond is still not to arbitrarily delete what you disagree with, (or feel is "non-neutral") but to discuss the matter. I apologize as well if I phrased my additions to the article in a way that was open to misinterpretation; it may be that some of it can be reworded (NOT reverted). To simply delete another's edits because they have not been run by you first is rather rude, I hope it will not happen again. Remember, I am also one of those who has worked on that article, and my work is no more or less important than that of yourself and others. Noclevername 00:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a report on your inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Noclevername 01:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Human enhancement

I have been asked to point out that your civility on Talk:Human enhancement has been slightly subpar. Edits like [13] and [14] could be more kind, and others that I will, if you ask me to, dig up, are (admittedly minor) violations of WP:NPA. Your edits to the mainspace, however, are extremely good, particularly in areas involving Human enhancement... but please, don't bite :). GofG ||| Talk 01:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Desposyni revisited

I think the Desposyni article is very close to a GAC. It looks like a Peer Review was requested May 2006, but nothing is archived. Want to jump in with me and polish it up when you have the time? Ovadyah 00:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Start working on it and I will jump in next week. --Loremaster 00:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok! Ovadyah 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I started working on the article. It's not as close to GAC quality as I first thought. There is a lot of good material, but the article is written in a very POV (conservative Catholic) way. It needs major reorganization and cleanup. Hope you can find the time to jump in and help. Ovadyah 17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

JC Template

The JC Template is getting out of hand with edit warring over the picture and content. Just thought you should know. Ovadyah 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

cyberpunk

Cyberpunk 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. P4k 01:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Typo redirect Cosmism (de Garis)

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Cosmism (de Garis), by Clicketyclack (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Cosmism (de Garis) is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Cosmism (de Garis), 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Cosmism (de Garis) itself. 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Free advice

Please keep in mind when you are noodling on the Ebionites article that it makes the article appear unstable and encourages drive-by idiots to make changes too. Ovadyah 02:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of that fact. However, edits by drive-by idiots is what led me to begin noodling the article in the first place. Also, some of their edits actually pointed some flaws in the article that needed to be fixed. That being said, regardless of how stable an article becomes, it should and always will be subject to improvement. --Loremaster 19:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
If you mean by pointing to flaws the following comment, "However, this minority view is well outside the scholarly consensus on the Ebionites and quite unlikely", the drive-by is mistaken. The lead section may be a minority view of orthodox Christian theologians, but it is the majority view of modern scholars. Of course, I accept that an article should be and will always be subject to improvement. Ovadyah 23:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I am confused by your statement. Are you claiming that there is a scholarly consensus supportive of the claim that not only were Ebionites a community distinct from early Christianity before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. but they were more faithful than Paul of Tarsus to the authentic teachings of the Jesus? I seriously doubt it since, for example, the fellows of the Jesus Seminar argue both Jewish Christians, Pauline Christians, and Gnostic Christians were not faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus... --Loremaster 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not claiming that there is a scholarly concensus. The question raised by the editor quoted above is whether the material in the lead is the minority view among scholars that have studied the Ebionites. I don't think it is the minority view among this group. It may be more correct to state that there is not a majority view. The statement "the fellows of the Jesus Seminar argue both Jewish Christians, Pauline Christians, and Gnostic Christians were not faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus" presupposes that the JS have accurately determined the authentic teachings by their voting methodology. However, their conclusions are at variance with major scholars in the field such as Richard Horsley, Bill Herzog, and Ed Sanders, who see Jesus as a social and/or apocalyptic prophet in the political/religious context of first-century Judaism. Ovadyah 02:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh I understand now. However, my point is that, even if he was mistaken, the editor's mistake pointed out that the material in the lead needed to be better rephrased to avoid other editors, especially Christian ideologues, from pouncing on it. As for the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar, I wasn't presupposing that they have accurately determined the authentic teachings of Jesus or that their conclusions are not at variance with major scholars in the field. I was simply using them to point out the fact that there isn't a scholarly consensus either way on whether or not Jewish Christians and/or Ebionites were more faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus. --Loremaster 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Ovadyah 22:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Good. Are you happy with the article as it currently is? --Loremaster 00:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No. I'm going to lay out my specific concerns on the talk page. However, I accept your statement, "there isn't a scholarly consensus either way on whether or not Jewish Christians and/or Ebionites were more faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus". Ovadyah 12:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Historical Jesus

You recently reverted one of my changes to the article on the Ebionites, but did not offer an edit summary. I think my summary explained the reason for my edit pretty clearly, but no argument was made against it. I see that a whole slew of edits have not been summarized or defended, some quite substantial (e.g., changing "c. 23" to "in 23"). Edit summaries, I believe, would be helpful for the article's other editors. Korossyl 22:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

TransBeMan film

Hi Loremaster

I noticed that you had removed an addition we made to the Martine Rothblatt page concerning our independent feature film TransBeMan of which she is Exeutive Producer. It would be much appreciated if you could restore this important and verifiable information - this film is a new and ambitious undertaking by this dynamic individual.

Please see:

http://www.transbemanfilm.com

http://www.transformerfilms.tv

Thanks...


Ebionites

Thanks for your trust but I cannot do this alone. Please keep your eyes on it as well. Str1977 (smile back) 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

John the Baptist as Essene?

Ovadyah, what are your best scholarly sources for criticisms of the John-the-Bapstist-as-Essene theory? --Loremaster 12:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I will look into this, but it may take a few days. Ovadyah 14:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It took awhile, but I found a very thorough critical analysis by Catherine Murphy, "John The Baptist - Prophet of Purity for a New Age", Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN (2003). Murphy applies a technique called Social-Scientific Criticism to create a multivariate matrix model that compares and contrasts the Essenes with John The Baptist. Murphy concludes (Chp. 5, p.154): "The radical difference in organizational structure and in tactics to advance the ideology of the group argues against the thesis that John The Baptist was an Essene; similarities of practice and belief may be attributed to the general traditions and practices of Second Temple Judaism".
Hope this helps. Ovadyah 01:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this sufficient or do you need more? Ovadyah 22:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying goodbye to the Ebionites

Hello Ovadyah,

Since I succeeded, with your help, in getting Ebionites featured article status, I will leave it in your hands I'm tired off having to deal with Micheal's edits. It was nice working with you. This experience has deepened my knowledge of a subject that used to interest me when I was on my personal quest for the historical Jesus. :) --Loremaster 20:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Loremaster, I can understand how you would be weary of dealing with such a disruptive editor. It was nice working with you too. :0) Ovadyah 21:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Hallo Loremaster, please have a look at my recent changes on the Ebionites. I have read the above and understand but I want to ask you whether you can at least keep half an eye on the situation. The article is not yet in the shape it should be. Str1977 (smile back) 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hallo Loremaster, indeed it is not always fun. However, I am a bit disappointed by your retreating from the work. Also, I do not understand why you are so insistent on the wording of the picture caption. IMHO the version you restored is needlessly circumstantial. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 09:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I left some comments on Meta's talk page if you care to add to them or correct anything I may have mistated. Ovadyah 15:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Since Meta indicated on his talk page that he is currently very busy off-Wiki, I left the same comments with Jayjg. Ovadyah 15:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the Ebionites article and notified AN/I. I will contact Mark Goodacre and see if he can find some grad students at Duke to work on "desynthesizing" the article. I am off-Wiki now for a rest. Ovadyah 13:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vote on keeping or deleting Rabinowitz

Please vote on keeping or deleting the Rabinowitz references and / or the Archaeology section of the Ebionites article here. Ovadyah 01:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites FAR

Ebionites 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. -- Avi 18:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Transhumanism

Request an explanation as to the reason for reversion of minor edit of the summary in Transhumanism article. Is it not important to indicate that transhumanists propose no amelioration of elective characteristics (excepting when those elective characteristics controvert the interests of other people)? Certainly "involuntary death" is something transhumanists object to, but would not listing characteristics to be ameliorated, only to modify the last characteristic with an adjective, indicate semantically that only the last characteristic was modified by that adjective? I do not know of any mainstream transhumanists who propose to involuntarily ameliorate elective conditions in individuals (exceptions aforementioned), such as the conditions listed. Is it not in that case disingenuous to state that transhumanists do indeed wish to ameliorate all these characteristics on an involuntary basis, excepting the last characteristic listed (involuntary death)? 216.129.211.105 22:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites content and source cleanup

I left an invitation on Michael's talk page to work consensually with the other editors to clean up the problems that have been tagged for some time now. Would you be willing to help? I would like to head off having the article delisted as a Featured Article during FAR if possible. I will ask Metamagician to provide some oversight, as he did before. Ovadyah 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to return to the article for a few days under the auspices of formal mediation? Ovadyah 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've moved on. Best of luck. --Loremaster 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand. I have filed a formal request for mediation. If you change your mind, feel free to add your comments to the RfM talk page. Ovadyah 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if I did change my mind, my new schedule would prevent me from contributing to the article as much I did in the past... --Loremaster 00:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Understood. However, it would be a great help if you could add your perspective to the RfM. Since you are not listed as a party to the dispute, your participation can be minimal. I think the problems can be cleaned up in a few days if everyone makes a good faith effort to reach a consensus. The Mediation Committee will provide the oversight we have been lacking. Ovadyah 00:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI. Everyone has agreed to formal mediation of the Ebionites article (4 editors), and mediation has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. Also, FAR is requesting comments. Ovadyah 21:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David L. Pulver

An article that you have been involved in editing, David L. Pulver, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Pulver. Thank you. --Gavin Collins 09:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration proceedings against Michael Price

Although you have permanantly left the Ebionites article, you could do Wikipedia a service by participating in the arbitration proceeding against Michael Price Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Ebionites. The problems we experienced will not be confined to the Ebionites article. The same behavior will proliferate to many other articles unless something is done. I hope you will at least consider leaving an initial statement. All the best. Ovadyah 23:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites arbitration

If the case is accepted for arbitration, I think presenting the case against in a chronological order might be best. If you would be willing to prepare a statement dealing with what you perceived as dubious behavior during the time you were actively editing the article, that would certainly be more than welcome. I and some of the others only came into the discussion late, and we have pronouncedly less first-hand knowledge and opinion regarding earlier activity. Thank you very much for your work on the article, and any further work in it you may or may not see fit to do. John Carter 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Primo_giubbotto_aerogel_L.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Primo_giubbotto_aerogel_L.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be best to present the information regarding Michael's at least occasionally dubious activity in chronological order, as that would be probably the way in which the arbitrators would understand it most easily. That would in effect be requesting you to present the first statement of those who question Michael's conduct. Would you be willing to do this? In any event, I believe that, at this point, the end may be finally in sight regarding this matter. John Carter 16:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Loremaster, if you are willing to lay out your arguments first, I will go next. We should mention all the crap that went on in January that caused Metamagician to lock the article. Hang in there. This will all be over soon, and hopefully the solution will be permanent. Ovadyah 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Loremaster, do you still intend to make the opening statement in evidence? We finally got ArbCom's attention and we are leaving things hanging a bit. Ovadyah 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my time is too limited to participate in this action so you will have to proceed without me but feel free to report my experiences with Micheal you have witnessed. --Loremaster 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have done by best to address your concerns in an opening statement on your behalf. Let me know if I mistated anything or if there is additional specific evidence you would like to see included. Ovadyah 15:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to ask you

I hate to ask you, but could you polish up the wording on the Ebionites article? It's in good shape now except for (1a) "Well written". I am just not the wordsmith you are, and I would hate to see the article fall after all this work because of writing style. It would probably be more productive for me to pull the evidence together for arbitration. Ovadyah 03:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If I find the time during the coming week, I'll see what I can do. --Loremaster 09:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Admin Dbachmann is keeping a close eye on the page to deal with any "issues". Things have been quiet now for a few days, and we have been making rapid progress. I still intend to pursue arbitration. We know from hard experience that this is just a lull in a cycle of passive-aggressive behavior. Ovadyah 13:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I may not find the time this week but possibly in the coming weeks. However, if my edits are undermined by you-know-who, I will stop immediately. --Loremaster 13:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I have come to the conclusion, based on recent FAR comments, that the article will fail FAR. No matter what we do to fix it, new objections will appear to replace them. Therefore, I suggest you not waste your valuable time. Ovadyah 01:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Enough.jpg)

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Enough.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 15:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites arbitration workshop

I have proposed a finding of fact against Michael Price in the ArbCom workshop for violations of WP:SYN and WP:OR leading to the addition of misleading and fraudulent content to the Ebionites article. As one of the parties to the dispute, your comments on this proposal would be much appreciated. Ovadyah 20:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you know, I am not interested in getting involved in this dispute. However, feel free to speak on my behalf. --Loremaster 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
At a minimum, I just need to know if you agree or disagree with the finding of fact. If you agree, a simple "I agree" under my comment on the workshop page with your signature would suffice. I don't feel comfortable assenting for you. I have also permanently recused myself from further editing on the article, as of the day it failed FAR. However, life will be hell for the new editors, if there ever are any, if nothing is done to prevent further abuses. Ovadyah 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Loremaster 13:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Ovadyah 13:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee found that MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring and is subject to an editing restriction for one year, he is limited to one revert per page per week and must discuss any content changes on the article's talk page. Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 04:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Thomas Plantard

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Thomas Plantard, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Thomas Plantard seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Thomas Plantard, 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 contact the bot operator 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Despres

User:Despres, a page you created, 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/User:Despres and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Despres during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

World Transhumanist Association

With regards to the segment about the fundraising campaign, you removed that twice. The second time you didn't seem to have read the history to determine why I reinserted it - I specifically said that it seemed like a noteworthy event to insert under the heading of "'Programs and activities" and I noted that perhaps it was removed because it seemed like an advertisement - if one felt so, one should rewrite. This is the first fundraising event of this kind for this organisation - is it really not noteworthy? Perhaps it is because the campaign only runs until the end of January? -216.129.211.105 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agustinaldo

Why is User:Loremaster posting a user box on the page of User:Agustinaldo? Doczilla (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does User:Doczilla care??? --Loremaster (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Because no one should place a userbox on a userpage than the user themselves, per Wikipedia:Userboxes, it is considered uncivil. (Though in this case, it would seem more likely to be an accident of sign-in by a sock-puppeteer, but be that as it may...) I'll be removing the userbox. - jc37 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Doczilla (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Gattaca

Hi. You reverted my recent edit, with:

14:38, 1 February 2008 Loremaster (Talk | contribs) (13,437 bytes) (Undid revision 188312784 by Jhawkinson (talk))

Why? I should not be surprised to follow a piped link and find myself on a page about Transhumanism. I was indeed so-surprised. See WP:PIPE#EGG. Please tell me why I should not revert your change. Thank you.

(All this aside, please use an edit summary when you revert someone's edits! It makes it easier for everyone!) jhawkinson (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Technosexual

I have nominated Technosexual, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technosexual. 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. Justin(c)(u) 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Biopunk

Can I ask why you thought that my edit was worth reverting without an edit summary? The category is absolutely useless. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Transhumanism in fiction

Please see my comment in Talk:Transhumanism in fiction--Sparkygravity (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This page background Rocks BTW, makes me want to steal the idea--Sparkygravity (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Biopunk and SF

I don't see any reason to change my initial opinion that "biopunk" is not yet a notable subgenre label. I don't come across it in reviews or discussions--and as a reviewer and long-time student of SF, I've seen a lot of commentary. It looks to me like the usual kind of enthusiast-generated neologism, in this case of the kind that comes from adding "punk" to almost any noun. (The same thing can be done with "porn" or "noir.") If I were king of the universe, the biopunk SF section would be expunged. Of course, I'm not, so I'll just go on record as agin it. RLetson (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Robin Green (computer scientist)

I have nominated Robin Green (computer scientist), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Green (computer scientist). 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. JavaTenor (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation of "Paul Smith" as a source w/o publication data

Please note that Wikipedia does not accept self-published sources as reliable. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Philip CoppensWfgh66 (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Priory of Sion. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cuckoo?

Obviously its a pov comment hidden in a refname. (Immortality Insitute = Cukoo) You can revert or change it if you like. --Lemmey (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does anyone do anything? You've fixed it. You've made Wpedia better. Just be happy with your accomplishment. --Lemmey (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Chip the glasses, crack the plates, thats what Bilbo Baggins hates. --Lemmey (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edits at Synarchism

Wikipedia:No Original Research means what it says. Please add only well-sourced material that is directly relevant to the subject of the article. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. —EncMstr 07:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Marie de Saint Clair

What is the point of asking me to prod an article because the person doesn't exist, and then redirecting the page to the Saint-Clair surname page (which serves to disambiguate people and things that exist with the same last name)? If she doesn't provably exist, and there's no article about her on WP (because it was deleted), there's no reason to direct the page there. It's very illogical, to say the least. I've CSDed it, and if you leave the page space alone, it will go away, which is basically what you wanted in the first place. MSJapan (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Since this converstation has nothing to do with the other one, there is no need to link the two. --Lemmey (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop decontextualizing Gaddafi link

"White Book (ISRATIN)" is completely and utterly indadequate as a description of the external link on the Isratine article. People need to be told where they're going and and why they might want to go there, and "White Book (ISRATIN)"[sic] serves none of those purposes. Furthermore, the link is full of historical falsehoods, and Wikipedia is not required to be neutral between the proposition that the earth is flat and the proposition that the earth is round. AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Synarchism

(from user talk:EncMstr#Synarchism) Loremaster, a controversial edit is one which people object to. (From Merriam-Webster: marked especially by the expression of opposing views : dispute) Whether you stand by it or not is not the issue. Yes, it can be hard to know if something is objectionable in advance, but you now have plenty of feedback—and presumably insight. You've been adequately and thoroughly warned now. You can minimize your chances of being blocked by using the talk page to persuade and/or gain consensus. —EncMstr (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Holy Tech.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Holy Tech.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lemmey (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC) --Lemmey (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:James Hughes.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:James Hughes.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

administrative duties

I happened to notice you wrote There is no unbiased justification for the removal of Berlet's book as a source for this statement. Is Wikipedia administrator going to intervene to put an end to these abuses?

Administrators don't babysit. Removal of content should be explained in cases where it is not clear. If someone removed an important aspect of an article, your options are:

  • If there was no explanation, revert the removal.
  • If there was an explanation, consider whether it seems proper. If not, ask the deleting editor whether it was a mistake.
  • If you disagree on the propriety, guess what? Discuss it and come to some agreement.
  • If that doesn't work, there is a whole hierarchy of agreement reaching mechanisms, beginning with WP:RFC. The whole sequence is detailed in WP:DISPUTE. Notice that administrators are not involved in the decision process. Only enforcing any decisions—and keeping the playing field level. —EncMstr (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Holy Tech.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Image:Holy Tech.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Holy Tech.jpg|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. Lemmey talk 00:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of I-wear

I have nominated I-wear, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-wear. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Lemmey talk 01:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad fair use of Image:Holy Tech.jpg

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Holy Tech.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Holy Tech.jpg is an image with a clearly invalid fair use tag; or it is an image that fails some part of the non-free content criteria and the uploader has been given 48 hours' notification (for images uploaded after 2006-07-13) or seven days' notification (for images uploaded before that date). (CSD I7).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Holy Tech.jpg, 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 contact the bot operator 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Posthuman Future.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Posthuman Future.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lemmey (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC) --Lemmey (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Posthuman Future.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Posthuman Future.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mosmof (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Posthuman Future.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Posthuman Future.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Lemmey talk 02:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Posthuman Future.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Posthuman Future.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lemmey talk 03:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC) --Lemmey talk 03:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Posthuman

Hi Loremaster. I'm not the greatest authority on our NFCC policies, but here's my thoughts: using non-free pictures is pretty much only acceptable if you're using them to illustrate commentary on the item in question. (Ie, movie posters or book covers are only okay for an article on that book or movie). While I think it's a great picture, I can't think of a fair use rational that would let it be used in Transhumanism. It might be ok if it were in an article where you were critically discussing the original article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, but it doesn't look like any of it's current usages meet that requirement. Sorry. Have you tried looking on commons or flickr for free media that would be somewhat close (or at least acceptable?) Best, --Bfigura (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Anderson (Priory of Sion)

Using Stephen Anderson as a "reliable authority" is not a good idea, or anything at all from the http://www.perillos.com/ website, which is totally unreliable. Anderson's involved with 'The Rennes Group', which mystifies anything to do with the PoS and Berenger Sauniere, and the perillos website is a vehicle for Andre Douzet, promoting his take on the "mystery", and the articles there by various people are completely unreliable as they have all been written with the agenda of hyping-up the "mystery" of "Sauniere" linking it with the village of Perillos (there is no link), and promoting Plantard as a possible credible Grand Master of French esoteric history. This latest article on Plantard, http://www.perillos.com/pos1_4.html serves as an example of the way how they embrace long discredited allegations about him. Plantard's choice of "WAY" for pseudonym during the late 1950s had nothing to do with the "World Assembly of Youth", the original 'Le Monde' articles suggest that it was linked to his contact telephone number which in those days corresponded on old-type rotary dialling-systems with letters of the alphabet. Of course, Plantard had more than three numbers and the rest of them corresponded to another word. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The latest from perillos.com

http://www.perillos.com/rahn.html

A typical example of 1000 jigsaw pieces belonging to 1000 different puzzles, but not to the same puzzle. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about "cult of personality and cult of intelligence" in relation to Plantard's activities. Where's the evidence for that? His PoS was a vehicle for his claim that he was the descendant of Dagobert II, nothing more. Wfgh66 (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[...] By the way, there are many things in this article about Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion that is nothing more than logical speculation and opinion. But, as long as we provide good sources for this logical speculation/opinion, there is nothing wrong with it being included in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Stephen Anderson seriously believes in the version of the PoS that is given in HBHG. He's an American mental health counsellor who heard about the existence of HBHG through one of his patients and he's been hooked on it ever since. Here's an extreme example! Wfgh66 (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Steven Mizrach

Same thing applies to Steven Mizrach Wfgh66 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Concern about another user

If you feel like another user is harassing you, post a description of the problem at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources for the Priory of Sion article

Citing sources for the Priory of Sion article

Can you start standardizing the citation of sources for the Priory of Sion article according to the Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines as soon as possible? --Loremaster (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a list? Wfgh66 (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Loremaster, can you chime in on the various problems currently present on PoS, especially the issue about the symbol where Wfgh sees something I don't see and where I think a source is needed. Str1977 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Find another example of the Fleur-de-Lys as used by the 1956 PoS. I for one would be extremely interested in seeing a parallel example. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Loremaster, this is the kind of nonsensical request that Wfgh thinks required. I have explained to him that
  • since HE makes a posistive claim (that the PoS symbol combined the Fleur with the Aquarius), HE must provide the evidence.
  • that I do not dispute that the PoS symbol is special and hence am not required to provide evidence for something I do not hold, let alone want to insert into the article.
For some reason he doesn't seem able to grasp these basic principles. Str1977 (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the original caption to the image. However, the symbol is not the usual version of the Fleur-de-Lys. It has an additional component. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I will post this part also on Wfgh's page:
Thanks for restoring the original caption for now. And again: I am not saying that the symbol is the usual. Please do not try to debate this with me as I do not disagree on this. Our disagreement lies with your positive claim about Aquarius. Str1977 (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the symbol conflict has died down by now so your intervention is not urgently needed. However, your take on this is still welcome. Cheers, Str1977 (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The symbol conflict only ever flared up in the first place because of those who are unable to understand. Wfgh66 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Muddled thinking, here:

Wfgh66 (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • "Plantard modelled his PoS on the ideas of Paul Le Cour, whose book "Age of Aquarius" served as a template." - Is this your research or do you have a reference to confirm this?
  • "For example, the Zodiac in 'Le Serpent Rouge' does not begin with Aries but with Aquarius." - Nice but irrelevant. We are talking about your claim about the symbol.
  • "Segments from 'Les Dossiers Secrets' contain paragraphs from "Age of Aquarius"." - Nice but irrelevant. We are talking about your claim about the symbol. The AoA is nothing special for such esoteric stuff.
  • "Le Cour is quoted in the first issue of Vaincre." - If that is so, it goes to show that Le Cour was important to PP, but still: where does it say that the symbold combined Aquarius with the Fleur?
  • "The article by Paul Le Cour that I quoted from above contains many themes that can be identified in Plantard's documents. And so on." - Yes, again, where is the source for the symbol thing?
  • "It was completely natural for Plantard to have utilised a logo for his PoS that was a stylised version of the Fleur-de-Lys and the sigil for Aquarius." - I don't disagree. But that still doesn't mean that he did it. We need a source.::Str1977

Alph

In the future, please be more careful when you edit articles currently at AfD. While the Alph AfD reached a conclusion by consensus(good!), I noticed that you had removed the AfD notice from the article when redirecting and unredirecting it. This may have been inadvertently, and has probably not influenced the discussion, but it is better practice to let the AfD header be for the duration of the discussion anyway. Fram (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Tribe of Benjamin

The Tribe of Benjamin was NOT of the Line of David. Not POV. Not OR. Just plain fact. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason why Plantard picked the Merovingians as being of the Tribe of Benjamin is because the Jerusalem Temple was built on Benjamitic ground. This explains the significance of Plantard "finding the Jewish treasure in RLC". Nothing at all to do with the Line of David or bloodline theory found in HBHG. Tribe of Benjamin = Sion = Priory of Sion myth. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Treasure of Jerusalem

Hold on, Plantard did not claim to have discovered the Jerusalem Treasure until AFTER the publication of HBHG. Is there any reference in HBHG to Plantard having found the Jerusalem treasure in that book that you can use as a citation? Wfgh66 (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you really serious? Deleting this from Priory of Sion

Pierre Plantard claimed that the Merovingians were descended from the Tribe of Benjamin. The Jerusalem Temple was built on Benjamitic ground, arguably explaining why the treasure of Jerusalem was so important to Pierre Plantard, also fitting in with the mythology of his Priory of Sion. Claiming that the Merovingians were descended from the Tribe of Benjamin contradicts the Jesus bloodline theory found in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail since the Line of David was associated with the Tribe of Judah, not Benjamin.

Wfgh66 (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A mimimum requirement must be emphasised that the Tribe of Benjamin was not associated with the Line of David, but the Tribe of Judah. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There you go again, illustrating my earlier point, behaving as if the Wikipedia Priory of Sion article was YOUR article.Wfgh66 (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean that you should have sole control of the article?

Wfgh66 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Suzanne Olsson

Suzanne Olsson mentioned by her colleague Fida Hassnain as the descendant of Christ not good enough? Olsson was dragged into an anti-Kathleen McGowan thread on a discussion list not long ago presented as the authentic descendant of Jesus against McGowan not long ago. And Olsson has been arguing that McGowan stole her limelight for ages. Removing the name of Olsson from the Claimants List is a joke. It would be interesting to see, however, if Olsson has suddenly stopped making this claim. But in future please do not make deletions about subject matters you know nothing about. Thank you.Wfgh66 (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Interaction w/ new users

loremaster....

i find it unfortunate that you undid those edits before talking with me, or even just waiting a bit.

In the first case, yes, I wrote without citing sources in many (perhaps all?) places. I have recently begun writing in wikipedia and my pattern has been to see a need, fill it, make a note to myself, and then return later with sources. In fact, nothing that I wrote is not common knowledge amongst those who participate in discussions such as inclusion/removal of GID from the DSM, for instance, and sources are readily available - tho' as I have already admitted, were not yet included in my edits.

Perhaps this is against the spirit of wikipedia, tho' i certainly do wish to create a resource of unparalleled - and reliable- thinking...not merely a long list of arguments between users.


In this I think we are very much in agreement.

However, it seems that there is much in the article that is unsourced and has been unsourced for quite some time - perhaps always, if the history is any indication.

I find that the neutrality of the article is also, sadly, lacking. There is a deep bias towards, amongst other things, queer theory, post-modernism, a conflation of gender and sex, and the erasure of transsexual perspectives in the search for a common 'trans' perspective.

Shall I, then, erase those sections?

Or perhaps, as wiki generally would like, should I challenge them, leave the challenge up for some decent period of time, and then - if no response is forthcoming from those who wrote or endorse such sections/statements - abide by the policy that is just as important as citing sources and delete those words at the wiki-endorsed process?

Loremaster, I leave to you the answer of how these last two questions should be answered, for I am but a novice here, and you, well... Your screen name says it all, does it not?

I will be unlikely to read your reply here. If you wish to have me read something - a very mild apology for just a touch of hastiness with a new user, perhaps? Or indeed information & advice for such a user. Or anything else that comes to mind - please feel free to post (or copy) what you write to my own user page.

Cripdyke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cripdyke (talkcontribs) 14:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


wow....

i just looked at the transgenderism article whose edits elicited such a rapid and unnuanced response from you, loremaster. The rationale for reversal being lack of citation, I would check that article again. There is almost nothing in the article save the section on Martine Rothblatt and the intro to the post-genderism section which in any way cites sources (as opposed to simply linking to other articles about certain terms, which is distinctly different as, no matter how well sourced they are, would not provide the rationale for linking such terms to the subject matter of the transgenderism article).

I mean, I thought you were a little fast on the draw, but now I am frankly dizzy.

I support citing sources and creating a great resource, but I have to wonder if there wasn't something else going on, especially since there are clear procedures for challenging unsourced stuff.

I have no desire to pick a fight with you, and I hope you hear the friendly tone in my voice as I write my comments (both previous and current), but I really am bewildered.

Here's hoping that we can all be friendly, play by the rules, and create a wonderful encyclopedia together. It might be even better if we be especially helpful to the newbies, but that is not to say I do not wish to be accountable for my posts in an adult way.

See ya round the 'net, and, um, really - there should be some sources in that article. I doubt not that the info in transgenderism is generally accurate, but i myself have rarely heard it used outside of the sense: "n. the state of being a transgender person" and the article certainly does not communicate to most users that this is the likely sense in which they are encountering the word if they come to wiki for info on an unfamiliar term they've just read.

so long...and like i said, if you would like me to read a response, feel free to put it on my talk page.

cripdyke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cripdyke (talkcontribs) 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi. If you're going to make so many edits in a row on e.g. Transhumanism, would you mind using edit summaries, or at least marking minor changes as minor? Thanks, ~~ N (t/c) 20:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Summaries/minor

Again, would you terribly mind using edit summaries and/or marking minor edits as minor? ~~ N (t/c) 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Suzanne Olsson

Does Suzanne Olsson here claim to be the descendant of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene? http://web.archive.org/web/20060618031440/jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/GeneaologyA.html Wfgh66 (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Communist/Marxist

Just curious, do you know precisely which term is used in the cited material? It can very easily be argued that there are distinctions between the two, and that modern (ie: "governments that have actually existed in the real world") drift away from original Marxist thought in both practice and theory. A very tiny issue, but a curiosity at any rate. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Knights Templar and popular culture

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Knights Templar and popular culture, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights Templar and popular culture (2nd nomination). 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? NickPenguin(contribs) 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion copyedit

I'll see what I can do over the next week or so. That's the best I can promise right now, so if you are looking for quicker work, I apologize. I squeeze copyediting into the small spaces in my real life (which isn't always the best way to copyedit). I also assume you are looking to nominate this article, and while I'm a crack proofreader, I don't know if my criticisms will be as "editorial" as might be needed. I'll give it a shot. SlackerMom (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

comments on other editors

This approached a personal attack, in that it comments on what you take to be an editor's lack of comprehension ability. Comments like this, however carefully worded, only stir up un-needed disagreements. Please comment only on edits, not what you think about another editor, thanks. If you think something is self-evident, provide a source as evidence. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cult of intelligence

Ambox warning orange.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cult of intelligence, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

wlinks

I'd rather you didn't re-factor Talk:Jesus bloodline. Moreover, I truly have a worry about another editor adding wlinks to a post of mine, since this could mislead editors into thinking I refactored the page. Could you please restore the talk page to its unfactored state? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Article

Hello. You would be interested in participating in the peer review of the Priory of Sion article? --Loremaster (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Royalhistorian (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your spamming

Even though it is not to promote anything, it is still annoying to receive a message that has been spammed across hundreds of user pages, there are other ways to get people to notice an article, please stop. Thank you. The DominatorTalkEdits 14:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Loremaster, you should post stuff like that to either WP:Village pump or a topic category project page. Please have a look at WP:Canvas, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence

re: You: Hello. I'm contacting you and other members of WikiProject Books in order to find if you are interested in collaborating to expand and improve The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence article to make it worthy of becoming a featured article candidate, in light of the fact that it is the first book the U.S. government ever went to court to censor before its publication. --Loremaster (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Me!: Thanks, but no thanks. GA and FA articles take too much politicking! No time, for such, nor other timesinking chit-chats here, and in this case, haven't read it. But thanks for the e-spam! Good luck! // FrankB 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence

Sounds like a good candidate for a FA. I don't have the time to actively assist, but will help with the copy editing phase as I can. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

New Age Gnosticism and the Gnosticism of Historical Reality

Well, Well, Well, Ben Witherington II was describing those who accepted the fringe theory of the Jesus Bloodline and those who accepted the NEW "FACT" that Gnostics "believed in a mortal AND HUMAN BEING Jesus" as New Age Gnostics. The Gnostics of historical reality of over a millennia ago (and the Medieval Manichees and Cathars) did not believe in such things because they were dualists and rejected the physical substance of Christ because they viewed matter as Evil. The Gnostic Bridal Chamber involved not procreation and reproduction but the merging together of the opposite sexes in order to regenerate the original and Prototype hermaphrodite being that was going to be returned to Eden and Paradise: the rectification of the Fall of Adam. This is the total opposite of the Jesus Bloodline. Read The Gospel of Philip. It's all there about the Gnostics' return to Paradise and the creation of Prototype Man as originally created by God and the termination of Evil and Matter. And the Gospel of Philip depicts Mary Magdalene as the personification of Fallen Wisdom and as being barren in nature. Just before the part where the kissing is described. So if the Jesus Christ of the Gospel of Philip did impregnate the Mary Magdalene of the Gospel of Philip it would not have yielded much of a result, bearing in mind the nature of barren metaphysical beings that are being described in that particular "gospel".Wfgh66 (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Multi-revised

What is 'multi-revised' mean when you use the term? Doug Weller (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Additions to existing messages that make the replies below those messages nonsensical. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus bloodline

You really take this bunkum rubbish seriously to a preposterous extent. The whole thing is rubbish and you are wasting your time on taking serious consideration with a subject matter that falls into the category of WP:Fringe. Belief in the Jesus bloodline is like believing in Flying Saucers, the Loch Ness Monster, Crystal Skulls, Atlantis, Larmenius Charter of Transmission, Cottingley Fairies, Bermuda Triangle. ETC, ETC, ETC. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why a Jewish Bloodline should be taken seriously just like there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why Christianity was turned into the State Religion of the Roman Empire in the first place if only for Constantine's reliance on Christians to defeat his enemy (Maxentius). Wfgh66 (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Bloodline Spam

You really take this bunkum rubbish seriously to a preposterous extent. The whole thing is rubbish and you are wasting your time on taking serious consideration with a subject matter that falls into the category of WP:Fringe. Belief in the Jesus bloodline is like believing in Flying Saucers, the Loch Ness Monster, Crystal Skulls, Atlantis, Larmenius Charter of Transmission, Cottingley Fairies, Bermuda Triangle. ETC, ETC, ETC. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why a Jewish Bloodline should be taken seriously just like there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why Christianity was turned into the State Religion of the Roman Empire in the first place if only for Constantine's reliance on Christians to defeat his enemy (Maxentius). Wfgh66 (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox

User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox, 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/User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:H+ Cover 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:H+ Cover 1.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Creation of a New Adam.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Creation of a New Adam.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Anti-Aging.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Anti-Aging.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Necronaut

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Necronaut, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Spiesr (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

NWO and Freemasonry

I am tied up with other things right now... don't know when I will have time to attend to your edits... but at a first glance they look OK. I will problably have a bit more to add eventually... but for now, it looks like you are doing fine without my input. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: ce request

That's fine. Generally speaking, any featured article which references The New York Times without a page number is going to be fiddled to death. I'll go over Priory of Sion properly when I have some time next weekend. Ottre 20:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Designer baby

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Loremaster. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Future of Human Evolution

Hello, I tried to add this link Future of Human Evolution to the posthuman wikipedia page but it was removed few hours later , I am just wondering what is wrong ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4ata (talkcontribs) 13:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, with regards to this site, there have been a series of single-purpose accounts created exclusively to add links to it. At this point, it should be considered spam unless you see some value to it. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Transhumanism Talk

Might I suggest that you archive the old discussions rather than remove them? It makes it easier to reference new editors to material already covered, and is also somewhat of a matter of "full disclosure" on the pages. Can be done easily enough by just copying the material from the previous page version and then adding the link to the archive page. The talk page was more than a little long, that's for sure. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that then in the list of changes. My bad on that. And considering your comment, I have to assume that you're on your phone editing again? :P --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Noticeboard

I just thought you might like to know that you're being quoted on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. [15] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! "Wowest" is a very clever conspiracy theorist. Although I have a few corrections to the quote, I prefer not get involved in this debate unless my words are completely twisted to argue the opposite of what I meant. But thanks for letting me know. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, it's probably best if you don't get involved. BTW, unless you have any objections, I moved this discussion (which I think is done) to your page so it's not duplicated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ebionite Jewish Community

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Ebionite Jewish Community, 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/Ebionite Jewish Community (2nd nomination). 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. Vassyana (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Fringe

Hello... pending reference or not, the text is still problematic as it sounds like fan speculation (which is not really our domain). In order for the material to be encyclopaedic, it needs to be sourced from the producers as a real homage. However, since you're looking for a source, I've compromised and left the text in the article, but commented it out so that it does not display to readers. If you find a source, you just need to remove the code surrounding the text and it will reappear. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 06:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a source... however, having reviewed the article, the text has a certain "is this really noteworthy" feel to it. First off, how do we know the writer is a professional critic? He is only listed as a "contributing writer", which could mean anything. Second, the writer isn't particularly emphatic about the claim, using vague phrasing such as "It reminded me" and "Was this an homage". All in all, I'd prefer to see something more definitive, otherwise it may not warrant inclusion. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 07:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

NWO (conspriacy theory) re-protected

Until mid June... I fully expect the vandalism to return at that time, but we can deal with it when it happens. It may be that we will eventually be able to make a case for a permanent semi-protect... but to do that we will need to show the folks at the protection request page that the IP vandalism is a contistant problem that will not go away. To do that we will need to endure multiple cycles of vadalism and protection. Keep up the good work. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

EJC VfM

Now that the vote on the Ebionite Jewish Community AfD has been resolved in favor of a merge, I just wanted you to know that I support your efforts to merge the content back into the Ebionites article. I will not touch that article, except to fix cases of vandalism or free advertising by fringe groups, for reasons we discussed long ago. However, if you need help tracking down sources let me know. If you should find your efforts hindered by a certain pugnacious troll, John Carter is now an admin and may be able to help. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Contact (film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MASEM (t) 23:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group

I don't know if this interests you or not, but it could use attention. There are some related articles about conspiracy authors specialising in it and the List of Bilderberg attendees. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Contact (film) censor thingy

Sorry, I meant for that to be the other way around. I thought User:71.110.1.40 did that, so I reverted it. It was all backwards, the other way around. Thanks for fixing it. Wildroot (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Dear Loremaster,

I have noticed that you often archive fresh threads on article talk pages. Please familiarize yourself with Help:Archiving_a_talk_page before doing it again.

Thank you.

212.200.240.171 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dangerous Ideas article

Speedy deletion nomination of of The World's Most Dangerous Ideas

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on The World's Most Dangerous Ideas, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

as per the discussion on the talk page, the creator of the article now appears comfortable with the way this stub has been merged into the Foreign Policy article --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you had merged the article - another editor had reviewed the talk page and marked it for deletion, and when I read the discussion, I came to the same conclusion he had. If you need the content of the deleted article, I can restore the last revision for you. Sorry about that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Biofascism

The article Biofascism which you PRODed, was deprodded by DGG (talk · contribs), so FYI I instead did an AfD under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biofascism. (A lot of acronyms today...) Tomas e (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

2009-08 New World Order (conspiracy theory)

Please avoid frequent minor change in an article. 89.2.241.2 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Your reverse of my minor edit in Transhumanism (History)

You reversed my minor edit

Cryonics organizations such as the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, the American Cryonics Society, the Cryonics Institute, the Immortalist Society, and Trans Time, organized and sponsored research, advocated for and performed cryonic suspensions and published material advocating for a transhuman world view. These organizations became centers for futurists sponsoring seminars, publishing magazines, doing media PR, and providing spokespersons.

The replaced text was/is

As the first non-profit organization to research, advocate for, and perform cryonics, the Southern California offices of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation became a center for futurists.

You made a note

Can someone cite a reliable source for all of this? --Loremaster (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess my first question is, what is the "reliable source" for the original text? Why is Alcor apparently given special treatment? Note that the American Cryonics Society (my organization) and the other organizations added (except for Trans Time) have their own Wikipedia sections. It's not my place to write an article about Trans Time, but they have their own website at http://www.transtime.com/. Aren't those sufficiently "reliable" for the very brief mention in my edit?

If not, tell me what would satisfy you, and we'll try to come up with additional source material.

American Cryonics Society (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

New world order proposed move

I've relisted the move proposal for New world order at Talk:New world order#Requested move. Sorry for the inconvenience, but please recast your !vote (if desired) under the relisted request. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Priory of Sion

FYI, I did I little formatting on your fine Priory of Sion article, mostly in regards to section headings (per Dysprosia's comment) and numbering. I also did some work on the Rennes-le-Château and Bérenger Saunière articles, in case you're interested. Gwimpey 19:04, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Paul Smith hacked at Bérenger Saunière by completely replacing the text, then blanked my user page and told me I needed to do some more reading. Apparently, he didn't like the way I described the Priory hoax. I'm trying to incorporate his edits back into my article with some language improvements. You might want to keep an eye on all the Priory pages. Gwimpey 01:37, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Templars

That was a great change you made to what I wrong on Knights Templar. I agree with it totally, thanks!

Wgfinley 16:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Templar Revelation

Since you've done such good work on Priory of Sion and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, I thought I'd ask if you can add anything to the The Templar Revelation article. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would love to but I haven't read the book so I can't contribute much to the article. Loremaster 15:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neurotheology: Protoscience

Thank you for correcting this[16], protoscience is more correct. --AI 20:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Templar page

Thanks for the revisions Loremaster - that really cleaned up that page. I'll work on my re-write of the history in Jan, and post it on the talk page for approval. Like your quote, by the way - Sneakers, isn't it?DonaNobisPacem 23:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to reading your re-write. Oh yes that quote is from the film Sneakers. ;) Loremaster 00:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
User 166.66.16.116 is constantly trying POV editing on the page, and refuses to go to the talk page - is there anything to do, other than constantly revert? I mean, you should check out the history there! He's taken his editing to other pages as well, mostly with conspiracy theories and the like.....DonaNobisPacem 07:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, if this user decides to undo all the work I have done, we would have to trigger the dispute procedure. However, since he seems to only focus on external links for now, we can let him be as long as the section isn't overwhelmed with Templar-Masonic links. Loremaster 21:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
So by the comments on the Templar page, it appears user 166.66.16.116 is really BlueTemplar13 - that's quite a rant against the Church he has going there! It doesn't have much to do with the article, it seems to be a bit more personal than that - I think I'm just going to let it go....DonaNobisPacem 06:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Apparently I am not liked....User_talk:DonaNobisPacem#Templar.....which is really funny, considering I haven't been around to revert his edits lately! DonaNobisPacem 20:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I think our crusading BlueTemplar will be neutralized sooner rather than later. --Loremaster 22:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanism

You're doing great work there. This article is getting better and better. Metamagician3000 02:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. So are you. Someone should work on the Human enhancement article. --Loremaster 02:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
There's already a useful article called Human genetic engineering, which you may have seen. I've done some work on it and think it is pretty good in its current form. It doesn't cover the entirety of what could be called "human enhancement" but it's doing some of the job. I don't have time now, but it would make sense to grab some of the material in that article as the core of a human enhancement article. It would be necessary to cross-link them and to explain that the expression "human enhancement" could cover a variety of technologies that could be used to increase human capacities - whether prosthetic, neurological, or whatever - as well as genetic technology. Metamagician3000 05:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I created a stub article for Human enhancement. --Loremaster 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I had seen the notice of Main Page status for Transhumanism as well. You should be quite gratified as the author with the most substantial contributions to the article.--StN 01:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I also want to congratulate and thank you (and others too, but as stated above you've been a central person) for your work on this and related articles. Well done! ...And sorry that i've wikifaded and not recognized you sooner. "alyosha" (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Threats to morality and democracy" doesn't sound like my wording. I think it was yours. In any case, I think "freedom," an existential concept, might be better than "democracy," a political one, when contemplating the prospect of a Brave New World.StN (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Transhumanism

Thank you for your corrections of my edits on Democratic Transhumanism. I actually agree with your assessment of the situation. See the talk page of that article for more. --Danaman5 23:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Great job on the article, it looks great now. See the talk there for more. --Danaman5 18:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

talk page slog out & apologies

Hi, now that I've regained my senses I realize I ve been a bit of an asshole on the Transhumanist talk page. I hope you will accept my apologies for being less than cordial.--Isolani 00:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. --Loremaster 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Priory help?

Hey bro,

I just wrote a note on the Priory of Sion talk page about an inconsistency in the article I was hoping you would know how to address. I can take a shot in the dark but would prefer a more informed ruling.

By the way, I really like the bit on your user page about being a world citizen. It rings true. Thanks and peace,

CaliforniaKid 06:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Done and thank you. --Loremaster 16:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Biopunk movement

Thanks for the lead. I have now read the Newitz pieces, but it will take me a little time to decide how I would like to approach this.--StN 02:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Take your time. I know you will do a good job. ;) --Loremaster 02:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Desposyni

Revised and expanded your worthy article and would love to see what you make of it. Maybe if it is improved sufficently we can get it peer reviewed or as a featured article? Cheers, Fergananim 22:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Great work. Since I am too busy working on other projects, I am happy to see someone improving it. --Loremaster 04:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Roboticist

Thanks for the save on the Frankenstein complex article ... I have GOT to stop searching for just the plurals ... I'd left it that way hoping someone would add an article, but I guess I was just lazy and didn't search hard enough. :-)

Good work on Citizen Cyborg

(-: Procrastinating@talk2me 10:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

My edit of GATTACA was the first I have made in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how I dropped the link on the word "invalid," but I'm glad you caught it and repaired it.

-Leo

See also

See also are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and see also, which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Piotrus. --Loremaster 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Simulated reality

Thanks for the note. Good to know people are actually out there. I enjoyed your article on Transhumanism.

Keep up the good work!

-Lord Volton, III, of House Florian.

Knights Templar

Hiya, I'm getting the ball rolling on a push towards FA status on the Knights Templar article. Steps will be:

  • Requesting a review of its status from the Military History WikiProject (I submitted this one a few minutes ago)
  • Peer Review
  • Good Article nomination
  • (assuming the above go well) Featured Article nomination

Interested in working together again? :) --Elonka 09:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to take a crack at it on Monday. :) --Loremaster 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hiya, if you have time, could you pop in to the talk page? We're running into some POV questions, and I'd really appreciate a third opinion, from someone else who's familiar with the article's history. :) --Elonka 23:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Knights Templar is now officially at featured status, congratulations! I know that for the last part of the push, you haven't been able to help as much as you would have liked, but please rest assured that I have the utmost respect for your previous significant contributions to this article. You deserve to put the Featured article star on your userpage. :) --Elonka 15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for starting my user page!

Hi, Loremaster, I just want to say thanks for starting my user page. That was a pleasant surprise, and it was interesting to see yet another aspect of the behind-the-scenes efforts here. --Rich Janis 13:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Martine Rothblatt

Loremaster, great work on Martine_Rothblatt's article! Rothblatt commented over at the Immortality Institute forums about her views of Transbemanism if interested. Btw, I'm hoping to create an article on Ben Goertzel another transhumanist who recently delivered a Google TechTalk. If you'd like to collaborate, please email me at (support(@)agiri.org) for my latest draft. Regardless, I'd really appreciate your feedback on what I have thus far. 71.198.59.176 10:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Disability, Genetic Politics and Reproductive Technology

Dear Loremaster,

I am a PhD student at the University of Sheffield, conducting ESRC funded research into 'disability, genetic politics and reproductive technology'. I see that you are a regular contributor to the articles on transhumanism and human enhancement and I wondered if you'd like to take part in my research project? I believe you'll be able to make a valuable contribution. Before you decide, you should be aware of what this involves. I want to email you with a few simple questions on the topics of the research. These emailed questions will be sent in stages, over a period of weeks, and all of the identifying information you provide will be treated with confidentiality. The research findings will be disseminated amongst stake holders in the field and I would be happy to share these findings with you prior to any publications. If you are interested, you will find my contact details on my userpage. Feel free to get in touch should you have any questions. Your valuable contribution would be much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Nicholas 17:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Loremaster, I'll be sure to contact Dr Hughes. Like you, I'll be away from the computer for a couple of days, until Monday. So there's no rush with regards to your potential participation. Thanks for your time. Nicholas 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Loremaster, I hope everything is well with you. I would like to invite you to take part in a "research wiki". This is the second stage in the data collection process for my research project. The "research wiki" will be used because I'm interested to see how differing attitudes to the subject interact with each other, and I want to evaluate the potential for consensus in this area. I think the wiki is extremely useful in this context. It involves collaboration and sharing ideas amongst a group, and therefore it could help shed a light on especially contentious issues or areas of potential agreement. For further information please see this link. Best wishes --Nicholas 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Spanish version

Hi Loremaster. I am a user of the english and mostly spanish wikis. As you may have noticed the article on transhumanism has been promoted to FA status in the es:wp. I have taken part in this process as i have written-translated most of the article and secondary articles on several Transhumanist thinkers and concepts. For doing this I have based myself largely in articles written by you. I dont know if you understand spanish, but i would like to share views on the differences between the two versions with the aim of improving both. Best Regards.--Varano 13:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Purple Star
In recognition of the insults and other damage you received. As I think we all know by now, there is occasionally a price to be paid for acting with integrity. Thank you for having done so, despite the difficulties involved. John Carter 17:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


There are now evidently some results available regarding a related matter here. Thought you might like to know. Oh, yes, and on a completely unrelated matter, I have this seemingly random list of pages I would welcome your perhaps looking over, if you are so inclined. Joses, James the Just, John the Baptist, Pauline Christianity, Nazarene (sect), James Tabor, Robert Eisenman, Herod the Great, Essenes, Gospel of the Ebionites, Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera, Clopas, Mandaeism, Historicity of Jesus. There's no real rush on any of those, of course. Thanks again for all your efforts. John Carter 17:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Gattaca -- reactions

In response to your query, yes, I think the reactions section of the Gattaca article is quite a bit more balanced now. I made a couple of tiny wording mods to it, but I have no objection to how it now stands. atakdoug (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

wta-talk

Thought i'd share with you this ms i just posted to wta-talk (if you're not already on it). I thought about posting it to the article talk, but for now here feels better.

>>>>>>>> By coincidence, i finally got down my to-do list to an item i wanted to contribute to the WP transhumanism article. Meanwhile, there's all this negativity about the article (which is one thing, tho i disagree), and talk of scamming the system to force changes. That is disturbing to me. I agree with others that it's the low road. Thus it will not reflect well on WTA/>H. It also violates common respect for others and WP, and WP policies. And so it ultimately will not work, incl due to the resistance of WP editors, incl myself. With sincere respect and IMHO, some folks might want to consider the following:

  • The article isn't that bad. Appreciate a good (enough) thing when it comes your way.
  • There's plenty of opportunity to work on the article, *and fight fair if you need to*.
  • To back up: learn how WP works. (Some are familiar with this, but some seem not to be.)
  • WP is not the place to expect your personal/particular/favorite view of >H to be expressed -- it's going to be the sloppy semi-consensus of those who have worked recently and effectively on the article.
  • Ditto re promoting >H or putting it in what you see as a positive light. WP is for a more neutral presentation. (See my first listed point.) We have our own media and means for promotion.

I'm not going to debate the details, or how good the article is, etc. I'd rather lurk these days, but i felt i had to say something about the scamming part.

Peace, alyosha <<<<<<<<<<

Support to you in keeping...hmm...what i'll call a protective but non-ownership even keel thru all this. "alyosha" (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And I responded to yours. Please do not turn this into an edit war. I was about to integrate a few things as explained on my talk page message but you simply blank reverted. I will nonetheless proceed with my intended edits.

And after that I will also voice my opinion on the citations. Please be patient. Content is more important than form. Str1977 (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sic NVM

That was a good catch/addition, seeing as how I'm sure someone would have been confused (legitimately or deliberately) without the name addition. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus bloodline

Wow! I'm too busy to edit for awhile and some good work gets done while I am gone! Good work!!! Wednesday Next (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Loremaster, due to the continued edits to this article, I'd prefer to wait a bit before another copyedit to be sure it's stable. I'll keep an eye on it, but feel free to remind me. SlackerMom (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't have the time or energy to join the fray over this article, but my observation is that you are working very hard to do a good job on it and to keep it NPOV and balanced. I really can't figure out why your adversary is being so difficult, and you certainly haven't remotely done anything against Wikipedia policy that I can see. I just thought you could use a word of encouragement. SlackerMom (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation of 6/24

I have been on a Wikibreak, since starting work at NewsTrust.net. I checked out the article in question, but did not have anything to add, as despite my interest in politics, I tend towards reading poetry and fiction. If i come across anything or have any spare time, though, I'll keep your project in mind. Cheers, --Beth Wellington (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check#Tile_join. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I never would have guessed that Wfgh66 was such a major puppetmaster. 532 sockpuppets!!!! Wednesday Next (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Although the number is stunning, I am not surprised in light of Wfgh66's fanaticism... --Loremaster (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, yes, it was primarily the number that stunned me as well. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, Paul Smith claims that he mostly uses a public computer so its possible and highly probable that the majority of these accounts belong to other people... --Loremaster (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, from reading around about the issues, it appears that checkuser showed that both he and the puppetmaster edit from multiple public sites and they happen to frequently edit from the same sites at the same time. If there were only one public site involved and he sometimes was at the same place at the same time, I'd believe it might be a case of mistaken identity. But apparently they have a pattern of moving around between sites together. That doesn't seem very likely to me... Wednesday Next (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting information about the date of usage of the word, "transhumanism"

I'm not particularly interested in creating an account at this time, but I thought you might like to know that the information regarding the first known use of the word, "transhumanism," in the introduction of the Transhumanism article does not match its source (2b). I would assume that it is a typo, but I stumbled upon the article coming from the page about Olaf Stapledon. That article lists the first appearance of the word as 1966, but a brief text search of the source reveals no mention of the word transhuman or the year 1966 except the date on quarterly or whatever it was.

I thought I would post this here so as not to muck up an article you have taken so much interest in. Hopefully, we won't be hearing about any high school essays with an incorrect date for the appearance of the word, "transhumanism." I hope this note is helpful to you and not too out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.61.162 (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Re your message on User talk:Wednesday Next

Just a courtesy note since it seems you are unaware: this editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Ekajati. ColdmachineTalk 21:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Loremaster. You have new messages at Coldmachine's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Personal Attack

Hi there, just wanted to point out that I reverted a personal attack on your page (I won't leave the edit link in case you don't want to know) from a certain User:Lunar eclipse17. --RazorICE 08:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Appeal

I appealed against my ban - and so the Wikipedia User ID Wfgh66 got deleted and so the indefinite ban with it. Lunar eclipse17 (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tile join. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Please drop me a note if you see any more. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

JesusSeminar

Hi, I would be interested to know your view on this (Talk:Jesus_Seminar#Handling_theological_affiliations.2Fpredilictions_in_a_balanced_way) comment and my brief response. Springnuts (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of page

Thanks for redirecting the page Abundance (economics)‎ to post scarcity... much better. I redirected there also Abundance (Technocracy). The Abundance (Technocracy) article was probably misnamed originally... and the redirect brings that title to information concerning the subject directly. skip sievert (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Creation of a New Adam.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Creation of a New Adam.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Morpheus and the Pills.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Morpheus and the Pills.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NWO critique

I will take a look at it, but may not have much to add... My area of knowledge about the various NWO theory is somewhat limited to the claims made about Freemasonry and the Great Seal (and to a lesser degree the Illuminati claims). I don't really pay all that much attention to the rest of the claims (and, subsequently, I don't pay much attention to the critiques of these claims either). Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Designer baby

Hi... I'm always happy to help, but I'm surprised you're asking me for advice: you've been around this place a lot longer than I have! Cheers! --Rrburke(talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to go through the edit history to see how the problem measures up against Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection. If you decide to go ahead and file it at WP:RPP before I get the chance, please drop me a line so I don't duplicate your work. --Rrburke(talk) 18:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi again... were you aware the "e-mail me" link at the top of your user talk page actually emails User:Ed_g2s?:
  • [[Special:Emailuser/Ed_g2s|e-mail me]]
--Rrburke(talk) 18:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming you have noticed but the article was vandalized again at 20:03, 23 January 2009. I'm still confused as to why this article attracts so many vandals... --Loremaster (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed, but as regards page protection, the problem -- if you can call this is a problem -- is that the article's actually not being vandalized enough. Protection, which is typically temporary, tends to be reserved for high-volume vandalism, often from multiple sources. A lot of requests at WP:RPP are turned down because the articles are under-vandalized. The activity at Designer baby looks to me like nuisance-level vandalism that it's just up to users to keep on top of and revert. --Rrburke(talk) 01:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: email

I have not. Nice user page :) ed g2stalk 08:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

The other four candles are invisible

Five years? It's amazing how time flies, isn't it? I'm surprised I haven't run into you before. Anyway, I hope your Wiki-anniversary is rewarding and stress-free. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Quadell beat me again! Happy big 5, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User box

Thanks for adding a box on my page :) Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to thank you for taking my deletion nomination of Ebionite Jewish Community and discussion comments in good faith with such a positive attitude. If I could help you improve a religion article or help find sources, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. --Vassyana (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

World government

I hope you're not offended by my Reversion of your Reversion. I follow the 1 Reversion rule I've imposed on myself. I would love to discuss the issue with you on the Talk page. Please be open to my arguments. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

World government (disambiguation)

This has just been created - thought this might interest you - it might help resolves some concerns of yours, no? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks

Hi. I'm sorry for apparently upsetting you. You've acknowledged my WP:Good faith. Thank you for that. However, there are these characterizations about me which WP prohibits. I would appreciate it if you WP:Refactored them accordingly. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject/New World Order/Neutral lede

Hi. I'd like you to add your name to the list within the Wiki Project article above since I'm aware of your very strong interest in this subject. And I do sincerely desire to find common ground with you. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"I'm obviously using this email like I would suggestions in the peer review."

I think you may have forgotten to sign the above. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Batvette dares you to leave this here.

you know, rude and abrasive treatment of me is one thing. ownership of an article is another. however a consistent, willfully dishonest presentation of my views and statements, particularly the distraction of always claiming I personally attack you (while you in turn blatantly attack me) is probably the most juvenile behaviour I've encountered on the internet. Some people in this world place value in personal integrity, and their word, others do not. I fail to see what in our exchanges I did to initiate this but if all this is amusing to you I guess I can take comfort I've provided whatever bit of joy it provides in your daily routine. For my part I find it at least as much fun as a barrel of monkeys, and since they have been known to tear a man's testicles off or remove his face with one swipe, I find such a comparison rather fitting. Batvette (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Loremaster. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


Dear Loremaster, I am the IP who posted the following:

It seems the going off-line idea occured to many other editors in contact with Ludvikus, and if you look above, that has left some articles with too few editors. But anyway, Loremaster could leave the article to Ludvikus and Batvette for a period of time. Then the community could see if there is any improvement or not. 134.106.41.27 (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

To which you responded:

Putting aside that I'm always suspicious of anonymous comments on a talk page, leaving the New World Order (conspiracy theory) in the hands of a person who confesses to being ignorant of the subject and another person who has a political agenda would be a disaster! --Loremaster (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that both you and Ludvikus misread it. Ludvikus read it as an endorsement, while from the first sentence it should be obvious that I see a problem with editors fleeing articles because of him. The proposal was half-serious and half-sarcasm, knowing that you wouldn't possibly agree to it and having quite an idea where it would lead. If it came to it, the case would have been clear. Either way, no endorsement. 87.166.87.124 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

NWO (Conspiracy theory)

Taking this to your talkpage, as it veers off topic, but in response to your recent edit, there's no need to post to make a guess at a Batvette's intentions. Batvette's contributions are available for anyone to see, and no one needs reminding of that. In my experience, such comments just promote bickering, when we should instead be focused on improving the article.

On a related note, I did want to commend your efforts at changing your decorum with Ludvikus. I believe it greatly facilitated discussion. And your willingness to admit prior wrongdoing is rare and appreciated. Happy editing! -Verdatum (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pierre Plantard Wikipedia entry

Hi. My name is Stephen Anderson and I recently learned about some sort of discussion about attributing me as a source for the Wikipedia entry on Pierre Plantard. I'm the editor of the Observer, the Journal of the Rennes Group. I am assuming that the controversy involved the part about Pierre Plantard attempting to show himself to be the Great Monarch predicted by Nostradamus. I wrote about this in an article in the Observer, a version of which appears on-line as "Pierre Plantard: The Great Monarch" at http://www.perillos.com/plantard_monarch.html. If the question is whether Plantard used the pseudonym Chyren (one of the Nostradamian names for the Grand Monarch), that point has been mentioned in several works before me. However, if it is a matter of showing that M. Plantard made a concerted effort to interpret several Nostradamian prophecies as if they referred to him, and actively sought to fulfill others to cast himself as this Grand Monarch, then I am not aware that anyone else pointed this out before I have, and I would prefer that credit be given, unless it can be shown that others have been there before me. Wfgh66 sounds like Paul Smith to me, someone in the Rennes community who seems to believe that anyone who disagrees with him in the slightest is totally wrong. If you read the article, you will see that it is well-researched with appropriate references, and makes no unverifiable statements. The article itself cannot be considered "fringe", though it deals with one man's belief in a fringe subject, it is NOT the opinion of this author. (In other words, I obviously do not believe that M. Plantard was the Great Monarch, or that any real Great Monarch exists, which should be clear from reading the article.) I consider myself a skeptic, and I believe Mr. Smith is making assumptions based on some articles written several years ago when I was new to the field, the same of which could be said of him as well, he having once been a believer. Submitted for your consideration, Omicron360 (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Barkun

Thank you, my pleasure. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I've s-protected for a month in the first instance, and we can see how it goes after that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

um...

While I appreciate your addition to reptilians, it would be nice if you could provide a source for the information you just added, rather than ask other people to source it for you. Serendipodous 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

RFID

The commonly-used abbreviation for radio frequency identification is RFID, not R.F.I.D. Thanks. Wkp123 (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence

Looks interesting. Let me read through it over the weekend and go from there. Ravensfire (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Done. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Red-baiting

You have improperly removed the synthesis tag from the subject page. Please restore it until the dispute is resolved or I will be forced to request arbitration.I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bilderberg and Jesse Ventura

I thought you might be interested in this discussion. 78.49.80.209 (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good faith creation of user pages

I have no doubt at all that you are doing this in good faith, but I don't think it's a good idea. I raised the issue elsewhere to find out if I was alone, please see [17]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was already aware of that specific Wikipedia guideline concerning user pages when I started doing this a while back. Since I've done this so many times that I've lost count and I've never had any complaints from the users themselves, I still think it is a good idea.  ;) --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea. The red user page is a good marker for a new user that recentChanges patrollers look for. Please stop. –xenotalk 16:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
A good point. Yes, please stop. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Regarding your revert at Conspiracy theories: These may be state crimes, as you said in your edit summary, but the important aspect is that there have been conspiracy theories about these crimes. The source I have cited is not somehow randomly selected, it is a text that explicitly discusses conspiracy theories, written by mainstream university professors.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite how reliable your source may be, the point the majority of the reliable sources we are using for this article make is that the state crimes they list may be political/criminal "conspiracies" but they are not conspiracy theories unless it can be shown that people were being dismissed as conpiracy theorists for claiming that the U.S. government might have been engaged in these illegal/unethical acts until it was proven that these acts had actually been done. I suggest you read G. William Domhoff's essay There Are No Conspiracies. --Loremaster (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Domhoff consistently uses the term "conspiratorial view", not "conspiracy theory". Furthermore, the status of Domhoff's text is lower than that of the research paper I have referred to, as it is not explicitly addressed to an academic audience. We would need more sources to determine whether the preponderant academic view is that conspiracy theories need not be false or that conspiracy theories are necessarily false, and in case both viewpoint have substantial support, we would need to present both views on this issue. Whether the people have been dismissed as conspiracy theorists at the time is irrelevant for determining whether these are conspiracy theories.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Although Domhoff consistently uses the term "conspiratorial view", he is in fact refering to conspiracy theory. Furthermore, his text is a summary of arguments found in his book. --Loremaster (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Your arguments seem to be based on the definition of the term "conspiracy theory" as a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, as the article makes clear, the term almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning. Therefore, your list of CIA crimes may be conspiracies but they are not conspiracy theories. Do you understand? --Loremaster (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
"A neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy" is not the definition used by Sunstein and Vermeule. Also, this is not "my list of CIA crimes", but these are the examples that Sunstein and Vermeule are giving.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reptilians

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Reptilians. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -RadicalOneContact MeChase My Tail 23:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Loremaster. You have new messages at RadicalOne's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-RadicalOneContact MeChase My Tail 00:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My revert in Bilderberg Group

... was a mistake. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverts on O: The Oprah Magazine

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on O: The Oprah Magazine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. GregChant (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement

I see you have added criticism of the TPM by progressives to the article and thought maybe you'd be interested in criticism coming from a conservative, also highlighting the influence of conspiracism: http://www.newsweek.com/id/233331/page/1 Add it somewhere if you see fit.

Keep up the good work. 134.106.41.30 (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe

Hi! The section "Comparisons with other works" does not require any specific sources. It just points some common topics between Fringe and other Sci-Fi shows.Preslavk (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Actions

Dude you cannot simply remove a template edit just because you don't like it. It's supposed to be discussed by the community. You do not arbitrarily control the article. If you won't replace my fair edits then I will report your editing activity as unfair and biased. Bbltype 16:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbltype (talkcontribs)

Please do not violate wikipedia's living person's policy

Warning

Wikipedia has very clear rules about the biography of living person. They state Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. The material you cite is BOTH contentious and poorly sourced & does not meet wikipedia's standards for a reliable source or a notable source. Several editors have already reverted you but you insist on engaging in edit wars. I consider your behavior to be highly disruptive. If you want to attack a public figure do so under your own name and your own forum; you do not have the right to damage wikipedia's credibility by violating its rules and flouting the editors who object to you Dintonight (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to ANY Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: Neutral point of view (NPOV)Verifiability No original research

You were incorrect in implying that wikipedia biography rules only apply to biographies. They apply to any article where living people are mentioned.

Also the source you cite is NOT notable. Only a few hundred people read its wikipedia article a month. I don't care how good you think they are or how much you want to promote them, you do not have the right to damage wikipedia's credibility & ignore consensus to advance your agenda. Dintonight (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at O: The Oprah Magazine. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Loremaster (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I was restoring legitimate content to the O: The Oprah Magazine article that was being deleted due to what I considered is a misintepretation of Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons. I explained my reverts in edit summaries and constantly proposed resolving this dispute on the Talk:O: The Oprah Magazine page to no avail.

Decline reason:

That's all fine, but you still have obviously engaged in an edit war. I'm always puzzled when I see that a user repeatedly reverts somebody else and admonishes them not to edit war in their edit summary. It takes two to tango, it is simply not possible for only one user to edit war. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    • understand what you have been blocked for,
    • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    • will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Loremaster (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia since I understand why I've been blocked, I will seek page protection and/or pursue dispute resolution as opposed to edit warring, and I will only make useful contributions as the edits I made after the edit war began clearly prove.

Decline reason:

That is very wise; I have confidence that you will edit appropriately when your block expires. Since this is your third block for edit-warring, I'm somewhat concerned that you are copying the words expected of you without meaning them, and so I'm reluctant to unblock, but I look forward to being proved wrong. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Careful ...

Special:Contributions/132.208.165.75 seems fairly similar to you in pages edited and posting style. Given the timing, looks suspicious. This diff uses the phrase "my objection" to something that you've previously objected to. *shrug* No bother to me, but might want to just sit the 3 days out. 75.54.53.245 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Block extended to one week for block evasion using IPs. [18], etc. Tim Song (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 5 years. During this time, I have improved the quality of numerous articles. The fact that some of these articles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article demonstrates my knowledge and usual respect for Wikipedia guidelines and standards. I have been praised for my work by people from both sides of any given issue. The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to the O: The Oprah Magazine article (which I don't even have a great interest in) since I understand why I've been blocked, I will seek page protection and/or pursue dispute resolution as opposed to edit warring, and I will only make useful contributions as the edits I made after the edit war began clearly prove. However, my request to have this unnecessary block removed have been twiced declined when there are several articles I watch over that are under threat of vandalism or actually have been vandalized. As a commited Wikipedian, I have what I consider to be important work to do so it is the only reason why I've engaged in block evasion, which I of course know to be wrong. --Loremaster (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, I'll have to remember that. "Rules don't apply to me, I'm important!" Obviously, it doesn't matter, so enjoy! 75.54.53.245 (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I never said that. I was simply explaining my actions. By the way, we would all take your comments more seriously if you had the courage to make them while logged in a user account... --Loremaster (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
To 75.54.53.245 (talk); I share your hilarity at the situation. I'm just amazed that such a "my way or the highway" editor escaped notice for so long. --Michael C. Price talk 12:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Michael, in light of the fact that you were restriced to one revert per page per week because you engaged in sustained edit-warring in 2007, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. By the way, why are you even here? Are you still watching over my talk page after all these years waiting for a moment like this to display your lack of class by gloating?!? --Loremaster (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
And I wouldn't be so quick to bring up past indiscretions either, if I were in your position. But you never were very good at recognising your own faults. --Michael C. Price talk 00:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I've always been open about my own faults since I've apologized for them to some of my most bitter opponents on Wikipedia many times. With that said, get off my lawn. --Loremaster (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Extended to 2 weeks for evading your block again. [19] I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole here. Your school's entire range is now softblocked for 2 weeks. Tim Song (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The original block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to the O: The Oprah Magazine article. All the edits to Wikipedia articles and talk pages I have made while engaging in block evasion have been constructive. Tim, I understand you are simply enforcing rules but I just wish we could simply stop wasting each other time and let me get back to what I do best which is ensuring that the Wikipedia articles I am interested in are well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable... --Loremaster (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


This is your last chance. If you are caught socking again, the next block would be indef. Tim Song (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Can an administrator (as opposed to a user with grudge against me) please take the time to explain to me how needlessly blocking me contibutes in anyway to making Wikipedia a better place?!? --Loremaster (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Needlessly blocking you would not. Blocking you for cause means one less editor spitting in the face of our community norms. Why should you be treated differently than any other block evader? Oh, wait, you are being treated differently, so far; you'll be allowed to return. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Simple: The original block was cleary not necessary to prevent damage or disruption of the O: The Oprah Magazine. --Loremaster (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

unblock request

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Loremaster (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 5 years. During this time, I have improved the quality of numerous articles. The fact that some of these articles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article demonstrates my knowledge and usual respect for Wikipedia guidelines and standards. I have been praised for my work by people from both sides of any given issue. The original block was clearly not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to the O: The Oprah Magazine article (which I don't even have a great interest in) since I understand why I was blocked. However, my request to have this unnecessary block removed have been twiced declined when there are several articles I watch over that are under threat of vandalism or actually have been vandalized. Although I fully understand that block evasion and sock puppetry is wrong, I only resorted to it in reaction to a lack of forgiveness and in order to protect Wikipedia from damage and disruption as all the edits to Wikipedia articles and talk pages I have made prove. To put it simply: My track record demonstrates that I'm not some malignant force out to destroy Wikipedia. On the contrary, I've dedicated all my free time to making it the most reliable encyclopdia there is.

Decline reason:

We've got plenty of vandal-fighters on Wikipedia, and lots of really good, dedicated editors; why do you think you should be exempt from the usual policies regarding editing when blocked? Actions have consequences. Without some assurance that you won't continue in the same way, you're not likely to get this block lifted. Consider that a hint. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

I think in order for this unblock to be considered, you would need to explicitly commit not to repeat the behaviour that lead to these various blocks. Simply stating you know that it is wrong but you felt the need to do so anyway doesn't really cut the mustard. –xenotalk 15:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, ok, ok. From this moment on I explicitly commit to never again engage in edit warring, block evasion and/or sock puppetry. If I ever engage in edit warring again, a Wikipedia administrator should automatically retrict my account from being able to revert a page for whatever amount of time he thinks fit. If I ever engage in block evasion and/or sock puppetry, a Wikipedia administrator should automatically block my account from being able to edit any page on Wikipedia for one year. Now, can someone please remove my block? --Loremaster (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I've left a message for the blocking administrator. –xenotalk 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Artículo bueno.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Based on your committment not to edit war (please consider adopting a personal 1rr policy) or abuse multiple accounts (please edit whilst logged in and restrict yourself to one account only), I have lifted this block early. Any repetition of the behaviour(s) that lead to the block may result in an indefinite block.

Request handled by:xenotalk

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thank you, Xeno. --Loremaster (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please delete my sockpuppet User:Ghostinthewiki and unblock all the IP addresses it was editing from? --Loremaster (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you're restricting yourself to editing with one account, why would the IP addresses need to be unblocked? –xenotalk 16:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Because I edit Wikipedia from 1) school, 2) work and 3) home. Since I am currently at work, I am unable to edit Wikipedia using my Loremaster user account because of the block against my sockpuppet and my work IP address. --Loremaster (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It should be cleared now, let me know if you still have an issue. –xenotalk 17:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

See User talk:Xeno#National-Anarchism. –xenotalk 19:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/National-Anarchism

I've familiarized myself somewhat with the issues but I'm still not sure I have time to mediate this dispute. I have requested the Mediation Cabal assist. Please see the above linked page. –xenotalk 01:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. :) --Loremaster (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction: 1RR

I have blocked you for 3 hours for continuing the edit war at National-Anarchism. I am also placing you on a discretionary 1RR sanction on this article whereby if you revert more than one time per day you will be blocked until 05:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC). Please continue dispute resolutions efforts at the talk page of the article and the mediation page. This discretionary sanction is to expire 05:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)xenotalk 21:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC) annoted –xenotalk 00:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand. However, I hope User:Paki.tv is sanctioned as well. --Loremaster (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason for your sanction is because I recently lifted a one-month block you were serving under the understanding that you would not edit war. However, you seem to think that as long as you don't exceed 3 reverts you aren't edit warring: this is simply not the case. I have left Paki.tv a warning, however. –xenotalk 21:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Putting my past aside, don't I have the right to restore (no more than twice) a version of the article that other editors have agreed is a good compromise and protect it from vandalism? --Loremaster (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Not under the unblock conditions I set out. You have to remember that you would still be blocked if I hadn't chosen to unblock you. The unblock was conditional on no edit warring and no socking. So if either of those behaviours persist, I am obligated to reinstate the 1 month block. –xenotalk 21:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok... but I seriously hope that User:Paki.tv will be sanctioned if he ever does engage in edit warring (with someone else other than me) because I wouldn't be edit warring with anyone if it wasn't for him (and User:Harrypotter) since all the other Wikipedia articles I watch over are relatively peaceful because they are not plagued with such uncooperative users... :/ --Loremaster (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I have blocked you for 24 hours for making more than 1 revert on this article today contrary to the above discretionary sanction. The next time I have to enforce this discretionary sanction, I will do as promised as set the block to expire at 05:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC), at which time the sanction will have lapsed as well. –xenotalk 17:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand. --Loremaster (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please do refrain from suggesting your fellow editors are "giant dicks". Comment on content, not contributors.xenotalk 19:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WHAT? I have tried my best to remain polite but I have consistently been attacked and insulted by two editors. The only reason why I suggested they were "giant dicks" is because Harrypotter pointed me to Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you page to suggest that I have been a “Biggus Dickus”. So I don't understand why I should be punished when I have shown great restraint in general. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no punishment here, just a note. Let's just all try to keep it focused on the content. See also User talk:Xeno#Getting personal?. –xenotalk 20:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

1RR lifted

I'm lifting the discretionary 1RR early, as it's been over 3 weeks since you were originally blocked for edit warring. Please do keep in mind that you are still accountable to WP:3RR and furthermore that WP:3RR#Is not an entitlement. Continue to discuss changes in good faith, participate in mediation, and edit in a harmonious fashion. –xenotalk 20:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note

There is a thread here that may be of interest to you. Thanks, –xenotalk 13:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

AFD

  • Delete. This book is notable enough to deserve an encyclopedic article. [20]

Did you perhaps mean "is not notable enough"?   Will Beback  talk  18:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind - you already fixed it.   Will Beback  talk  18:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

National-Anarchism and Nietzsche's idea of a new Greece

Hello Loremaster,

I discovered the Synthesis website has a forum earlier today. Doing a search there for "Nietzsche" turns up 100 results -- hxxp://traditionandrevolution.freeforums.org/search.php?keywords=Nietzsche&terms=all (Note: replace the 'x's in this url with 't'.) I've speed read 40 of the posts and none of them discuss Nietzsche's idea of a new Greece. My guess (it was more than conjecture, I'm certain I've read somewhere that national-anarchists admire his philosophy) was obviously wrong. I think the best step now is to archive the thread at Talk:National-Anarchism to spare anyone from wasting their time searching for references. Ottre 02:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Third Position

I have undone your revert on the Third Position page because I believe the tag I applied to be purposeful. Please discuss it with me on the talk page. Thanks Dvmedis (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory and Conspiracism

In regards to my recent edits you reverted due lack of discussion, I ask that you support me in taking the steps necessary to make the change.

If you should review my edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracism&oldid=363484748 I believe you will find that it is superior in its placement of content, completely removing the conspiracism section of the conspiracy_theory article and moving key points of that section to corresponding sub-sections of the main article(criticism, paranoia, ect...) Zzzmidnight (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

NWO

Please read my comment in entirety.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Recently emailed you.

I emailed you recently, but I am just mentioning it here because I tend to fret over the potential of emails I send not being found/noticed due to people using alternative emails that they don't check, etc. :P John Shandy`talk 14:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I rarely check the email account I created only for Wikipedia so it's good you mentioned it. :) --Loremaster (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been reported to AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Uncollaborative editing. The thread is Uncollaborative_editing_on_the_National-Anarchism_article. Thank you. -- Ottre 11:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What a joke. --Loremaster (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Corporatocracy

This article could have been deleted as an expired PROD, but in view of its long history and number of contributors, and the fact that there are corresponding articles on a number of other Wikipedias, I have taken it to AfD to get more opinions. I am notifying you because you have contributed to the article. Your views are welcome at WP:Articles for deletion/Corporatocracy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Troy_Southgate.jpg

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Troy_Southgate.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Created my first article.

Hey, I just created my first article (Certified Research Administrator). It's got a way to go, but I hope it's not too shabby for a first revision - I hope I haven't gone over or under as far as wikilinking terms in the article. I was thinking my first article would be Folk economics as I've been preparing an article for that topic, but I guess I'll tackle it second. Of course, I have no earthly idea why I am bothering you with this, but I felt compelled to tell someone. I guess it's like riding a bike without training wheels for the first time, :P John Shandy`talk 02:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

References, Notes, Works Cited, Bibliography?

Recently, I have become increasingly aware of the inconsistency in citation from article to article. I've read the WP policies on reliable sources and citation style guides, but I don't recall seeing anything about consistency for such sections as References, Notes, Works Cited, and Bibliography.

I know the differences in terms of Bibliography being a list of sources that have been consulted in preparation of an article that may or may not have been cited, while References and/or Works Cited are relatively similar aside from the APA rules for a References list. I do not see the point in having a Notes section on a Wikipedia article if it just lists sources but doesn't actually note anything of particular importance. However, on Wikipedia articles there seems to be virtually no consistency whatsoever. Maybe this is a common frustration/annoyance, and I just don't realize it yet since I'm relatively new to editing WP.

For example, here on the Modern liberalism in the United States article, there is a Works cited section and a References and bibliography section. The Works cited section of the modern liberalism article uses a reflist template just like References on the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article... The Corporatocracy article uses a Notes section that uses yet another means of auto-listing the sources, yet has no References or anything else.

How does one wrap their mind around all of this? Are there different factions of editors that envangelize certain types of citation over others? John Shandy`talk 23:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I share your frustration but I haven't looked into it enough to know what is most appropriate... --Loremaster (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Christian nation listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Christian nation. Since you had some involvement with the Christian nation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Robofish (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to apologise for saying that you are a partisan of the Third Position political current. I hope subsequent developments have helped you understand why I jumped to such a wrong conclusion, and understand that you have also modifed your view as regards National Anarchism.Harrypotter (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I am glad this edit war is over. :) --Loremaster (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion request

Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Loremaster. You have new messages at Fat&Happy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New World Order (conspiracy theory)

I wanted to stop and let you know that I think that the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article is coming along nicely. After all the drama there I decided to find a new hobby on WP. But I have been watching and I think you are doing a great job. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your work on New World Order (conspiracy theory). I'm a bit new to editing on Wikipedia, but I've been reading the debates on the talk page and I think you've done a great job at improving the article and making it comply with prevailing Wikipedia policies, all with integrity. I'm a skeptic of the NWO (I think it's all garbage - fascinating garbage, at that), but I think that NWO believers should be thankful that someone such as yourself has made sure to improve the encyclopedic standing of the article. It may not be the platform they'd like it to be for pushing their political beliefs as truth, but at least it's an accurate representation of the subject matter and their varying worldviews. Cheers, John Shandy`talk 18:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent entry on my talk page concerning our longstanding and spirited dispute admittedly lost me until I read it several times. Something else you've done has probably offered a more satisfactory conclusion to my concerns, especially in light of the fact that the more I'm exposed to the beliefs of CT's on this the less I'm concerned that their feelings are hurt. Most of them are also 9/11 controlled demolition CT's as well, 'nuff said of the level of idiocy inherent. Your placement on the discussion page of the section at the top about featured article status is really the disambiguation I'm seeking, let's say if in time you found a way to work in a bit of info about-

  1. the transnational ultracapitalist class pursuing their goals being nothing new or unusual nor even requiring any secret meetings nor deals
  2. the absurdity of this being a socialist movement though since they would be sharing less of it than the common man would like it may appear that way to those with paranoid fears
  3. asking that the reader recognize the term new world order is being overused and affixed as a catch all to many levels of idiocy by people who really need a better education in socio-economics
  4. finally the superhuman thing may be a bit over the top but if that's the only way to express that point then so be it.

I'm not even really asking all that be included just throwing a bit of suggestion at you. Really though I'm done with it, and it's again as much realizing those people really are that ****ing silly as much as anything else. But I'll stop in from time to time to see if the article looks as good as it does now. wink. Batvette (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Batvette, your comments are very much appreciated and I will try to take them into account in my future editing of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of New World Order (conspiracy theory)

The article New World Order (conspiracy theory) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think this is sufficiently improved to merit GA status. If you wish to take this to WP:FAC, please consider a WP:Peer review first. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Jane Parish: Age of Anxiety

I thought you may be interested in this book, don't know if you have already read it. Concerning NWO and conspiracism. TOC here: [21] 78.55.32.35 (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Google Book here: [22] --Loremaster (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Here [23] is another one which may be within the scope of the article. I these books infront of me and hope to get to read them soon. Maybe this will lead to edits of the NWO article later sometime. And another book taking a more general look on conspiracy theories by an impressive selection of academics is: Carl F. Graumann, Serge Moscovici (Eds.): Changing Conceptions of Conspiracy. Springer Series in Social Psychology. New York 1987 78.55.157.138 (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

New World Order (conspiracy theory)

Please take a look at unimundi.com that already has a New World Order Plan since 1/1/2000. You may search on archive.org to verify this date. Please include Unimundi on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.72.45 (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

For Unimundi to be mentioned in the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article, we need a reliable second- or -third party source (like an article by a mainstream journalist or an essay by a mainstream scholar) which explains that conspiracy theorists believe Unimundi is part of the New World Order conspiracy. Can you point us to such a source? --Loremaster (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work. No Sources. Need to be analyzed by Theorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.72.45 (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


Archiving

Please do not archive discussion threads that are only a few days old as you did here. It is HIGHLY inappropriate. If you have further questions about this, please ask. Rklawton (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Emailed you.

FYI, I emailed you. (Since I've been dormant for some time, I thought you might not be checking regularly anymore.) Cheers. John Shandy`talk 21:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Euro-American radical right listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Euro-American radical right. Since you had some involvement with the Euro-American radical right redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Prezbo (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

National Anarchism

It is interesting that you are using censorship to provide a platform for promoting your own views. It is obvious that you have a negative opinion of the group whose page you are editing. Do you feel it is reasonable or responsible to allow yourself to edit the page of a group you have such disdain for? Would it not serve the community better to allow someone who is more neutral to the subject to provide information, rather than propaganda as you are attempting to do with your current edits? If you are interested in providing actual information it is available from both sides of this issue. I think if you listen with an open mind to many of the people involved in this community that you will find a wide array of thought on the subject which is not shown in your article - and this is very obviously your article. If your interest is actually in truth and not propaganda then you will be interested in further edits to this article to bring out that truth. If you are not interested in that then you are actually a censor attempting to create your own truth through innuendo and propaganda. I do not believe you for a moment that any of the core promoters of the NA movement have agreed that this is a reasonable edit. I have listened to them and read their material and it is obvious that you are not representing them with any kind of intellectual honesty. You should be ashamed of yourself for abusing the power that this community has entrusted you with. MarkWalls724 (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Use edit summaries

Seriously - you have thousands of edits to your name. Leave edit summaries. Make an effort. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages

You really should not delete stuff and call it archiving, whether or not you like what's there. And I really, really like people to use edit summaries. I know some good editors who rarely use them, but that's bad practice. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar

I find a request for citations to be friendlier than a wholesale deletion. Leadwind (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be but unfortunately the content you are trying to adding is clearly biased and seems like an attempt to discredit the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar rather than informing us who they are in a neutral manner. --Loremaster (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
First, when you think the other editor in question is politically opposed to you, it's especially nice to be nice. Second, if you think I'm biased against the JS, then I must be doing a good job at NPOV because I'm their biggest fan. Leadwind (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

People's almanac

Loremaster - as noted at Talk:Bilderberg_Group#People.27s_Almanac, the online source does not even mention a 'New World Order' and does not support any claims about a 'New World Order'. If the online source does indeed support the content of the book, it demonstrates that the book also fails to support the claim. This is the worst kind of conspiracy nonsense, and is unsourced. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I found a source. From Politico: Bilderbergers excite conspiracists. --Loremaster (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group

Loremaster, I believe you've clearly overstepped WP:3RR:

I respectfully ask that you revert yourself as a gesture of good faith. If you disagree that you've crossed that line, please explain. Otherwise, I'll bring it up at the appropriate noticeboard. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I explained myself when I requested we resolved this dispute on the talk page instead of edit warring. Crosbiesmith refused to abide by this request so I reverted the article to the version that existed when I made this request. --Loremaster (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, since that is how you feel, I've reported this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Loremaster_reported_by_User:Nuujinn_.28Result:_.29 here. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Bilderberg Group. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Loremaster (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I was unable to post the following reply on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard:
Nuujinn, I personally don't think you are out of line and I understand you are reporting me in good faith rather than with malice. However, I explained to you and others that I requested we resolve this dispute on the talk page instead of edit warring. User:Crosbiesmith refused to abide by this request so I simply reverted the Bilderberg Group article to the version that existed when I made this request. In light of how easily the dispute between Crosbiesmith, you and me can be resolved (with the addition of one reliable source that I'm waiting to receive), I don't see any reason to escalate this matter and create animosity between Wikipedia contributors who are all motivated by the desire to ensure the Bilderberg Group article is both comprehensive and neutral. --Loremaster 20:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Crosbiesmith refused to abide by this request so I simply reverted the Bilderberg Group article to the version that existed when I made this request -- that's the very definition of edit warring. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Loremaster (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I fully understand that this is the defition of edit warring. My point is simply that I am sure that User:Crosbiesmith could have been reasoned with so that the edit warring would have ended. In other words, it wasn't my intention to do it again since Crosbiesmith and I were finally starting to have a discussion when this block was imposed. --Loremaster 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you really want to stop edit-warring, you need to stop reverting. But it was you who made the last revert. Sandstein  21:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Loremaster (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

As I keep trying to explain, it wasn't and isn't my intention to revert again since Crosbiesmith and I were finally having a discussion that was close to resolving the dispute at the heart of the edit war. That being said, the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage (since vandalism was never an issue) and it is no longer necessary because I've understood what I was blocked for. Ultimately, I will not do it again. --Loremaster (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I wish I could unblock you. However, I see from your block log that this is your seventh block for edit warring. Given that, I think it would be more reasonable for you to wait until your block expires, and then demonstrate your willingness to follow the rules. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Bad faith

What do you mean by 'bad faith'? [28] ? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

An excellant reference.for Bilderberg and NWO

I ttink even just this preview is enough to close arguments here. It should be made clear this is conspiracy and not "known" fact. [[29]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Loremaster. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 21:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkpage edits.

Please do not archive a recent discussion merely because a dispute has been "resolved" as you did in this edit. Discussion can be a slow process, and all parties should be given sufficient time to become involved. Archiving is merely done to reduce WP:SIZE of pages. You can review practices regarding talkpages at WP:TALK and WP:ARCHIVE. Thanks! -Verdatum (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Singularitarianism

Hi there, how are you?

I notice you undid a edit I made to the Singularitarianism article regarding it being a utopian ideology. Can you can explain why you undid it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.131.168 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree with you that Singularitarianism is an utopian ideology, that claim is nothing more than our opinion unless it is supported by reliable sources since there can be no original research in Wikipedia article. By the way, if you are interested in editing Wikipedia articles, I encourage you to create a user account since it is is extremely useful for an editor (such as giving him or her the ability to more easily watch over pages he or she is interested in) but it also contributes to a culture of relative accountability on Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair point. Sadly there are hardly any reliable sources regarding Singularitarianism at the moment, but hopefully that will change in the not too distant future. I prefer a free-style lack of accountability thus I have not created a user account. I don't edit Wikipedia too often. I also feel I log in to too many accounts already. Take care. The intelligence explosion is coming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.35.39 (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Result, success. I have discovered this page. I am tempted to quickly reinsert the Utopian aspect but I shall wait for you approval, or maybe if you agree the reference is valid you could do it? Here is a quote from the page I intend to reference: "The Singularity holds out the possibility of winning the Grand Prize, the true Utopia, the best-of-all-possible-worlds - not just freedom from pain and stress or a sterile round of endless physical pleasures, but the prospect of endless growth for every human being - growth in mind, in intelligence, in strength of personality; life without bound, without end; experiencing everything we've dreamed of experiencing, becoming everything we've ever dreamed of being; not for a billion years, or ten-to-the-billionth years, but forever... or perhaps embarking together on some still greater adventure of which we cannot even conceive."
Since these are the words of a leading Singularitarian (as opposed to an unreliable critic of Singularitarianism), it is a reliable source for the claim that Singularitarianism is utopian. However, I think the word "techno-utopian" would be more accurate so I will add it instead. --Loremaster (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The article is looking better now. I am also going to add the above quote by Eliezer Yudkowsky. People coming to the concept of Singularitarianism for the first time can perhaps feel at a bit of a loss regarding what it is all about. The above quote will help clarify matters. I hope you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.38.68 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The Singularity Principles (Version 1.0.2) is a document tha thas been marked as wrong, obsolete, deprecated by an improved version, or just plain old. So unless the content in the quote can be found in the latest version, it would be unfair to quote it in the article and make it seem as if this is an opinion that Yudkowsky still holds. From what I know, some singularitarians (and transhumanists) try to tamper their views in order to be taken seriously by the public but also because they realize that some of their earlier views of a coming “intelligence explosion” were naive to say the least... --Loremaster (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the Yudkowsky webpage is an old version (year 2000) but there is no new version, therefore his statement (the quote) made in the year 2000 should stand as a definition regarding Singularitarianism, but perhaps the date needs to added regarding when Yudkowsky made the statement? Considering that Yudkowsky continues to leave the page live, and he has not posted a redirect or any new updated page, I feel the 'outdated' aspect is merely there to alert people to the fact that the page has not been updated for 10 years but the data continues to be valid. I have emailed Yudkowsky for clarification regarding the outdated aspect but as you will see in his contact section he does not encourage individual correspondence therefore I fear he may not reply. We cannot be sure what Yudkowsky currently thinks because there is a lack of information regarding his current Singularitarian views but we can be absolutely sure what he thought in the year 2000 because it is there on his website in black and white. Personally I don't think his views seem naive, but it is irrelevant what he, you, or I think; we should simply include the quote as a definition made in the year 2000 by a prominent researcher in the field of AI. Don't you agree?
The webpage in question was actually last updated 05/14/2001 I was slightly incorrect regarding stating the year 2000. Perhaps it will be merely enough to put this date in the reference text (which I will now do) or should the date feature more prominently in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.38.68 (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If the document wasn't explicitly marked as wrong, obsolete, deprecated by an improved version, or just plain old, I would agree with you. However, since it is, I do not think it would be appropriate to quote it. (And, between you and me, anyone who takes the content of that quote seriously enough to wait around for this fantasy to happen when the world is heading toward an ecological catastrophe, needs to see a shrink...) --Loremaster (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The statement: "wrong, obsolete, deprecated by an improved version, or just plain old" is a catch all statement and considering the webpage is 9 years old at least (it was last updated 05/14/2001) then I am inclined to go with the last part of the clause: "just plain old". There is definitely no new version therefore regardless of your views about the world going to an eco-hell in a handcart the quote should be included as a valid description of the Singularity circa 2000/2001. Let's assume something happened tomorrow which would make the Singularity impossible, such as aliens coming to Earth and stealing all our metals and other resources essential for building AI (not likely to happen but it could); then what about all the quotes regarding Moore's Law or quotes regarding the likely occurrence of the Singularity? It doesn't matter whether or not a quote or forecast is true or likely to occur. The important thing is that the quote HAS been made AND it was made about the Singularity (The Singularitarian Principles in this case) and it was made by a prominent AI researcher. Yudkowsky has not retracted his statement and he has not provided and updated webpage for this issue (as far as I am aware) and the page continues to be live, therefore the quote is worthy of inclusion: it is a view from the year 2001. Yes the quote is just 'plain old' but until a newer quote comes along I think the quote will more than suffice. Many people disagree the forecasts and expectations of Singularitarians but we shouldn't let such personal anti-singularity opinions inhibit the inclusion of a perfectly valid quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.38.68 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced. Therefore, to avoid an edit war, it is better this dispute quote remains off this article. Futheremore, my alleged anti-singularity opinions would actually make me want to add this quote since it makes Yudkowsky look foolish but I prefer not to give in to that temptation for the sake of fairness. --Loremaster (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
How do I get someone independent to resolve this dispute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.38.68 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Ask around. However, it really is a trivial issue to have a dispute over. So let it go or, better yet, get a life. --Loremaster (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see why you are now resorting to insults, I have been polite in my discourse and for your information I do already have a life. Furthermore don't think the quote by Eliezer is foolish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.38.68 (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me for being insulting but if you truly believe the quote by Eliezer is a realistic scenario I regret to inform you that you are foolish and need to get a life. --Loremaster (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not whether or not the scenario presented by Eliezer is realistic. Our personal opinions are irrelevant. The quote should stand because it is his quote regarding Singularitarianism. It is not our task to review quotes or ideologies. It is merely our task to provide an accurate/verifiable article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.38.68 (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The only reason why I am opposed to the inclusion of this quote is because it comes from a document that has been explicitly marked by its author as being wrong, obsolete, deprecated by an improved version, or just plain old. Period. End of discussion. --Loremaster (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

EAR

An enquiry that mentions your name has been made at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Singularitarianism Article: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky quote. --Kudpung (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Technological utopianism

After the Singulariarianism dispute it seems we are now having a problem with my Technological utopianism edit. As per the June 2010 request on the page I extended the lead section via summarizing the content, which is not original research. I also added the point about Ray Kurzweil not believing in a techno-utopia, which I balanced with the Yudkowsky point, both points are verifiable and not original research. If there is some point or aspect you are unahppy with regarding my attempt to extend the lead as per the flagged request then please prune accordingly but I fail to see why you reverted the ENTIRE edit when the majority of the content is already in the article and I was merely summarizing as per the flagged request to extend the lead section. Perhaps this has been a simple misunderstanding? -JackBlack-86.184.246.73 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  1. Unlike the Singularitarianism article, I have an interest in preserving the quality of the Technological utopianism article so I'm not going to back down. ;)
  2. Please use my talk page only when you want to discuss a personal issue you have with me. If you want to discuss a dispute we are having with an article, it is best that we have that discussion on the talk page of the article, especially since it gives other people the opportunity to weigh in.
  3. I again encourage you to create a user account since it would make it easier for the rest of the Wikipedia community to communicate with you when we need to.
--Loremaster (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group

Hello Loremaster, I was wondering what the rationale behind your reversion of my edit at Bilderberg Group was. I had removed a {{fact}} tag, because a source which verified the claim, Juventud Rebelde, is already referenced in the same paragraph; so the reference whoever placed the tag is probably seeking is already in the paragraph (as I stated in my edit summary). --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Transhumanism article

I was considering making a comment today. But then I thought about how the More inclusions actually bring the description of Transhumanism closer to my concept of it as a crankish ideology (see my 2008 vote on the "separate articles" issue). I don't have any reason to disagree with anything in your last post to the talk page (though I am not up on all of the details), but is there any reason not to credit the Mores as suggested in the lead paragraph?StN (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

After I wrote you, I realized that emphasizing the importance of the Mores as the founders of the transhumanist movement (as opposed to FM-2030) would be fair and accurate. My only objection is the crude way in which Harold wants to do it. --Loremaster (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I will watch the page and support a more balanced inclusion of the More acknowledgements.--StN (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. --Loremaster (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Biased statement in Executive Order 11110 article

Why do you insist on making such a bias claim? Writing that something can be debunked is not a fact but a subjective opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabbish (talkcontribs) 22:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
That being said, the statement that you keep removing from the Executive Order 11110 article and that I will keep restoring is not a “biased statement”. It is the opinion of a mainstream scholar that is sourced to an essay and therefore perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines. However, I will tweak it to make that more clear. --Loremaster (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a question for you...

What is your opinion of the Outline of transhumanism?   The Transhumanist 21:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is fine... now that I've tweaked it. ;) But, to be honest, I've never though it was necessary to have such an artilce but if people find it useful I have no problem with it. --Loremaster (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the tweaks. By the way, is the article fairly complete? Any blatant gaps? The Transhumanist 21:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The only weakness of this article is that we need reliable sources that confirm that the people and, more importantly, the technologies and concepts you have listed are in fact “transhumanist” otherwise anyone can come along and add whatever non-sense they want in the list and we wouldn't have the ground to stand on to oppose it... --Loremaster (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've tweaked the outline some more, preparing it for the addition of annotations and references. If descriptive annotations are added for each entry, the entries' relationship to transhumanism will be more clear, plus readers will have an aid for selecting topics to read. I've added a couple annotations so far, and a reference. References for annotations, that cite transhumanist publications would serve the dual purpose of verifying the annotation and that the term is in the transhumanist vernacular. More to come (your further help is very welcome). The Transhumanist 23:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Technological utopianism

Sorry for the delay in following up your message. Will have a look at the talk page and try to help out. Viajero | Talk 17:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Technological utopianism

Nice work on Technological utopianism

Not sure what anon was all in a fuss about, sort of amusing since I only had a minor edit in that article 5 years ago & countless other edits.

Congrats on Review Status!

Thanks! :) --Loremaster (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group (talkback)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Loremaster. You have new messages at Joshua Issac's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites

You had previously contributed to the above article. The article, as it now stands, is being challenged by me on the basis of it placing, at least in my eyes, excessive weight on the theories of Eisenman and Tabor, which have, so far as I have been able to see, been basically discounted as fringe as per WP:FRINGE. From the information which I have found, Eisenman's theory has been said to have been "rejected by the academic community" at least in substantial part on the basis of the Qumran documents being generally considered to substantially predate the Ebionites. Pretty much all the comments of any substance (book-signing notices, bestseller lists, letters to the editor, etc., notwithstanding) regarding the book The Jesus Dynasty can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor. I do note however that I have not accessed Lexis/Nexis, and that there might be additional information there, as well as any additional sources from the databanks I used which may have more recently been added to thost databanks. In any event, I believe your input on the article, based on your own prior research on the topic, would be useful, and would welcome any input you might have. Particularly welcome would be any independent reliable sources which support the work and conclusions of Eisenman and Tabor, because, like I said, I myself haven't seen any such that I can remember. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I have no idea who you might mean. ;) I understand completely however. If you do have any old sources which aren't yet included in the user page or user talk page above, though, I think having them would be useful. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Transhuman

My interest in this is amateurish. Regarding the coining of the word, I'd suggest you ask on wikiprojects linguistics or philosophy, I am afraid I don't know the answer. Not knowing the discussion, I'd suggest you try solving your problems with a note (as in "transhumanism was coined in x[ref] or y[ref] [note]" and note explaining differences in sources"). Feel free to copy my post to wherever you fill it should be copied. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work on Bureaucratic Collectivism

Good work! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-missionary. You have been one of the major contributors to the article.Borock (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work on Bureaucratic Collectivism

Good work! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory Editing

I'm not entirely positive as to how the citation process works which is why I appeared to have no source, my apologies. I'm even going to edit the sentence. Here's the citation(page 15 he proposed banning them): Sunstein, Cass R. and Vermeule, Adrian, Conspiracy Theories (January 15, 2008). Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03; U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 199; U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 387. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1084585 Here's the statement: "political leaders are often suspicious of negativer effects of conspiracy theories. Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to the United States government wrote an article concerning how they can be detrimental to a society and a government, he even proposed banning them to solve the problem."

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockinfilmmaker44 (talkcontribs) 04:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Please provide edit summaries when modifying articles. This makes it easier for other users to understand the purpose of your edits. Further information on the use of edit summaries may be found at Help:Edit summary. If you have any questions on how to get started, go ahead and ask. I or any other experienced Wikipedia editor will be pleased to assist. - Crosbie 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverts on singularitarianism

Please don't revert edits without providing any reasoning. "I'm opposed to almost all of your non-controversial edits so we have to discuss them" is not valid reasoning for a revert, you must point out what you disagree with instead of bulk reverts. Please note I'm just an editor looking for NPOV in the article as with any article (I'm not a Singularitarian nor do I have any particular beliefs about it other than representing things in an NPOV way on wikipedia). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing Peter Singer Content

I'm fairly new to adding content to Wikipedia, but I don't understand why you deleted my addition of Peter Singer to the New Atheist page. I used verifiable sources to show he is both a public intellectual/philosopher and an atheist who has debated Dinesh D'Souza. You cited "badly sourced content and/or original research." Please clarify so I can revise my writing accordingly instead of simply having it deleted. Thanks. 99.36.232.46 (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Nick

Hello, Nick, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you are interested in contributing to any Wikipedia article, I recommend you create a user account since it is extremely useful for an editor (such as giving him the ability to more easily watch over pages he is interested in) but it also contributes to a culture of accountability on Wikipedia. You must understand that unregistered users will forever have their motives called into question due to the plethora of anonymous vandalism that Wikipedia endures day in and day out. A legitimately interested IP is difficult to distinguish from a trolling or vandalizing IP. While there are plenty of trolls and vandals with registered accounts, their motives are well-identifiable by being able to check their edit history (IPs change hands frequently and their edit histories are unreliable). IPs are welcome to contribute, but they're far more likely to be embraced if their desire to contribute is paired with a desire to hold themselves accountable for their edits (on articles and on talk pages).
That being said, before trying to edit the New Atheism article again, I suggest you take the time to read Wikipedia's three core content policies: "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability", and "No original research". If you had, you would understand that 1) a Youtube video is not considered a reliable source therefore it can't be referenced to support a statement in an encyclopedic article; 2) we need a reliable source (such as a newspaper article, an academic paper, or a published book by a mainstream journalist or scholar) that explicitly identifies Peter Singer as a “new atheist” or in which he identifies himself as a “new atheist” otherwise it is simply your opinion (therefore “original research”) that he is one since being an atheist doesn't automatically make one a “new atheist”. --Loremaster (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

First, thank you for your recommendations. I do wish Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information for everyone. I will register soon to help give my edits better accountability. (I see someone temporarily blocked my IP Address from making edits.) But I am happy to share that my name is Nick Soucy and that I live in Michigan.

I do have some questions, however, if you will be kind enough to indulge me. Who decides which individuals fall under the moniker of "New Atheists?" I've heard the term for years now, but was it simply a Wired Magazine journalist who noticed Harris, Dennett and Dawkins were publishing their books around the same time and therefore constituted a new movement? And what are the restrictions in adding a new name to this designation? Obviously, Hitchens has joined the group, but he was not mentioned in the Wired article. So isn't the term elastic, allowing for new members? Couldn't there be room for Singer, then?

I realize that Victor Stenger has written books on atheism, but I rarely hear him mentioned outside the Four Horsemen as a "New Atheist," so if he can be included in your Wikipedia article, I wonder again, why not Peter Singer? Stenger was not mentioned in the CNN article sourced on the Wikipedia page for New Atheism, nor in the Nation article entitled "The New Atheists," nor was he mentioned in the Wired article credited for coining the term.

Another point I want to make is that Sam Harris has repeatedly rejected the title of "atheist." He says that in The End of Faith he never calls himself an atheist, and in the Washington Post in 2007 he went to great lengths to say he is not an atheist. So your point that my calling Singer an atheist is "just my opinion" seems tantamount to the fact that it is "just Sam Harris's opinion" that he is NOT an atheist. In either case, how can we call them New Atheists, right?

Here is an excerpt of Sam's words from that article: "My concern with the use of the term “atheism” is both philosophical and strategic. I’m speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn’t even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.”

More from Harris: " ...This whole notion of the “new atheists” or “militant atheists” has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm’s length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them." And he lists several more reasons to reject the term.

So, while I accept your point that not all atheists are necessarily part of the group called New Atheists, I wonder if you can help me understand the criteria involved in belonging to that group? If Singer has to be called a New Atheist by a prominent media source or by himself to be one, then certainly Sam calling himself a non-atheist should mean he is not one.

Thanks for your consideration. 99.36.232.46 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Nick Soucy

According to Wikipedia, it doesn't matter whether or not you or I think someone is an atheist or a new atheist. It doesn't matter that this doesn't consider himself an atheist or a new atheist. The only thing that matters is that a reliable source (according to Wikipedia guidelines) states that he or she is an atheist or a new atheist. Only when you find a reliable source that confirms that Peter Singer is described by others as a new atheist or describes himself as a new atheist will it be appropriate to mention Peter Singer in this article. --Loremaster (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Olivia FA

Hi Loremaster, I see you've nominated Fringe articles in the past, just wanted to let you know I nominated Olivia (Fringe) for FA status. Since you really haven't edited that particular article, would you mind leaving some comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Olivia (Fringe)/archive1? Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 21:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

GE peer review

Please consider participating in the Gospel of the Ebionites peer review to prepare the article for GAC. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of merge notice on Green state

There has been little discussion of merging the article into Robyn Eckersley and there is no clear consensus either to merge or not merge, so your removal of the tag was premature. Considering your opposition to the merge, you should not have unilaterally decided to collapse the discussion and remove the tag. Please take more care in the future. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: New Atheism

Heh. You're right. Sorry about that. I get a little dyslexic sometimes :P I figured it was just a typo on your part, but it was just me reading the diff backwards. Thanks for fixing it :)   — Jess· Δ 23:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Me again

An article on the Ebionite Jewish Community has been recreated, and is currently being considered for deletion. I know that you have said you are no longer particularly interested in the Ebionites to me before, but it has been suggested in the AfD that your opinion be sought out, so I am doing so. Also, FWIW, on a different subject, you seem to be involved in at least a few other topics which might have some fringe theory problems. God knows that the list itself is still far from complete, but I have at least started a list at User:John Carter/Reference works of the various encyclopedias and other reference sources which have been counted among a given year's best sources by either Booklist or the ALA. If any of them relate to the other topics of contention, their content and maybe references might be useful in the other disputes. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Message received

Wasn't sur exactly how to respond, and, not knowing if you monitored my talk page, am taking the risk of leaving the message here. Don't know if IIO has contacted you, but will relay the message to him. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

EJC AfD

The Ebionite Jewish Community is currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to offer comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination). Ovadyah (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to weigh in on this? I think it was disrespectful not to let you know, as the article's creator. Best. Ovadyah (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, would you consider reviewing the Gospel of the Ebionites article for GAC? Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Could you provide edit summaries when you change an article? - the Bilderberg page gets a lot of vandalism and it helps if sensible edits are described Martinlc (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please leave edit summaries when editing articles. This makes it easier for other editors to follow changes you have made without having to check each individual edit.

You have been notified about this before but failed to improve your habits. - Crosbie 08:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Politico article

The Politico article that you cited re Bilderberg group uses the Prison Planet website as its source - a website denounced as unreliable by Wikipedia. Indeed, the description used is generalised and does not take into account the fact that proponents of the conspiracy are a mixed bag, not just a bunch of believers that are universally well-acquainted with each other who frequently interact on internet blogs and the like.Lung salad (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

More than often reliable sources need to be checked for accuracy, because reliable sources need not be used if their accounts are suspect, a view that has been expressed by other Wikipedians who edit articles other than myself. A very poor choice of words in the Politico article Lung salad (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Relating to Conspiracy Con, please note the list of speakers - those political conspirators rejecting Illuminati and Reptilian elements of secret societies New World Order variety appear to be absent from such conferences. Lung salad (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Please see discussion Bilderberg group Lung salad (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

Hello. You added content some time ago to Citizen Cyborg with the source * Hughes, James (2004). Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. Westview Press. ISBN 0813341981

The whole thing seems to be a straight copy paste copyright violation. Can you please explain? Forgive me if I'm mistaken. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Message

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 23:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Techno-Progressive

Hi. I noticed you quickly undid the edits I made to the page, so I'll draw the conclusion that there's a good chance you are watching it (I must say: "Good choice! Are you for it or against it?). I don't want to get into an edit war here, but I would like to know the basis of your revert. Was I too bold to add those items to the list? They seemed pretty accurate to me, albeit "Sexuality" is perhaps overly general, and "Technological Singularity" overly specific. But somehow I suspect that perhaps you are taking the broadest, most general view possible of the term "Techno-progressive" so as to exclude an over-emphasis on the transhumanist movement (which is itself divided between techno-progressives and "extropian libertarians"). I am sorry if I have the wrong impression, but I was under the assumption that nearly everyone who described themselves as a "techno-progressive" was also a "transhumanist", or at least very favorable towards the concept, am I grossly mistaken? Shanoman (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Hey, about Fenster and Conspiracy Theory as a delegitimizing term. I have the 2008 edition in front of me, but it is vastly different from the first edition of 1999. There is a discussion of the Iran Contra affair and the use of conspiracy in the introduction, as well as a discussion of prevalent approaches to studying conspiracy theories, most of which show strong disregard for conspiracy on political grounds, giving too little attention to it's cultural significance (applicable to Hofstadter only to a smaller extent.). Does that roughly match with the passages you were thinking about? If so, maybe I can figure out the pages, and maybe write some kind of summary. If not, maybe it's only in the first edition, or I'm looking in the wrong chapters. Maybe you could help me there. I know that there is a copy of the first edition online, but I'm sure it's quite illegal. SK (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me get back you on that. --Loremaster (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mantra

We're going to be saying the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth even when we're 80 years old, I'm afraid. John Shandy`talk 03:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Message

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak's talk page. 04:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

philosophy

Can you please tell me, why have you removed the information with reference from the article transhumanism? Ewigekrieg (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Transhumanism page. --Loremaster (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Where exactly? I dont see any new changes - Ewigekrieg (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
There is already a discussion about the use of the term “ideology” on the talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but what about “philosophy”?
Let's discuss this on the Talk:Transhumanism page. --Loremaster (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, thanks for your pun about my poor english. User, who make fun of newbies' language (or nationality, color etc), really support the growth of Wikipedia ;-| - Ewigekrieg (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
uh, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I didn't make a pun about your poor English. I simply said: “see talk page. dont edit war”. --Loremaster (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Priory of Sion

OK, loremaster. You know the discussion started because he called my "work" not reliably sourced. I agree that it was a fault but it was realiably sourced wasn't it?--77.49.154.248 (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I know why the discussion started. However, although he is correct that your work needs to be sourced to the The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, the real issue, as I explained, is that the succession box you created is inappropriate, in my opinion. That being said, if you intend on contributing directly to the article at some point, I suggest you create a user account since it is extremely useful for an editor (such as giving him the ability to more easily watch over pages he is interested in) but it also contributes to a culture of accountability on Wikipedia. Despite the fact you will probably use a pseudonym, it's easier for other editors to discern your motivations when a track record of contributions is attached to your user account. Lastly, this discussion can and should take place on the Talk:Priory of Sion page instead of our respective personal talk pages. --Loremaster (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing more to say. I agree with both of you.--77.49.154.248 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Mystichumwipe and conspiracy theories (2)". Thank you. --Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you but I won't be participating. I'm just too busy and exhausted. --Loremaster (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Undo

Please, provide some explanation for your undo's (edit summary - necessarily, talk page -

desirable). It's look like vandalism otherwise.

If you continue to reverting proper edits without any explanation, I will call in question your reviewer rights. Reviewer should't do such things. - Ewigekrieg (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Selective archiving and continuing ownership problems

Loremaster, I'm certain that this isn't the first time I've brought this to your attention, but please do not selectively archive conversations because you don't like them. In this edit, you archived a conversation that wasn't even a day old. Your ownership of articles is not acceptable in a group editing environment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I don't care for your opinion in light of your bad faith, I archived all conversations that were about Green state article in light of the fact that, in keeping with Wikipedia's editing guideline encouraging us to be be bold, I renamed the article so that it becomes an article about the book itself. --Loremaster (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Priory of Sion

I answered to the talk page.--The Theosophist (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I answered again.--The Theosophist (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group

This is an inappropriate us of the undo functionality for a good faith edit. --Trödel 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look (eom)

Fringe

I've been watching the discussions/comments posted about, without any real way of knowing where to start as far as responding. Any easy half of the comments seem to be confusing futurism from respected individuals with "why on earth are they citing a sci-fi writer?" There's also the usual singularity/Terminator jokes, and some rather pov-biased comments on the inclusion of eugenics as topical material (for fully covering the article, I mean). The criticisms are extremely vague, to the point of where most of them seem to mean "I don't think you can do that yet", and the technical issues are similarly undefined.

Feel free to get back to me about the situation. I'm still trying to figure out how to react to the "fringe witch-hunt" so it would be appreciated.Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Transhumanism

It is important to note that arguments made on philosophical or ethical grounds receive responses. Your claim that "published" sources are required, but not "truth" is nonsense. Please don't edit again unless there is something wrong with the info posted.

If I edit a math article that has a published source saying 2+3=6 and I, with no sources edit it saying that it is misguided, will you unedit it? Go away with your pedantics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explosiveoxygen (talkcontribs) 05:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

FAR Transhumanism

I have nominated Transhumanism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of George Annas

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article George Annas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only one potentially reliable, non-primary source given. No publications cited outside of Boston University.

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. Allens (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice his books. PROD removed. Allens (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

AN/I Discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a pattern of disruptive editing that references an engagement you have had with the editor. You may wish to add your thoughts.. The thread is Year-long a pattern of disruptive editing by User:Lung salad needs to be addressed.. Thank you. —Eusebeus (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Resource-based economy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

NWO article

Would you please stop reverting without providing an explanation? I would really like to know what you think is wrong with the changes I made.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. When you recently edited National-Anarchism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beyond left and right (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)